I present report No. 17 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday, 16 October 2017. The report will be printed in the Hansard for today and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's Notice Paper. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.
The report read as follows—
Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business
1. The committee met in private session on Tuesday, 12 September 2017.
2. The Committee deliberated on items of committee and delegation business that had been notified, private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 12 September 2017, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 16 October 2017, as follows:
Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)
PRIVATE MEMBERS ' BUSINESS
Notices
1 MR BANDT: To present a Bill for an Act to prohibit Commonwealth support for coal-fired power stations, and for related purposes. (Coal-Fired Power Funding Prohibition Bill 2017)
(Notice given 11September 2017.)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
2 MS MCGOWAN: To present a Bill for an Act to amend legislation relating to renewable energy to improve support for the community energy sector, and for related purposes. (Renewable Energy Legislation Amendment (Supporting Renewable Communities) Bill 2017)
(Notice given 15 August 2017.)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
Orders of the day
1 Competition and Consumer Legislation Amendment (Small Business Access to Justice) Bill 2017 (from Senate): Second reading (from10August2017).
Time allotted—10 minutes.
Speech time limits—
All Members speaking—10 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 10 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
2 Australia and the United States of America: Resumption of debate (from 20 March 2017) on the motion of Mr Hastie.:
Time allotted—50 minutes.
Speech time limits—
All Members speaking—5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 10 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Notices—continued
3 DR FREELANDER: To move—that this House :
(1) acknowledges the outstanding work of hearts4hearts and its CEO Ms Tanya Hall in promoting awareness and improved treatment of cardiac arrhythmias;
(2) notes that:
(a) atrial fibrillation affects at least 500,000 Australians and comes with high risk of stroke and heart failure with conventional treatments;
(b) while many cardiovascular conditions have declined in mortality rates in the past years, the mortality rates for atrial fibrillation have almost doubled in the last two decades;
(c) catheter ablation is the acknowledged best practice treatment;
(d) there are long waiting lists for catheter ablation in the public hospital system and the treatment is not listed on the Prostheses List; and
(e) up to 40,000 Australians could benefit from catheter ablation, including 13,000 on private health insurance; and
(3) welcomes the recent announcement by the Minister for Health that the Government will consider changes to Prostheses List processes in order to account for catheter ablation and other non-implantable devices, but calls on the Minister to provide further details on this announcement, including a clear time line for implementation.
(Notice given 7 September 2017.)
Time allotted—remaining private Members ' business time prior to 12 noon
Speech time limits—
Dr Freelander—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS ' BUSINESS
Notices
1 MS T. M. BUTLER: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that the:
(a) last three years have seen an unprecedented global coral bleaching event which has had a devastating impact on many coral reefs ecosystems around the world, including our own Great Barrier Reef (GBR); and
(b) World Heritage Committee:
(i) met in early July in Poland and expressed its 'utmost concern' regarding the 'serious impacts from coral bleaching that have affected World Heritage properties'; and
(ii) noted that the most widely reported impacts were on the GBR and called on all States Parties to undertake 'the most ambitious implementation of the Paris Agreement';
(2) recognises that:
(a) the World Heritage Centre released the first global scientific assessment of the impact of climate change on World Heritage coral reefs;
(b) the assessment found that it is a well established conclusion of international peer reviewed literature that limiting the global average temperature increase to 1.5 degrees celsius above pre-industrial levels provides a chance of retaining coral-dominated communities for many reef locations around the globe;
(c) the assessment also found that the GBR will start to experience severe coral bleaching twice per decade by 2035, a mere 18 years away; and
(d) this frequency of bleaching will not allow coral reefs to recover, putting the survival of the GBR in danger along with the 64,000 jobs that are dependent on it;
(3) calls on the Government to:
(a) urgently adopt a clean energy target that is fully consistent with Australia's obligations within the World Heritage Convention to protect the outstanding universal value of the GBR World Heritage area; and
(b) abandon plans for a $1 billion loan through the Northern Australian Infrastructure Facility to Adani to help establish one of the world's largest coal mines.
(Notice given 8 August 2017.)
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Ms T. M. Butler—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
2 MR WALLACE: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) applications are now open for Round Three of the Stronger Communities Programme (SCP);
(b) the SCP has:
(i) invested in thousands of worthwhile projects applied for by small community groups and organisations which would often not have received funding another way; and
(ii) had a positive impact on the lives of all kinds of Australians, supporting youth sporting clubs, community halls and clubhouses, surf lifesavers, aged and day care facilities among many more;
(2) welcomes the funding allocated to all successful projects under Rounds One and Two of the SCP, including the Caloundra Woodworking Club's grant of $15,000 to enable the construction of an extension to their building and the grant of $8,700 to Caloundra Surf Club which enabled the purchase of an inflatable rescue boat;
(3) congratulates the Government for developing the Stronger Communities Programme, for its ongoing commitment to building stronger and safer communities, and for investing a further $22.5 million in the 2017 budget to enable a third round of the SCP to proceed in 2017-18; and
(4) encourages local community groups across Australia to contact their Federal Member of Parliament to find out more about how to apply for a grant under the Stronger Communities Fund.
(Notice given 16 August 2017.)
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Wallace—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
3 MR CHAMPION: To move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges the important contribution that the Australian food, beverage and grocery industry and its workers make to the Australian economy including:
(a) creating over 300,000 Australian jobs;
(b) contributing over $125 billion in turnover; and
(c) exporting over $30 billion of products; and
(2) encourages the Government to work with the Australian food, beverage and grocery industry to ensure its continued success.
(Notice given 20 June 2017.)
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Champion—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
4 MR WALLACE: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that trade union malfeasance has cost taxpayers around 30 per cent, and possibly more, of their investment in recent infrastructure projects, and has led to widespread harm among Australian workers;
(2) welcomes the Government's decisive and comprehensive program of measures to investigate, stamp out and punish union malfeasance, including;
(a) the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2016;
(b) the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2016, which included the restored Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC), and the Building Code 2016; and
(c) the Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Act 2017;
(3) congratulates the Government on dealing with the scourge of union misbehaviour on Australian construction sites; and
(4) encourages the Government to continue to explore ways of eliminating unethical trade union practices and to provide all necessary legal and financial support to the ABCC in its work to investigate and punish illegality in the construction industry.
(Notice given 15 August 2017.)
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Wallace—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
5 MR GILES: To move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges the good work of the Northern Melbourne Regional Development Australia (RDA) committee;
(2) condemns the Government for shutting down the Northern Melbourne RDA;
(3) recognises that Melbourne's northern suburbs are a significant growth area, which has not received its fair share of vital infrastructure support under this Government and that this is adversely impacting on productivity and liveability; and,
(4) calls on the Minister to reconsider amalgamating the RDA committees in Victoria.
(Notice given 5September 2017.)
Time allotted—remaining private Members ' business time prior to 1.30 pm
Speech time limits—
Mr Giles—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS ' BUSINESS
Notices—continued
6 MS RISHWORTH: To move:
That this House:
(1) recognises:
(a) 14 September 2017 marks the 70th anniversary of Australia's involvement in international peacekeeping; and
(b) the important and unique role peacekeepers and peacemakers provide in the transition from conflict to peace;
(2) notes that:
(a) over 70,000 Australians have been involved in peacekeeping and humanitarian operations since 1947; and
(b) Australia has had peacekeepers in the field with the United Nations continuously for over 50 years, through which:
(i) peacekeeping has involved members of Australian Defence Force, civilians and Australian police;
(ii) since 1964, Australian police have served in Cyprus and places as widely separated as Cambodia, Haiti, Mozambique, Bougainville and Timor; and
(iii) peacekeepers are often at the centre of dangerous conflicts and are exposed to the impacts of war;
(3) recognises those who are on peacekeeping missions at the moment, as we assist the United Nations with its mission in the Republic of South Sudan and looks forward to their safe return;
(4) congratulates all those who have worked hard to deliver the new Australian Peacekeeping Memorial Project on Anzac Parade; and
(5) remembers and pays tribute all those who have served Australia in peacekeeping operations, those who have been wounded and the 14 Australians who lost their lives whilst on peacekeeping operations.
(Notice given 4 September 2017.)
Time allotted—40 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Ms Rishworth—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
7 MR WALLACE: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) according to Australian Bureau of Statistics figures one in five Australians report having a mental or behavioural condition, while the prevalence is highest among people aged 18 to 24; and
(b) data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare suggests that 54 per cent of people with a mental illness do not access treatment;
(2) congratulates the Government for its engagement with the mental health community and for its measures to support mental health in Australia including:
(a) additional investment of $170 million in mental health programs in the 2017 budget including $80 million to maintain community psycho-social services for people with mental illness who are not eligible for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, $11.1 million to prevent suicide in specific locations where it is a frequent occurrence, $15 million to support mental health research initiatives such as the Thompson Institute on the Sunshine Coast and $50 million for mental illness prevention and support for serving Australian Defence Force members, veterans and their families; and
(b) investment of:
(i) $9.5 million to expand mental health first aid training in 14 high risk communities; and
(ii) $9.1 million to support rural telehealth services for mental health and the appointment of the first National Rural Health Commissioner;
(3) encourages the Government to continue this focused work and to seek additional ways to support the mental health of Australians; and
(4) further encourages anyone who believes that they might be suffering from a mental illness to seek immediate help from their General Practitioner or a qualified mental health practitioner.
(Notice given 16 August 2017.)
Time allotted—50 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Wallace—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 10 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
8 MR PERRETT: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the scientific consensus about climate change, and particularly the role of human activity in driving it, is undeniable;
(b) the case for real and immediate action on climate change has never been stronger; and
(c) renewable energy, when combined with storage, is the most economical method of creating new and reliable power;
(2) recognises that the:
(a) decisions we make now concerning environment, climate and energy policy will have lasting and profound affects for the future; and
(b) transition to a low carbon economy wil1 provide significant opportunities for regional development; and
(3) calls on the Government to:
(a) commit to:
(i) utilising the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility for investments that deliver real benefits to communities in Northern Australia, now and into the future; and
(ii) a considered and integrated energy policy in Northern Queensland that actively supports the transition to a low carbon economy; and
(b) recommit to protecting Australia's marine resources, like the Great Barrier Reef, from modern and evolving threats, to ensure their economic benefits can be borne by future generations.
(Notice given 4 September 2017.)
Time allotted—40 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Perrett—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Orders of the day
1 Coal: Resumption of debate (from 29 May 2017) on the motion of Mr Christensen.:
Time allotted—remaining private Members ' business time prior to 7.30 pm
Speech time limits—
All Members speaking—5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 7 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The bill provides for a broad package of measures which will strengthen the laws that safeguard children in Australia from sexual abuse.
The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes against Children and Community Protection Measures) Bill 2017 complements recently legislated measures that stop convicted child sex offenders from travelling overseas to commit criminal acts of abuse against children.
The bill addresses all aspects of child sex offending. It targets inadequacies in the criminal justice system that result in outcomes that do not sufficiently punish, deter and rehabilitate offenders. It also introduces new offences directed at the use of the internet for the sexual abuse of children.
Strengthening the criminal framework throughout the offence cycle
The government is increasingly concerned about the manifestly inadequate sentences which do not sufficiently reflect the harm suffered by victims of child sex abuse or protect the community from the risk of future harm. Such sentences do not recognise that these crimes increase the demand for child abuse material.
Since 2012, less than two-thirds of Commonwealth child sex offenders have received a term of imprisonment on conviction. This is a staggering 269 child sex offenders convicted of a Commonwealth crime released directly back into the community over the past five years. Of those who were imprisoned, the most common sentence length was 18 months and the most common non-parole period was six months. That is clearly too short.
Mandatory Minimum Sentencing
This bill introduces mandatory sentencing for specified offences to address the disparity between the seriousness of child sex offending and the lenient sentences handed down by the courts. Mandatory minimum sentences will apply to the child sex offences that attract the highest penalties and to reoffenders who have previously been convicted of separate child sex offences.
The introduction of mandatory sentencing complements a new presumption in favour of cumulative sentences for multiple child sex offences. This will ensure that the sentences imposed adequately reflect the seriousness of the offending that has occurred.
Ensuring adequate sentencing
To strengthen the sentencing regime even further, the bill increases penalties for particular child sex offences:
1. introduces a presumption of actual imprisonment to reduce the imposition of wholly suspended sentences for child sex offenders,
2. ensures that all sex offenders, upon release from custody, are adequately supervised and subject to appropriate rehabilitative conditions,
3. overhauls the sentencing factors for all federal offenders,
4. prevents courts from discounting sentences on the basis of good character, where this has been used to facilitate the crime and
5. emphasises the importance of access to rehabilitation and treatment when sentencing child sex offenders.
Bail
The bill inserts a presumption against bail for offenders who commit serious child sex offences. The presumption recognises that such persons pose an unacceptable risk to the community and to their victims.
Post release options
The bill introduces a requirement for the courts to set treatment and supervision conditions for all child sex offenders upon sentencing to prevent such offenders from being released without supervision and appropriate treatment conditions.
This bill also introduces community safety as the primary consideration when deciding whether a federal offender's parole should be revoked, to ensure the protection of the community.
The bill will also ensure that once an offender's parole has been revoked they will serve a period of time in custody.
Criminalising emerging forms of child sexual abuse
The bill also introduces two new measures to target emerging forms of sexual offending.
The first measure criminalises the provision of services like websites that provide access to child abuse material online. These services facilitate and encourage offending by a large, sometimes global audience and promote the production of new child abuse material.
The second measure criminalises the transmission of communications to 'groom' any person, such as parents or carers, with the aim of procuring a child for sexual activity.
Protecting vulnerable persons
The government remains committed to strengthening the protections afforded to child and other vulnerable witnesses giving evidence in Commonwealth criminal proceedings. This bill improves justice outcomes by limiting the retraumatisation of vulnerable witnesses by removing barriers to the admission of pre-recorded video evidence and ensuring that they are not subject to cross-examination at committal and other preliminary hearings, thus allowing them to put their best evidence forward at trial.
Aggravating factors for child sex offences
The government is deeply disturbed by the emerging trend where offenders inflict severe violence on children alongside sexual abuse. To ensure that this conduct is appropriately punished, the bill will criminalise activities that aggravate particular types of sexual offending such as subjecting a child to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, or causing the death of the child.
This bill also introduces new aggravating factors that a court must take into account when sentencing an offender for a relevant offence. These would apply if the victim was under the age of 10 at the time of the offending and if multiple people were involved in the offending.
These measures send a clear message—this government will not tolerate such appalling and disgusting acts committed against children.
Conclusion
The bill contains the most comprehensive and significant Commonwealth child sex offender reforms since the introduction of the Criminal Code in 1995.
The bill is consistent with a number of recommendations made by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in its recently released Criminal Justice Report.
The bill signifies this government's commitment to addressing child sex offences that occur both domestically and overseas and ensuring that the Australian community is protected from these heinous crimes.
These new measures send a strong message to child sex offenders that such abhorrent crimes will not be tolerated and, if they are committed, they will serve appropriate sentences for the horrendous things that they have done.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Investigation and Prosecution Measures Bill 2017 makes two sets of amendments:
The Independent Commission Against Corruption plays an important role investigating, exposing and preventing corruption in the public sector.
In November 2016, the New South Wales Parliament passed the Independent Commission Against Corruption Amendment Act 2016. That act restructured the commission by replacing the former arrangement of a single commissioner and assistant commissioner with a full-time chief commissioner and two part-time commissioners. Assistant commissioners may also be appointed as required.
The measures in the bill will make minor amendments to both the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 and the Surveillance Devices Act 2004, to ensure that the restructured commission is referenced properly in those acts.
The act will retain the commission's substantive powers under those acts.
The Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 provides the legal framework for specified intelligence and law enforcement agencies to access communications and data for the investigation of criminal offences and other activities that threaten safety and security.
It permits eligible law enforcement and security agencies, including the commission, to obtain warrants to intercept communications, to obtain warrants to access stored communications and to access telecommunications data, subject to stringent legal tests and independent oversight.
The Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 vests certain positions within the commission specific authority when undertaking functions. The chief commissioner will, for example, be able to authorise members of the commission to receive information gathered under warrants and communicate intercepted information obtained by the commission to other agencies in limited circumstances. The amendments will allow the chief commissioner, a commissioner or an assistant commissioner to be certifying officers under the act. Certifying officers can, for example, be delegated the power to revoke interception and stored communication warrants, certify true copies of warrants and issue evidentiary certificates.
The Surveillance Devices Act 2004 governs the use of optical surveillance devices, listening devices, data surveillance devices and tracking devices by law enforcement agencies. The act complements the relevant surveillance device laws of the states and territories by allowing law enforcement agencies such as the commission to obtain surveillance device warrants to help investigate federal offences and state offences with a federal aspect.
The Surveillance Devices Act 2004 vests certain positions within the commission specific authority when undertaking functions under the act. These provisions ensure that the authorisations are valid and that the persons authorised under the act to undertake those functions can exercise their prescribed functions legally.
The chief commissioner will, for example, have the power to revoke surveillance device warrants and authorise executive level officers to be authorising officers. Commissioners and assistant commissioners will also be designated as authorising officers under the bill. Authorising officers may issue emergency authorisations for the use of a surveillance device, authorise the use and retrieval of tracking devices without warrant in certain circumstances and issue evidentiary certificates.
This bill will ensure that the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption is able to continue its important work and can access the investigative tools it needs to support its functions.
On 1 July 2015, the Australian government took over responsibility for delivering local, state and Commonwealth services on Norfolk Island, which are proportionally equivalent to the services which benefit mainland Australians.
As part of this process, it was important to review prosecution arrangements in order to align those services with those available on mainland Australia and other external territories.
The measures in the bill will allow the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to take over prosecutorial and related functions in relation to the laws of Norfolk Island. This will ensure prosecutions against the laws of Norfolk Island are dealt with by a professional and independent prosecution service with significant expertise.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Criminal Code Amendment (Impersonating a Commonwealth Body) Bill 2017 will amend the Criminal Code Act 1995 to safeguard the Australian public from misrepresentation and false statements purportedly made on behalf of Commonwealth bodies.
The government condemns the impersonation of Commonwealth bodies and is committed to strengthening public confidence in all communication emanating from them.
Recognising the importance of this issue, this bill introduces new criminal offences and an injunction power to prevent people from impersonating a Commonwealth body. These measures will ensure the Australian public can have confidence in the legitimacy of communications from government agencies, and will safeguard the proper functioning of government.
Impersonating a Commonwealth body — criminal offences
It is essential to a well-functioning democracy that the public have trust in the legitimacy of statements made by government agencies. That trust will inevitably be eroded if people are able, with impunity, to represent themselves as communicating on behalf of government, without any authorisation.
Accordingly, this bill introduces new offences to criminalise conduct where a person falsely represents themselves to be acting on behalf of, or with the authority of, a Commonwealth agency.
For the purposes of the new offences, a Commonwealth body would be a Commonwealth entity, a Commonwealth company, or any service, benefit, program or facility provided by or on behalf of the Commonwealth. The offences will capture false representations in relation to a broad range of government bodies and services, from the Attorney-General's Department through to Centrelink and Medicare.
This bill seeks to address a possible gap in our criminal law, which means that impersonating a Commonwealth entity, company or service may not be appropriately prosecuted. It is already a criminal offence to impersonate a Commonwealth official. It is less clear whether the current offences cover a person pretending to be, or acting on behalf of, a Commonwealth body—which is why we have taken action.
The bill introduces offences to ensure the punishment reflects the person's state of mind in making the false representation.
The primary offence covers circumstances where a person intends that, or is reckless as to whether, their conduct will result in, or is reasonably capable of resulting in, a false representation. This conduct will be punishable by up to two years imprisonment.
The amendments also create a new aggravated offence where a person falsely impersonates a Commonwealth body or service with the intent to gain, cause a loss, or influence the exercise of a public duty. The more serious and deliberate nature of this conduct warrants an increased maximum penalty of five years imprisonment.
These penalties are commensurate with offences for impersonating a Commonwealth official. The bill contains safeguards to ensure that neither of these offences unduly limits the freedom of expression.
Impersonating a Commonwealth body — injunction powers
The bill also enlivens the injunction provisions in the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014. This will provide persons whose interests have been, or would be, affected by the false representation the opportunity to prevent such conduct through a court-issued injunction.
The bill will enable affected persons to apply to a relevant court for an injunction to prevent conduct in contravention of the new offences in the Criminal Code.
The purpose of this power is to enable affected persons to act swiftly, if needs be, to prevent conduct amounting to false representation of a Commonwealth agency. These amendments are critical to protecting Commonwealth bodies from criminal misrepresentation and ensuring the public has confidence in all communication that comes from the Commonwealth government.
Conclusion
This government is committed to safeguarding the proper functioning of Australia's democracy and ensuring that Australians have trust in the validity of communications from Commonwealth bodies. The bill will strengthen public confidence in all such communications, and ensure that those who deceive the Australian public are ultimately captured by the law.
Debate adjourned.
) ( ): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
In 2013, 99 per cent of people in immigration detention were illegal maritime arrivals. Our immigration detention facilities were flooded by the 50,000 people who arrived on 800 boats under Labor.
Since coming to government, the coalition has been able to get people out of detention, including the 8,000 children placed in detention by Labor, and we have been able to close 17 detention centres.
At the same time we have strengthened section 501 of the Migration Act to better protect the Australian community from foreign nationals who commit serious crimes. These changes have allowed us to cancel the visas of more than 2,800 foreign nationals who thought they could flout our laws and commit crimes against Australians.
Since these changes were enacted, we have cancelled the visas of 54 murderers, 223 child sex offenders and 150 organised crime figures. This action has resulted in a significant increase in criminals in our immigration detention facilities.
Immigration detention is necessary for strong border control. Foreign nationals who present an unacceptable risk to the Australian community will have their visas cancelled and they will be detained while their status is resolved, or they are removed from the country.
Today, around 50 per cent of the detention population are non-citizens who have had their visas cancelled. And while IMAs now only make up around 25 per cent—as opposed to 99 per cent under Labor—of the detention population, this cohort is complex and includes people with criminal histories or other security concerns which present a risk to the Australian community.
This means that more than half of the detainee population consists of high-risk cohorts. These cohorts have significant criminal histories, like child sex offences or links to criminal gangs, such as outlaw motorcycle gangs and other organised crime groups, or represent an unacceptable risk to the Australian community otherwise.
These criminals often have serious behavioural issues and pose a critical threat to the health, safety, security and order of the detention network.
I have said this on repeated occasions, and I will repeat it again today: this government and I will not tolerate behaviour that is illegal, or that threatens the stability of detention facilities, placing my officers, visitors or detainees at risk.
At the moment, the existing arrangements are inadequate to manage the increasing risk of contraband in detention, such as narcotic drugs and the use of mobile phones for the commission of criminal activity.
Mobile phones in detention are enabling criminal behaviour. Examples of their use include:
The Australian Border Force Commissioner advised in budget estimates that one detainee arranged a contract killing on another detainee while in immigration detention. Thankfully, my officers prevented this heinous crime from occurring but I will not stand by and allow this behaviour to continue.
We have also seen the use of mobile phones to coordinate internal disturbances and escapes. Two coordinated disturbances, one on Christmas Island and one at Yongah Hill, resulted in riots. This synchronised effort of disruption is threatening the order of the detention facilities and is placing all those who work and reside there at risk.
The Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2017 enables the department to provide a safe and secure environment for people accommodated at, visiting or working at an immigration detention facility.
The bill will strengthen search-and-seizure powers, including the use of detector dogs, in order for authorised officers to restrict things from immigration detention facilities that might pose a risk. These things include mobile phones, SIM cards, narcotic drugs and child pornography.
Specifically, the bill amends the act to insert new definitions under subsection 5(1) to define detention centres and alternative places of detention collectively as 'immigration detention facilities', and to define a 'prohibited thing'.
A new section, 251A, will be inserted to enable the minister to determine by legislative instrument things to be prohibited in relation to persons in detention and immigration detention facilities.
These things will include illegal things, specifically narcotic drugs, and child pornography, and things that might be a risk within immigration detention facilities such as mobile phones and SIM cards. The government is also proposing amendments to the search-and-seizure provisions in the act, specifically sections 252, 252AA, 252A, 252B, 252BA, 252BB, 252C, 252CA and 252G, in order to ensure that we are able to effectively deal with such items.
In addition, the government is proposing to add the ability to use a detector dog to screen for some of these items under sections 252AA, 252BA and 252G of the act.
Even with the removal of mobile phones from detention facilities, detainees will continue to have reasonable access to communication avenues. This includes landline phones, internet access and visitors, in order to maintain contact with their support networks. Migration agents, or legal representatives, will also continue to be able to contact their clients.
This bill will ensure our officers can carry out their responsibilities properly, minimising unacceptable risks to the health, safety and security of persons in immigration detention facilities and to the order of these facilities. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Australian government is committed to ensuring safe, secure and efficient coastal shipping as part of Australia's national transport system.
As part of this commitment, I am pleased to introduce the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Amendment Bill 2017.
Between 2010 and 2030 Australia's overall freight task is expected to grow by 30 per cent but coastal shipping is only expected to increase by 15 per cent. With Australia's extensive coastline and broad network of ports, there is scope for this figure to be much greater.
However, it is clear that the current regulatory system does not fully support that potential being realised.
Following my appointment as minister, I have engaged with stakeholders in the coastal shipping sector, Australian operators who use the coastal shipping and Australian seafarers.
The stakeholders I have spoken to all agree there are aspects of the current Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Act 2012, known as the 'coastal trading act', that are unreasonably limiting, inflexible or onerous.
These restrictions are limiting or preventing the use of shipping to move domestic freight. They are pushing costs up for businesses. It is an important part of the government's red-tape reduction work to ensure legislation in place is being effectively implemented and not imposing excessive administrative burden.
This bill makes amendments to the existing regulatory regime, rather than fundamentally restructuring it.
These amendments were set out in a discussion paper that I released for industry consultation in March this year and received significant support from stakeholders.
The Australian Aluminium Council, in its submission in response to the discussion paper, said:
'These amendments would reduce the regulatory burden for shipping users and increase the efficiency of the coastal shipping regime'.
In its submission Manufacturing Australia said:
'The proposed amendments are pragmatic, achievable and likely to deliver a material benefit in lower costs for Australian manufacturers'.
Turning to the amendments in detail, under the coastal trading act applicants must specify a minimum of five voyages they intend to undertake in order to secure a temporary licence.
I'm aware of one instance where a shipper was unable to obtain a temporary licence to move a piece of heavy machinery between two ports as it required only a single voyage and was therefore ineligible for a temporary licence.
The machinery was then instead moved by road, which required a police escort due to the size of the machinery, and overhead utilities had to be moved.
This was far more complicated and more costly than a voyage by ship would have been, but it was the only option available.
This bill removes the five-voyage requirement, increasing flexibility for industry.
The coastal trading act contains strict tolerance provisions for voyages under temporary licence that do not reflect the daily realities of how the shipping industry and supply chains in Australia operate.
The tolerance restrictions mean that a shipper has to apply for a variation to their temporary licence if they are going to move their cargo more than five days before or after the approved loading date or if they need to load 20 per cent more or less than the approved amount of cargo.
Such strict limits fail to reflect the fast-paced nature of the shipping industry.
For example, I'm aware of an Australian company which received a last-minute request from a customer for 2,000 tonnes of cargo to meet a customer shortage.
Despite already holding a temporary licence to carry 8,000 tonnes of cargo on a similar route, the ship it had chartered had to wait an extra day in port for a variation to come through, at a cost of US$15,000 in port costs.
Every time delays and costs like these are incurred by business, it impacts on profits and puts Australian jobs at risk.
The amendments in this bill relax the tolerance provisions to provide businesses with the flexibility and certainty they need to operate profitably.
This bill will also simplify the consultation provisions of the act, while not removing the protections that all general license (Australian) vessels currently exist.
All general licence holders must be consulted for a minimum period of either one or two days before any temporary licence is granted, or approval for any new voyage is granted.
That is mandatory even where there is no general licence (Australian) vessel capable of carrying the cargo or passengers the applicant wants to move.
For example, there have been no crude oil or petroleum tankers operating under general licence conditions since June 2016. However, the consultation requirements have resulted in the absurd situation where industry has spent 446 cumulative business days since 1 June 2016 waiting for consultation with a general licence holder that does not exist.
This bill will streamline the application by removing the requirement to consult when there is no general licence vessel that is able to carry the cargo or passengers.
The changes I'm introducing today will also extend the geographical reach of the coastal trading act, to support the Australian energy sector.
The current coastal trading regime is hindering the use of Australian crude oil and condensate products in Australian refineries.
The Australian Institute of Petroleum told me earlier this year that uncertainty over the status of oil tankers moving between floating production storage and offloading units and floating storage units and mainland Australia actively discourages the use of Australian crude oil and condensate in Australian refineries.
This bill will enable voyages occurring between a floating production storage and offloading unit, or a floating storage unit, and the mainland to be covered by a coastal trading licence.
This bill will also allow vessels undergoing dry-docking to be covered by the coastal trading licensing system.
Under current arrangements, vessels undertaking scheduled maintenance in dry-docking facilities are subject to importation under the Customs Act 1901.
Covering vessels undergoing dry-docking in the coastal trading licensing system will provide certainty to operators and potentially increase the use of Australian facilities.
The amendments also change the voyage notification requirements by removing the need for industry to submit a notification when none of the voyage details have changed.
The bill will require ships to provide their International Maritime Organization number rather than their name as an identifier.
Ships are able to change their name—having the IMO number of vessels operating in our waters will improve the government's ability to verify that operators are complying with the requirements of this and other Australian legislation.
The Turnbull-Joyce government has a vision for a simpler and more flexible costal shipping industry that is positioned to meet an increased share of Australia's freight task.
This bill removes some of the red tape and unnecessary administrative burden that the current legislation has imposed on the coastal shipping sector.
I commend the bill to the House.
I move:
That the debate be adjourned.
And I ask that a separate question be put on the resumption of the debate.
Question agreed to.
The question now is that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That the words 'the next sitting' be omitted with a view to substituting 'the first sitting in 2018' to allow proper consultation to take place consistent with the commitment made by the Government.
The fact is that, on this government's watch, the Pacific Triangle, the CSL Pacific, the Pioneer, the Lindsay Clarke, the Tandara Spirit, the Araluen Spirit, the Alexander Spirit, the British Loyalty, the Hooghly Spirit, the MV Portland, CSL Melbourne, British Fidelity, CSL Brisbane and CSL Thevenard have all left our shores. They have left our shores and the Australian flag has been lowered. The Australian flag has been lowered and Australian jobs have been lost. This is a government that has been prepared to destroy the Australian shipping industry because, rather than having Australian workers who are members of unions, it prefers to have foreign workers being paid foreign wages on foreign-flagged ships around our coasts.
The abuse of the temporary licence system is something that has to be addressed. This government has no plan. Indeed this is replacing the Australian flag with the white flag when it comes to Australian jobs. On this government's watch, it has allowed temporary licences for work, such as that done by the MV Portland, which takes minerals from Western Australia to Portland in Victoria to the smelter and then the ship returns to Western Australia—a very consistent voyage between two destinations that in no way could be defined as temporary. Yet this government has failed to put in place a mechanism to ensure that the legislation carried by this parliament in 2012 is given a chance to operate. That has led to a loss of Australian jobs.
I think this minister, who has his 50th birthday today, I am told, isn't too bad a bloke. But he's a part of a bad government. On this, he said 'another key message from my recent stakeholder consultations is that regular certainty, indeed, ideally bipartisanship, is essential for investment,' and it is. But has there been any briefing for the opposition on this legislation? No, there hasn't been. Has there been an exposure draft of this legislation? No, there hasn't been. Has there been consultation with stakeholders? Have they had the potential to see this legislation? No, there hasn't been.
It stands in stark contrast to the way that we on this side dealt with this when we were in government. In 2007, we asked a parliamentary committee to conduct a comprehensive review; indeed, I think one that the member for Ballarat played a critical role in. In October 2008, that committee brought down a unanimous bipartisan report that provided the basis for the legislation moving forward. In 2009, we established a shipping policy advisory group comprising shippers, industry and unions, convened in order to implement the committee's recommendations. We released a discussion paper for public comment in 2010, and in 2011 we established three industry reference groups to work through the details of the reform package. Later in 2011, we released exposure drafts of the bills for public comment and another roundtable was conducted with industry and government officials. And then, of course, we introduced the legislation to the parliament and it was carried by this parliament at that time in spite of the extensive consultation, the attempt at bipartisanship and the getting together with industry players, whether they be users of ships or owners of Australian ships in the shipping industry, to participate in this process.
Yet what we have now is legislation being introduced into this parliament consistent with this government's attempts to destroy Australian shipping. We had legislation from the minister's predecessor, the former member for Wide Bay and Deputy Prime Minister. It came before this parliament and it was the first legislation I had ever seen that made it clear in the explanatory memorandum that the result of that legislation would be the replacement of the Australian workforce with a foreign workforce. We had Australian businesses, such as tourism operators in the Kimberley, being advised by departmental officials that the way they should go forward and be competitive was to replace the Australian flag on the back of their ships, to put a foreign flag on them and to employ a foreign workforce on foreign wages.
That was an extraordinary admission made by the government officials at that time. I don't blame them; I blame the elected government for that responsibility. Mr Bill Milby gave extraordinary evidence before the Senate about the conversations that were taking place when he asked for a briefing about how he could deal with the response to the legislation that was being put forward by the government. That legislation was defeated in the Senate because people of goodwill said they wouldn't cop this. Senator Xenophon, who would normally, as is his practice, grant a second reading amendment so there could be further debate, killed that legislation at that point. He refused to allow it to occur.
What we have now is in spite of the fact that a birthday boy over there was prepared to make comments at a Shipping Australia Limited annual review in January 2017 like:
I am acutely aware of the need to work in a bipartisan way …
But we are not seeing that. We are not seeing that happen.
Of course, there is the euphemism of industry bodies such as 'Shipping Australia', which is actually about foreign ships. It shows that they know Australians want to see an Australian shipping industry, because it is in the interests of our economy, it is in the interests of our environment and it is in the interests of our national security. The minister at the table regularly speaks about stopping boats. Well, this legislation and this government's approach has been to stop ships and boats with the Australian flag on them and replace them with foreign ships around the coast that, of course, enter our harbours without the same migration or security checks that Australian workers have to go through to get their MSICs.
Mr Chester interjecting—
The member will be heard in silence!
Mr Chester interjecting—
If you want to challenge what I am saying you can leave!
We have very clearly put forward our preparedness to sit down with the minister and work through these issues. Certainty is required for legislation to produce the intended outcome—a revitalisation of the Australian shipping industry. So I am very disappointed with the minister. In spite of the fact that we received commitments about proper consultation about any legislation before it comes into the House, that simply hasn't happened. It has been abandoned. Once again, there is another gap between the rhetoric of the government and the reality. Teresa Lloyd from the industry body, who is overseas, contacted us to tell us she had been notified that this legislation was coming in this week and asked us whether we knew anything about it. That was how we found out about the legislation. So the Australian shipping industry has not been briefed on this bill either. How hard is it to pick up the phone? We sat last week in parliament. How hard would it have been to get a proper briefing to allow for some advice before we went forward? This amendment will allow for that proper consultation to occur, and that is why it should be carried.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment. I will explain to the House what this amendment does. It says that the bill will be brought back next year to enable time for the consultation that the government had previously guaranteed. The government had said there would be consultation. They've then come in here with a bill without that consultation. That is simply because we have a government that is more determined to get rid of union members than they are to have an Australian industry. If it is a choice between a unionised Australian industry and no industry at all, they would rather have no Australian shipping industry at all. That is the choice they are making. They said there would be consultation. This amendment does one thing and one thing only: it guarantees time for that consultation. If they don't want to have the consultation, they will vote against the amendment.
The original question was that the motion be agreed to, to which the honourable member for Grayndler has moved an amendment. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.
The question now is that the motion be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to present the Customs Amendment (Anti-Dumping Measures) Bill 2017.
The government is committed to free and fair trade. Protectionist policies will not solve the problem of slow-growing economies throughout the world. More globalised trade provides very real benefits for Australian businesses and consumers, such as greater access to materials for manufacturing and decreased prices for goods, to name just two.
Australian businesses must be globally competitive and should not be shielded from genuine competition.
However, dumping and foreign government subsidisation of goods exported to Australia is not genuine competition and can distort markets and injure Australian manufacturers. Our anti-dumping system allows Australian manufacturing businesses to compete on a level playing field against imported goods, by imposing duties on those goods in proven cases of dumping or subsidisation. A robust and effective anti-dumping system is an essential part of the government's commitment to free and fair trade.
Since 2013, more than 93 new anti-dumping or subsidy investigations have been initiated by the Anti-Dumping Commission, and there are currently more than 75 final measures in place on dumped or subsidised goods exported to Australia.
Australia's anti-dumping system is composed of a number of interlinked processes, all of which need to operate effectively to ensure the system's ongoing effectiveness. The amendment that I am introducing today is designed to address an unintended consequence generated in one of these processes, known as 'a review of measures'.
After anti-dumping duties have been in place for 12 months, affected parties can apply for a review of measures. The purpose of the review is to ensure that the rate of duty is current. The new duty rate is calculated by, among other things, examining the price the foreign exporter sells the goods for in their home market and the price at which they export the goods to Australia.
Reviews allow the anti-dumping duties to keep in step with changes in an exporter's commercial behaviour. If the exporter continues to dump, the duty rate can stay the same or increase. If the exporter has stopped or reduced their rate of dumping, the duty rate can decrease.
Currently, there exists the possibility that foreign exporters subject to duties can subvert the review of measures process to undermine the remedial effects of Australia's anti-dumping system. Foreign exporters are able to deliberately limit exports of the dutiable goods for a period of time in order to obtain a more favourable rate of duty for future exports. This facilitates the opportunity for exporters to resume dumping and continue to injure Australian industry.
To address this behaviour, which is clearly against the intent of Australia's anti-dumping system, the government is introducing specific methods to determine export prices for foreign exporters in the review of measures.
When an exporter has made no exports during a review period, or has made a small number of exports that are not representative of commercial trade, the Anti-Dumping Commission will be able to use three specific methods to set an export price. This export price then informs the level of dumping duty that is applied to future exports.
This change will increase the Australian manufacturing industry's confidence in the strength of the anti-dumping system by removing the unintended consequence of the reviews of measures which could be exploited by foreign exporters. This will make sure that the system continues to operate as intended to provide relief from injurious dumping for Australian manufacturers.
Australia's anti-dumping system is held in high regard by many of our trading partners, and so the government has worked hard to ensure that this change complies with our international trade obligations and that it will not diminish the international perception of our system's integrity and transparency.
Australia's anti-dumping system is a complex space that necessitates both long-term vision as well as the ability to act rapidly when significant issues arise. The government continually monitors the efficiency and effectiveness of the system, and remains in close consultation with Australian industry stakeholders in evaluating the need for further reform.
The government is committed to ensuring that Australian industry can compete on a level playing field. This amendment will ensure that Australian industries continue to have access to a strong anti-dumping system that delivers efficient and effective remedies for Australian businesses injured by dumping and subsidisation, and, most importantly, protects Australian jobs.
I commend the bill to the chamber.
Debate adjourned.
I rise to talk about the Statute Update (Smaller Government) Bill 2017 and to indicate to the House that we will not be opposing this bill. But nobody in this House should take that as an endorsement of the various ways that this government is acting to strangle expert advice to the government. We don't necessarily support the abolition of the bodies which are being abolished by this bill, but the fact is that they exist now in name only. A lot of them have been gutted by the government not appointing new members, removing funding, removing staff or not tasking these bodies with any new work. Whatever this bill does to abolish those bodies, the reality is that in many cases they have ceased to operate in any meaningful way for some time now because the government was not interested in the advice they were providing. The government went about this by defunding them, by de-staffing them and by not tasking them with any work that would otherwise be an important input to the work of government.
This bill repeals three acts and amends 10 acts, but the effect is to abolish seven different bodies—the tradespersons' rights committees, the Oil Stewardship Advisory Council, the Product Stewardship Advisory Group, the advisory group of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority, the Plant Breeder's Rights Advisory Committee, the Development Allowance Authority and the Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee, the CAMAC.
In my time in this building, in other roles, I've had some interaction with CAMAC. I have a deep appreciation of the work CAMAC has done. They are one of the seven bodies which are being abolished. The CAMAC has done extremely important work. Let's look at the types of projects the CAMAC has worked on since it came into being. It has looked in detail at crowdsourced equity funding; managed investment schemes, which are of course very controversial; derivatives trading; executive remuneration; diversity on boards of directors; the social responsibility of corporations; personal liability for corporate fault; corporate duties; directors and officers insurance; and insider trading. All of these are very important issues, particularly in our financial system, on which the CAMAC has done such valuable work. This bill will abolish the CAMAC. Down the track, we'll have more to say on how we get the good advice we need in our financial system and ensure we have experts feeding into the policy development process in this place and in the executive.
Some of the other bodies are redundant because other bodies are taking over their role—for example, the tradespersons' rights committees—or because the programs they administer are ceasing, as is the case with the Development Allowance Authority. The CAMAC really is a good example of something which is being abolished for no reason other than this government's aversion to, lack of regard for and lack of respect for expert opinion. If they truly valued expert opinion, particularly in the financial services industry but also right across the board, they wouldn't be abolishing the CAMAC like they are today in this bill.
The government would like to pretend that this is about smaller government. But it's about something entirely different—that is, their lack of regard and lack of respect for expert advice. I note that the shadow minister for climate change is at the table. We see this lack of respect for expert advice in the way they are messing around with the Finkel review, for example. They are unable to get through their party room the key recommendation of the Chief Scientist for a clean energy target. That's another example—a bit like CAMAC—of where expert opinion has been largely ignored and is secondary to the internal political machinations of a divided party room and the Prime Minister's inability to lead. That's another example of expert advice being ignored, as with the abolition of some of these expert advisory bodies.
Another example very topical to the parliament is the drug-testing trials. Unfortunately, my community is one of those singled out for a drug-testing trial. Health experts and law and order experts, including a former Commissioner of the AFP speaking on the radio today, have said these drug trials will be counterproductive when it comes to health outcomes, law and order outcomes, unemployment and homelessness. Not a single health expert has backed what the government wants to do with drug trials. This is another example of how they strangle or ignore expert advice when it comes to policy development.
That's what this bill is really about—trying to limit the opportunity for people who actually know their stuff to feed into government policy. This really comes back to the government's arrogance. They think they know better about the financial system than the relevant experts. They'd rather run a protection racket for some of the stuff that we've seen in the financial services sector over the last little while than genuinely engage with people who know their stuff. It goes back to their arrogance; it goes back to their 'we know best' attitude; it goes back to their lack of respect and regard for expert advice. And that's what this bill is about.
We're not opposing the bill, because, for all intents and purposes, as I said, these bodies were strangled some time ago via other means. This bill really just formalises those attacks on those institutions. When we return to government we will have an opportunity then to work out what the best arrangements are, across all of the portfolios, to listen to the experts and make sure that they have a genuine voice in the policy development of a Shorten Labor government, but also in the affairs of this nation.
Debate adjourned.
by leave—I move:
That the Statute Update (Smaller Government) Bill 2017 be referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration.
Question agreed to.
I rise to speak on the Defence Legislation Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill 2017. This bill contains four schedules, which seek to smooth processes, increase protections for reservists, realise a recommendation from the First Principles Review of Defence, add contemporary definitions and enable reclassification of those who leave Defence and later find they were eligible for a medical discharge.
Schedule 1 seeks to amend the Defence Act 1903 to enable a policy framework to broaden and expand the conditions under which a positive test for a prohibited substance may be disregarded, including in circumstances relating to appropriate usage of over-the-counter medication, and substances administered or dispensed by authorised persons. As it stands, Defence members and Defence civilians who test positive for a prohibited substance solely because they took a prescribed or over-the-counter medication are required to show cause why they should remain in service or why, in the case of Defence civilians, they should not be terminated. However, if the same medication was administered, supplied or prescribed by a qualified medical practitioner, the act allows the result to be treated as if it were negative. This change allows Defence to establish a policy which extends this negative result when medication has been administered, supplied or prescribed by medical officers, nurse practitioners, dentists, pharmacists or other health professionals, or by Defence internally authorised health and allied health professionals. In addition, a negative result would be recorded when it was obtained as an over-the-counter medication or as a pharmacist-only medicine or general sales medicine.
Labor is supportive of this practical amendment, which would smooth the process in circumstances where Defence personnel or Defence civilians test positive for over-the-counter medications or prescribed medications. This is an important amendment which would ensure that those individuals that are appropriately taking over-the-counter medication and prescribed medication are not, I think, unduly or unfairly penalised as a result.
Schedule 2 amends the Defence Reserve Service (Protection) Act 2001 to ensure that all reservists would be eligible for a full range of protections under the act in respect of their employment and education. The role of reservists in Australia is integral to maintaining our defence capability and helping safeguard the security and national interests of our country. Reservists act in an entirely voluntary capacity to provide support to the ADF, help rebuild following a natural disaster and deliver humanitarian support overseas. Reservists are fundamental to our capacity, and it is vital that support is provided to ensure that they are not disadvantaged by their participation. A review of the Defence Reserve Service (Protection) Act 2001 concluded that, while overall the act was working well, there were some enhancements which could be made to improve the act's clarity and consistency and to address some gaps in protections for reservists. These amendments are welcome and were strongly endorsed by the Defence Reserves Association. The association stated that this was first recommended in 2007 and accepted by Defence in 2008, and they are pleased to see these changes will be made.
This schedule seeks to make a number of other amendments, the first of which will expand the scope of employment, partnership and education protections by extending these provisions to all types of reserve service. Previously, voluntary continuous full-time service was only protected if the Chief of the Defence Force or a delegate had requested the member to undertake the service on that basis. This requirement caused unnecessary confusion for reservists and their employers as to whether the protections applied in any given case. These amendments will tidy up this issue by applying these provisions to all defence service.
The second amendment will expand the scope of financial liability and bankruptcy protections to apply to all operational service by reserve members, which previously only applied to continuous full-time service following a call-out under the Defence Act 1903. These provisions include the postponement of liabilities which would otherwise fall due after the member starts rendering service and protecting the member from bankruptcy proceedings while the member is rendering defence service. This change will apply protections to not only continuous full-time defence service following a call-out under the act but also continuous full-time defence service that is operational service that is either inside or outside Australia. This includes time spent preparing to render the operational service, such as predeployment training, and time spent decompressing after operational service. As we know, decompression is particularly important in helping to improve the mental health outcomes of our ADF members, and it's important that this is also recognised for reservists. Labor supports this change in recognition of the service being undertaken by reservists. In the event of them undertaking full-time operational service, it is logical that these provisions, which previously only applied to call-outs under the Defence Act, are extended to full-time operational defence service.
The third change under this section will establish a civil penalty regime to supplement the criminal offence provisions throughout the act, including provisions dealing with discrimination in employment and education. The civil penalty will have a minimum penalty of 100 units. These penalty provisions will be enforced under the standard provisions in the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014, which includes offences to, for example, prohibit conduct which discriminates against reservist members because they have, are or may render defence service. This new civil penalty regime will supplement the criminal penalties. It will provide a less cumbersome and technical enforcement process than criminal prosecutions, which can be difficult to prove given the insidious and indirect nature of discrimination.
In addition, the amendments will clarify the employment protections for reservists to give greater certainty about their rights when absent from employment to render defence service and enhance the educational protections to create an obligation on education providers to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate reservists' service. This provision is not intended to require an educational institution to award degrees or qualifications to people who have not completed all course requirements. Rather, it is about making adjustments such as allowing the member to defer undertaking or completing assessment or practical work or refunding or crediting fees paid by or for the member.
Finally, the amendments will also introduce an anti-victimisation and anti-harassment provision to improve the experience of reservist members in civilian workplaces. These amendments seek to clarify, provide consistency and cover any gaps in protections for those undertaking this important work. These changes are important and recognise the integral role reservists play in our defence capability. It is vital that individuals are not disadvantaged for their willingness to contribute. These changes will strengthen protections and make it easier for reservists. Most importantly, by making these amendments, we are demonstrating our ongoing commitment to our reservists and the part that they play in protecting Australia's national interest.
Schedule 3 of this bill will transfer the hydrographic, meteorological and oceanographic functions from the Royal Australian Navy to the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation. The transfer is expected to realise synergies in the exploration of imagery and other data to protect intelligence and non-intelligence related geospatial information in support of Australia's defence interests and other national objectives. This move is in accordance with a recommendation from the first principles review of defence, which Labor is broadly supportive of. We are pleased to see this being enacted in this piece of legislation.
The final schedule will align a small number of provisions in the Australian Defence Force Cover Act 2015 with other military superannuation schemes and provide clarity on the definition of a child of a member of an invalid. These amendments will ensure that members who resign from the ADF and later find that they could've been medically discharged will be able to apply to the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation to have their mode of discharge circumstances reassessed.
This amendment is particularly relevant given our growing understanding of mental illness. When someone is experiencing difficulties, it is entirely reasonable that they might leave the service without considering their reason for leaving. Of course, there are many circumstances where ADF personnel leave the forces as a result of an unknown medical condition, be it physical or mental, and it is entirely appropriate that those individuals have the opportunity to have their circumstances reassessed. Essentially, this will allow individuals who, for certain reasons, were not discharged as medically unfit at the time of discharge to apply to the CSC at a later date to consider if the grounds existed on which a person could have been medically discharged because of physical or mental impairment they had at the time of discharge. If the CSC is satisfied that grounds exist they must, as soon as reasonably practical, determine the percentage of incapacity for civil employment at the time of medical discharge. Importantly, a provision will be inserted that enables a person affected by a decision of the CSC to request the CSC to reconsider that decision. Labor is supportive of this amendment, particularly given our understanding of mental illness and the obligation and desire to support those whose service may have had a greater impact on them.
This schedule also seeks to make amendments which will also create a more contemporary definition of 'eligible child'. This amendment will alter the definition, removing the requirement to apply a work test to a child over the age of 18 who is undertaking full-time study. This change will allow the continuation of the child subsidy payment, providing the child is in full-time education and has not reached the age of 25. This change will also allow a child to become eligible at a later date where the child is found to be ineligible at the time of the member's death—for example, where a child of a member is over 18 and ceases full-time study to care for a member or to undertake a gap year prior to the member's death and then subsequently resumes full-time study after the member's death while still under the age of 25. This amendment will provide additional benefits to children who have lost a parent and is consistent with defined benefit superannuation schemes for civilians.
In addition, with regard to benefit payments to eligible children whose parents have passed away, these amendments will remove the requirement for a child of a deceased member to be wholly or substantially dependent on the deceased member or an eligible spouse. This will ensure that all eligible children of a deceased member are recognised, regardless of where they reside, and does not unintentionally exclude children who would otherwise be found to be eligible if there were no eligible spouse. This amendment may result in more children being eligible under the new provisions and might also increase the amount payable for dependent children. However, the total pension cannot exceed 100 per cent of the deceased member's pension. These changes are in line with other military superannuation schemes and reflect contemporary definitions. Labor supports the amendments which will ensure support to these children who have tragically lost their loved one. It is fitting that we continue to support them.
This bill does improve processes and protections for members of the Defence Force, employees and defence industry, and their families. By smoothing processes, increasing provisions, adding contemporary definitions and enabling reclassification of those who leave Defence, this bill seeks to improve conditions. Importantly, this bill also recognises the important role of reservists in our Defence Force and provides them with welcome additional protections. Our defence people are our greatest asset and we must ensure we recognise the sacrifices made by our ADF members and, importantly, their families in service to our nation. Therefore, I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
by leave—I move:
That the bill be referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration.
Question agreed to.
I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill 2017 will provide Australia's national nuclear science and research agency, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, or ANSTO, the flexibility required to successfully establish an innovation precinct adjacent to its Lucas Heights campus in southern Sydney and to potentially establish an additional precinct in association with its other campuses. More broadly, the bill will facilitate enhanced collaboration between industry, universities, researchers and ANSTO across all its sites.
Driving Australian innovation and the Australian economy through greater synergies between science and business is a key government priority. As such, we want to give Australian industries every opportunity to collaborate, partner and engage with our world-leading research agencies and universities, and remove any impediments that may limit the flexibility of organisations such as ANSTO in doing so. This is at the heart of the government's National Innovation and Science Agenda and the National Science Statement. Nationally and globally, nuclear science and technology is a major basis for innovation across a range of industries. ANSTO operates much of Australia's landmark research infrastructure, including the OPAL multipurpose research reactor, the Australian Synchrotron, the Australian Centre for Neutron Scattering and the Centre for Accelerator Science. This infrastructure places Australia at the forefront of innovation for the benefit of public health, the environment and industry. It is used by researchers and industry from around Australia and the world.
The proposed ANSTO innovation precinct will co-locate and crowd in scientific partners; launch intensive businesses; high-tech industry; and science, technology, engineering, mathematics and medicine graduates, or STEM graduates, around Australia's centre of nuclear capabilities and expertise. The proposed ANSTO innovation precinct will have three major components: a graduate institute, an innovation incubator and a technology park. These three core components will enable ANSTO to act as a conduit between research, industry and universities. It will support the achievement of science, innovation and technology excellence and foster research and industry linkages, technology development, commercialisation, entrepreneurship and STEM education. These changes to ANSTO's governing legislation support the vision of the ANSTO innovation precinct and enhanced collaboration.
This bill makes minor amendments to the ANSTO Act to provide flexibility around ANSTO's ability to use its property or facilities for the purposes of an innovation precinct or for collaboration. This includes the use of ANSTO's property to bring together start-ups, high-tech industry and university graduates to create synergies and cross-fertilisation of ideas and knowledge, and the flexibility to use its property to support a graduate institute, for example. The proposed technology park will crowd in SMEs, high-tech industry and knowledge intensive business, which will have the benefit of close access to ANSTO's unique capabilities, nuclear applications and research infrastructure. Businesses that have already approached ANSTO regarding possible co-location include those in high-end medical manufacturing, next-generation food production and 3D data capture.
The bill also supports the establishment of an innovation incubator, which will be the first nuclear science incubator in the world and will become the home of knowledge exchange, commercialisation, innovation and entrepreneurship at ANSTO. The graduate institute will establish a more formal program of postgraduate training and development in partnership with universities. Through co-location with ANSTO and industry, the graduate institute will focus on deepening skills and translational research and the application of nuclear techniques for real-world problem solving. It will also foster cross-discipline work amongst the STEM disciplines. The bill supports ANSTO using its knowledge, resources, property and expertise—for example, for development of a graduate institute as part of an innovation precinct—and provides greater flexibility to allow for the potential construction of postgraduate accommodation and facilities, just as an example, which may not necessarily be undertaken on a commercial basis.
The introduction of the bill also provides an opportunity to update and expand the constitutional limits provision in the ANSTO Act to support ANSTO's expanded function. Industry groups, universities and state and local governments have all actively been engaged in the planning process for the ANSTO innovation precinct and are excited about the opportunities it will bring. They include smart jobs, a boost to the local economy, industry experienced graduates and a drive in Australian innovation. On 14 June, like many parliamentary colleagues, the minister attended the ANSTO-hosted breakfast event which showcased the vision for the ANSTO innovation precinct and the vital role ANSTO plays in driving innovation and contributing to Australia's economy.
The bill will enhance ANSTO's capacity to contribute to the creation of smart jobs and economic growth in Australia. It provides greater flexibility for ANSTO to fulfil its mandate to support and investigate innovation and research that will benefit the Australian community, industry and broader national objectives. As a parliament, in passing this bill we are providing ANSTO with every opportunity for the successful establishment of its proposed innovation precinct and for others that may follow. I commend the bill to the chamber.
As a primary school child in the early 1980s I lived in Waterfall, 15 minutes down the road from the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor. It was the time of the Cold War, and anything with the word 'nuclear' in the name sent chills down the spine of the typical child, but my father was always at pains to emphasise to me that Lucas Heights was doing the kind of nuclear production that was important for building a civilised and healthy society. As Senator Carr pointed out in the other place, some of those who criticise nuclear research fail to acknowledge its presence in smoke detectors and in dials that we use in our clocks.
Every week ANSTO delivers 10,000 patient doses of potentially life-saving nuclear medicines to over 250 hospitals and medical facilities across Australia. As Senator Carr puts it, ANSTO is 'one of the jewels in the crown of the Australian innovation system'. The Sydney campus, the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor, the Melbourne campus and the Australian Synchrotron are vitally important research facilities. ANSTO has been expanding activities in the Sydney campus by including a nuclear medicine plant, which has tripled the production of molybdenum-99, of which there is a world-wide shortage. The aim is to develop the campus into a major national innovation precinct. The notion of innovation precincts was announced in 2011 under Labor. It was then formalised as part of the 2012 Australian jobs plan. Labor is pleased to see the government continuing this principle of innovation precincts.
This Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill 2017 is necessary because the legislation governing ANSTO currently unduly restricts the scope and potential of the precinct. The bill overcomes this by allowing ANSTO to share its knowledge, expertise, facilities and property with other entities. Those entities don't need to have a direct involvement in nuclear science or technology, and the bill broadens the definition of 'scientific research, innovation and training' in the ANSTO act so they are not restricted to nuclear science and technology. The precinct will include a graduate institute that will provide research training for up to 400 post-graduate students and post-doctoral fellows in Sydney and Melbourne. ANSTO will be better able to collaborate with industry, universities and other publicly funded research agencies. That kind of collaboration was promoted by Labor in government and, accordingly, Labor supports this bill.
When one looks at international rankings of innovation and commercialisation, Australia is about on par with other OECD countries for our public expenditure on research. But where we often fall down is on public/private collaboration. The extent to which Australian businesses create new-to-the-world innovations and engage with research institutes is short of that in many other countries, and this initiative is one way in which we might continue to encourage that cooperation. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill 2017 be referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016 will amend the Telecommunications Act 1997 and related legislation to strengthen the security of Australia's telecommunications networks.
National security threats to the telecommunications sector
Australia's telecommunications networks are the critical infrastructure that enables all of us to conduct business and to go about our everyday lives online. Australia's economic prosperity and wellbeing are increasingly dependent on telecommunications networks and the data that flows across them.
Cyber threats to Australia are persistent, whether they arise from sabotage, espionage, serious and organised crime, or other technology-enabled crime. Espionage and clandestine foreign interference activity against Australian interests is extensive.
The Australian Cyber Security Centre's Threat Report 2016 demonstrates the scale of the cyberthreat to Australian organisations. Telecommunications networks are a key pathway for unauthorised interference by malicious actors. The report identifies that diverse state-based adversaries are attempting cyberespionage against Australian systems to satisfy strategic, operational and commercial intelligence requirements. It also acknowledges that the ongoing theft of intellectual property from Australian companies continues to pose significant challenges to the future competitiveness of Australia's economy.
The number, type and sophistication of cybersecurity threats to Australia and Australians are increasing. Australian businesses and organisations face a range of serious threats, from foreign state-sponsored adversaries to serious and organised criminals.
Compromise is expensive. It can include financial losses, damage to reputation, loss of intellectual property and disruption to business.
This is why it is so vital that the security and resilience of our telecommunications networks are maintained.
It is also why, after a broad public consultation, the bipartisan Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security recommended in 2013 that the government create a security framework for the telecommunications sector.
This committee also recommended establishing this security framework again in 2015 in the context of data-retention legislation. The reforms proposed in this bill will complement the data-retention regime by improving the security of networks as a whole and provide an additional layer of protection for retained data.
The reforms set out in the bill form part of the Australian Cyber Security Strategy, launched by the Prime Minister in April 2016. This reflects the particular importance of secure telecommunications networks to the functioning and wellbeing of Australian communities.
In June 2017, under the chairmanship of Andrew Hastie, the committee recommended that the bill be passed, subject to its recommendations being accepted. The committee's recommendations aim to provide greater clarity and certainty for industry, encouraging information sharing, and enhancing the transparency of the regime's operation.
Policy objectives of this bill
This bill builds on existing obligations in the Telecommunications Act 1997.
These reforms have been subject to extensive consultation over the past four years. Industry feedback through this process has shaped the detail of the proposed reforms. In particular, a number of key amendments have been made to the bill following the release of two exposure drafts for public consultation in mid and late 2015.
Strong industry government partnerships are critical to managing these threats and securing our most important systems. This bill will formalise the relationship between industry and government and ensure consistency, transparency and proper accountability for all parts of the telecommunications industry.
It will provide clarity around government's expectations on how national security risks to telecommunications networks are to be managed, and will provide more proportionate mechanisms for managing these risks.
The bill will not introduce a prescriptive legislative approach. Rapid changes in technology and service delivery mean a prescriptive approach would simply not be possible.
Overview of key measures
Amendments to the Telecommunications Act 1997 proposed in this bill will place an obligation on all carriers, carriage service providers and carriage service intermediaries to do their best to protect telecommunications networks and facilities from unauthorised interference and unauthorised access for the purpose of security.
This obligation will encourage companies to consider national security risks, such as espionage, sabotage and foreign interference risks to the confidentiality of information and communications, as well as the availability and integrity of telecommunications networks and facilities.
This obligation will be supported by new notification obligations, which are modelled on the existing notification regime in the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979. Carriers and nominated carriage service providers will be required to notify changes to systems and services if the carrier or nominated carriage service provider becomes aware that a proposed change is likely to have a material adverse impact on their ability to meet the security obligations to protect networks and facilities from unauthorised access and interference.
Companies will also be given the opportunity to forecast changes to telecommunications systems in annual security capability plans.
Early notification to security agencies will allow them to provide advice at the planning stage and ensure security considerations are factored into the proposed design as early as possible in a cost-effective manner.
In line with the risk-based nature of these reforms, the notification regime includes an exemptions process. Following recommendations of the committee, the bill has been amended to include an application process for exemptions. This will reduce the regulatory burden on some companies and ensure that the resources of security agencies are targeted.
Establishment of a broader security framework
The regulatory model will be supported by a comprehensive administrative framework. The scheme relies on a 'light touch' approach to regulation and allows for meaningful collaboration and cooperation with industry to manage risks in a way that is satisfactory to both industry and government, without the government being too prescriptive and retaining flexibility for industry.
We recognise that telecommunications companies already make significant investments in security and have considerable technical expertise in mitigating and responding to threats.
This administrative framework is premised on a collaborative partnership with industry, involving increased engagement and information sharing with government agencies. Implementation will be based on a regime of industry consultation, advice and guidance.
The reforms recognise that security is a joint responsibility and this is why enhanced engagement between government and industry is at the heart of these reforms.
Safeguards built into the regulatory powers
New information gathering and directions powers provided for in this bill will only be used as a last resort.
Importantly, a number of safeguards are built into these regulatory powers to ensure their use is reasonably necessary.
For example, the Attorney-General can only issue a direction to a company after he or she has received an adverse security assessment from the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation recommending action and has considered the costs of the direction on the company, as well as broader market and competition effects.
In addition, a direction can only be made after consultation with the affected company and after the Attorney-General is satisfied that reasonable steps have been taken to negotiate an outcome in good faith.
A range of review rights will be available for companies to ensure proper accountability for decision-making.
Conclusion
This bill will ensure that businesses, individuals and the public sector can continue to rely on telecommunications networks to store and transmit their data safely and securely. It will promote informed risk management of national security concerns by providing industry with clarity and certainty of government expectations.
Importantly, it will not be prescriptive. It will allow industry the necessary flexibility to find the best and most innovative solutions. This will ensure the security and resilience of Australia's telecommunications infrastructure, as well as the competitiveness of the sector in a rapidly changing global market.
The Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 amends the Telecommunications Act 1997 to introduce a regulatory framework for managing national security risks to Australia's telecommunications infrastructure. This bill puts in place a regulatory framework that will ensure that Australia's telecommunications networks and facilities are safe from national security risks of espionage, sabotage and foreign interference. Telecommunications companies are already voluntarily working with the government to ensure that Australia's critical infrastructure is safe from foreign interference, threats or espionage. This bill puts a framework around that working relationship to ensure both government and industry know what is expected and what is required to keep Australians safe and what is expected of them to ensure that these measures are taken.
The key elements of the bill include, firstly, establishing a security obligation applicable to all carriers and carriage service providers and intermediaries requiring them to do their best to protect their networks and facilities from unauthorised access and unauthorised interference.
Secondly, the bill includes requirements on carriers and nominated carriage service providers to notify the communications access coordinator of planned key changes to telecommunications services or systems that could compromise their ability to comply with the security obligation. Notifications can be provided in the form of either an individual notification or an annual security capability plan.
Thirdly, the bill provides the Attorney-General with a power to issue carriers and carriage service providers a direction requiring them to do or refrain from doing a specified thing in order to manage security risks.
Fourthly, the bill empowers the Secretary of the Attorney-General's Department to request information from carriers and carriage service providers to monitor compliance with the security obligation.
Fifthly, the bill expands the operation of existing civil enforcement mechanisms in the Telecommunications Act 1997 to address noncompliance with the obligations that are set out in the bill.
This bill is the result of several years of negotiation and cooperation between the government and the telecommunications industry. It implements the recommendations of separate inquiries by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security in 2013 and 2015. In 2013, the PJCIS examined the question of telecommunications security as part of its inquiry into potential reforms of Australia's national security legislation. The committee recommended that the government create a telecommunications sector security framework in recognition of the threats to Australia's national security that can be affected through telecommunications systems. In 2015, as part of the committee's inquiry into the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Bill 2014, the PJCIS again supported telecommunication sector security reforms and recommended that the government ensure that a framework be enacted before the end of the implementation of the data retention regime, which was in April this year.
These reforms were also subject to two rounds of public consultation on exposure draft legislation before the current bill was introduced to the Senate. The bill was introduced to the Senate on 9 November 2016 and immediately referred to the PJCIS for careful scrutiny and review. The PJCIS received eight submissions and four supplementary submissions from industry, government and academia. The PJCIS held public hearings on 16 February 2017 and on 23 March 2017 as well as a private briefing from relevant agencies in Canberra and visited Telstra's global operation centre in Melbourne. The PJCIS's advisory report on this bill made 12 recommendations for improvements to the bill, the explanatory memorandum and the administrative guidelines accompanying the bill. Subject to these 12 recommendations being implemented, the PJCIS recommended that the bill be passed.
Since September 2014, Labor has taken a bipartisan stance on all national security legislation introduced by the government. Labor has closely scrutinised all national security legislation through the mechanism of the PJCIS, which has made recommendations for improvements on all of the bills that the government has presented. These recommendations have all been accepted by the government. The recommendations that the PJCIS made on this bill include making clear what a company's security obligations are in circumstances where a company is providing or reselling an over-the-top service, where telecommunications infrastructure is used but not necessarily owned or operated by the company, where a company's infrastructure is located in a foreign country and used to provide services and carry or store information from Australian customers and where a company provides cloud computing and cloud storage solutions. The recommendations include making clear that the bill does not apply to certain broadcasters and a recommendation that the Attorney-General's Department work collaboratively with industry to ensure effective and regular information sharing, including threat information to aid industry compliance.
Further recommendations ask that the sorts of changes that require notification to the Communications Access Co-ordinator be made clear and recommend outlining the application process for exemptions from notification requirements; making clear that the bill does not affect the operation of existing legislated privacy obligations; specifying what must be included in the annual report presented to parliament; and making it clear that the Attorney-General will take into account whether the Communications Access Co-ordinator has complied with the applicable statutory time frames before issuing a direction.
A final group of recommendations suggested outlining the avenues available for industry to recover reasonable costs in certain circumstances; expanding the scope of the PJCIS's review of the data retention regime to include consideration of the security of offshore data that have been retained under the regime; introducing a new requirement that carriers and carriage service providers notify the Communications Access Co-ordinator of any new or amended offshoring arrangements; and, finally, introducing a new requirement that the PJCIS review the operation, effectiveness and implications of the reforms within three years.
Labor has consistently worked with the government to ensure that our security agencies have the powers they need to keep Australians safe. This bill will provide our security agencies with the powers and tools they need to protect our telecommunications networks from malicious actors. Without these reforms, the government, up until now, has had to rely on the goodwill of the telecommunications industry to voluntarily implement advice from security agencies. If telecommunications companies do not wish to implement the advice voluntarily, at present our security agencies do not have adequate levers to ensure that networks and facilities are safe.
The Attorney-General currently has the power to direct a carrier or carriage service provider to cease its services on security grounds where necessary. Due to the severe impact that the use of this power might have on innocent users of non-complying telecommunications companies, as well as on Australia's economy and telecommunications infrastructure, the power has never been used. This bill does not change the operation or effect of the existing power but does increase safeguards around the use of the power by adding a requirement that ASIO must have issued an adverse security assessment before it can be exercised and ensuring that a decision to issue a direction can be subject to judicial review.
The bill also grants the Attorney-General the power to direct a carrier or carriage service provider 'to do, or to refrain from doing, a specified act or thing' within a specified period to eliminate or reduce risks that are prejudicial to security. The types of things that the Attorney-General can direct a carrier or carriage service provider to do must be 'reasonably necessary' to reduce or eliminate the risk of unauthorised access or interference. There are a number of safeguards also around the use of this power. It cannot be exercised without an adverse security assessment, and the Attorney-General must be satisfied before issuing a direction that all reasonable steps have been taken to reach agreement and to consult the affected carrier or carriage service provider in good faith.
Industry stakeholders raised concerns about the threshold for issuing a direction, through the PJCIS inquiry into the bill. This concern was also raised by the Law Council of Australia in their submission on the exposure draft of the bill. The Law Council concluded that, as it was 'unclear whether a risk or prejudice to security must be substantial, likely, imminent or of severe potential impact before an adverse security assessment is issued', the threshold was not sufficiently transparent. The Law Council recommended that the exercise of the directions powers should only be permitted where there is a sufficient level of risk to security to justify the exercise of the powers. However, the Attorney-General's Department highlighted that lowering the threshold would undermine the purpose of the reforms:
… which is to encourage industry to engage early with Government to ensure any potential national security risks are appropriately mitigated before they become substantial and imminent.
The bill also empowers the Secretary of the Attorney-General's Department to request information that relates to security threats to carriers and carriage service providers and their intermediaries. The fact that currently industry is not obliged under law to share threat information with security agencies means that our agencies lack the visibility of potential threats.
This bill puts in place processes for information sharing, to ensure that agencies are aware of any threats to critical infrastructure. However, industry stakeholders raised concerns that the bill does not place an obligation on the government to proactively brief industry about possible threats and attacks. Optus noted that it would be challenging for industry to notify the government about possible vulnerabilities in their networks or infrastructure where industry may not be aware of a specific threat or risk information. The PJCIS agreed with these concerns and recommended that the Attorney-General's Department should collaborate with industry to ensure effective and regular information sharing—in particular, sharing threat information with industry.
A key issue that was raised through the PJCIS hearings related to the security of telecommunications data that is stored offshore. The Attorney-General's Department advised:
… the law does not currently compel telecommunications providers to tell the Government where retained data is stored.
The draft administrative guidelines for the bill note:
Offshoring raises security concerns because it enables access and control to critical parts of major Australian telecommunications networks outside of Australia, this can facilitate foreign intelligence collection (espionage) and disrupt the network itself (sabotage). Risks arise where control and supervision arrangements have the potential to allow unauthorised actions by third parties, such as theft of customer data or sabotage of the network.
Macquarie Telecom Australia raised concerns about the offshoring of data and stated that it considered it important that Australia retain sovereignty over certain types of information.
The PJCIS expressed concern in its advisory report on the bill that existing laws do not provide government with visibility about where and how data is being stored, and emphasised that it is critical that the Australian community can have confidence in the telecommunications sector—especially in the security of stored data. The PJCIS recommended that the committee's review of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act be expanded to include consideration of the security of offshore telecommunications data that is retained by a service provider for the purpose of the data retention regime. It also recommended that the bill be amended to include, in relation to data retained under part 5-1A of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979, a specific obligation within the notification requirement in proposed section 314A to require carriers and carriage service providers to notify the Communications Access Coordinator of any new or amended offshoring arrangements.
Labor is pleased that the government has accepted all of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for improvements to this bill and commends the bill and the amendments to the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
by leave—I move:
That the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 be referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration.
Question agreed to.
My sisters and I are living proof of the transformative powers of a quality public education and the transformative powers of a tertiary education. Like so many Australians, and so many in this chamber, I am the first in my family to go to university. It was thanks to the changes that the Whitlam government introduced in the seventies that I was allowed that transformative opportunity. My sisters and I are living proof of the power of education and of the way it transforms lives. It broke our cycle of disadvantage. It broke an intergenerational cycle of disadvantage. My great-grandmother, a cleaner in the western district of Victoria, had 13 kids and brought them up on her own in a house with dirt floors and paper walls. She had a very early death as a result of being a cleaner. Can you imagine the western district in the early part of the last century and having to do everything by hand? Her hands would have been red raw after doing the washing just for her own family, let alone for the wealthy properties around the western district. That was my great-grandmother's life. She had to leave school at 12 because she was from a poor background.
My grandmother was also a cleaner. She had three cleaning jobs, in Melbourne. She brought up seven kids on her own in a Housing Commission house in Preston with an abattoir down at the end of the street. Once a month, the cattle would wander down my mum's street, heading to the abattoir. Her house was in Stoke Street, Preston, but a very different Stoke Street to what exists today. It is very much gentrified now but it was pretty rugged in the thirties, forties and fifties when my mum was growing up in Housing Commission house with a single mum who had seven kids and was on her own. Her mother was a woman working three jobs just to keep food on the table. I've said many times in this chamber that the abiding fear that my grandmother had was that the state would take her children away because of her poverty. That was her abiding fear, which is why she worked those three jobs day in and day out to keep food on the table. My grandmother had to leave school at 13 because of the circumstances of my great-grandmother.
Then there's my mother, who was dragged kicking and screaming from school at 15. She wanted to matriculate but didn't get the opportunity due to the circumstances into which she was born. She was denied the opportunity of education but was desperate to have the opportunity. When my father left us, when I was 11, with just $30 in the bank and a pretty bleak future, we were all staring down the possibility of not one, not two, not three but four generations of poverty and disadvantage as a result of a lack of access to education. But my mother was determined that her daughters were going to be educated and to at least finish high school and, hopefully, go to university. As I said, thanks to the Whitlam government, I was the first in my family to be educated. It broke that cycle of disadvantage. It broke that cycle of poverty.
My sisters also had the opportunity to be educated. I proudly say that my middle sister is Australia's first female master of wine. She is a wine consultant who has worked throughout the world. Her tertiary education has opened up so many opportunities. She has worked in South America, Europe and Asia, and it is all thanks to the choice and opportunities—and the wine!—that have been provided to her from tertiary education.
My baby sister, my little sister, is an internationally renowned neurologist and an expert in dementia and stroke. Can you imagine what my grandmother would be thinking now if she saw these three women? Here am I, with the great honour of being the member for Canberra, representing my community in this great chamber in this parliament. Imagine what my grandmother would be thinking. There she was, scrubbing her hands red-raw all those years ago just to put food on the table for the 13 kids, denied every opportunity, denied choice, denied a life that so many others had, because she didn't have access to education. I cannot rave enough about the transformative powers of education. It has changed my sisters' lives—Meg and Amy—and my life. Without a tertiary education, we would not have the choice, the opportunities and the rich and wonderful experiences we have had as a result of tertiary education.
I want that opportunity and that choice for every Australian. I want every Australian—should they choose—to have access to tertiary education and the opportunity to have those cycles of disadvantage and poverty broken, particularly for Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander communities and people like me. With my dad having left us $11.30 in the bank every second night during my teens, we would eat out at family's and friends' places because mum couldn't afford to put food on the table every night of the week. I want people from low-income backgrounds and also women to have the access to opportunity and choice that is offered through tertiary education. I want every Australian to be able to aspire to a university education and have the opportunity for a university education. That is why I was recently at my alma mater, the Australian National University, to protest against the government cuts in this area and the fact that the Australian National University and the University of Canberra are looking at cuts of $52.5 million over the next four years.
We've seen cuts already in the school sector. Schools right across my electorate have been victims of the $17 billion in cuts. We've seen cuts in TAFE of more than $2.8 billion, with a further cut in this year's budget. What's the impact of those cuts in vocational education sector—a sector that provides great opportunity, particularly for low socio-economic people, those from disadvantaged backgrounds, those who don't necessarily see tertiary education as the option for them and want to go into a trade or a vocational career? This government, through its cuts, has denied not just access and opportunity through tertiary education but also the opportunities and choice that are provided by vocational education.
Since this government took office, the number of apprentices has dropped by more than 145,000. This is at a time when we need skills. We have a significant skill shortage in this nation in every sector and this government has had this impact on skills. That's what you get when you have cuts to TAFE, schools and now universities. The national day of protest that I attended at the Australian National University just recently was about the many fears of these students, including the shutting of the door to opportunity and choice, to a future that offers endless possibilities. They're very concerned about the fact that their fees are going up. They're concerned that it's going to make it more challenging for them to actually make ends meet. Many who have been to university have pulled beers somewhere. For me, it was cleaning houses here in Canberra and waitressing as well. I did a range of jobs. It's challenging enough just to make ends meet as a student—and here they are with the fees going up. They are also concerned that we're going to see a brain drain in this country because it's going to be too expensive to go to university here.
A few years ago, I met with students at another of my alma maters, the RMIT—the wonderful Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, the oldest workers college in the world. I was down there meeting with students from the Labor club there, and these students, particularly engineers, were really concerned about the fact that it was going to become too expensive to get an education here in Australia. They were talking to me about the possibility of going to Europe—particularly to Germany, because of its expertise in engineering, and STEM more generally, but also because of the expertise and opportunities that are offered there for engineers. So they were weighing up whether they should stay in Australia and go on to do postgraduate education or whether they should go to Germany and get their education there, because they were very, very concerned about the costs here in Australia of doing that. The German option would be wonderful not only in terms of educational opportunity but also just in terms of the experience of living in another country and learning another language. My concern was that, in a country like ours, which is desperate for engineers—it has a significant shortage of engineers—here we were, basically sending them away to be educated elsewhere, and that then they were probably going to stay there, because of the opportunities in industry that we see that Germany provides. So we're not just seeing a brain drain in terms of students going off to other countries to be tertiary educated; we're also seeing a brain drain in terms of people actually staying in other countries and using the benefits of that education in those other nations—particularly in engineering, in which we have such a significant skill shortage here in this country.
We also spoke at the national day of protest about the fact that students actually have to start paying back their HECS debt earlier. That's also going to have a significant impact in terms of students weighing up whether they will do a university degree.
The government is also making changes in relation to enabling courses. The beauty about education now is that it offers so much flexibility. When I was going through, and when those opposite were going through, it was very rigid as to what you could study and when you had to study, in terms of when you had to complete the degree. Now you can pull in subjects from all over a university, and also from vocational education institutions, to create a very bespoke degree. What's available to students now is extraordinary. This has real benefits. Something that this side of the chamber has fought for, for so long, is the need to provide pathways for those students who may not have got the level to get into university but who still aspire to go to university and for those who have gone to TAFE and done a trade and then have worked out later, 'Okay; actually, I do want to go and become a lawyer now,' or, 'I do want to become an engineer now.' A range of pathway options have been provided, so that students do have that flexibility to transition into a new career option, through these enabling courses. Now the government is making changes to these enabling courses so that, where they've traditionally been free, these courses are now going to cost students $3,200. These enabling courses are usually attended by students from under-represented and disadvantaged backgrounds, and we know, from speaking to these students, that the pathways that have been opened have been extraordinary—possibly, from a plumber to an engineer, from a hairdresser to a doctor or from an electrician to an accountant. That's what my father did. But he did it the hard way—it was not actually through an enabling course but through the hard grind of night school after doing his day job as an electrician.
Universities Australia has condemned these changes. Universities Australia Chief Executive Belinda Robinson said that:
… the Australian community could see it made no sense to cut university funding at a time of rapid and dramatic economic change.
She said:
This confirms that the Government's plan to impose a $2.8 billion cut on universities and students is way out of kilter with community sentiment …
Voters don't want to see cuts to universities—which are key drivers of economic growth—
I mean, this is what's so extraordinary; these are key drivers of economic growth—
because they create new jobs, reskill Australians and secure $24 billion a year in export income.
Labor understands the importance, the transformative powers, of education—of tertiary education and of secondary education. We see investing in education as investing in our future and in our economic prosperity. Unfortunately, those opposite don't.
Listening to the previous member, the member for Canberra, share her personal story of the opportunity that education provided to her and her family really, really resonated with me, as I'm sure it resonates with many Australians who might be listening today. It resonates with me because of my personal story and the story of my grandfather and his determination to see his three daughters educated. It resonates with my because of my personal story of having the opportunities of going to university and of working my way out of poverty, out of a single-parent pension. But it also resonates with me because I've spent a good part of my life in the higher education sector—in the training sector and in the university sector—and I've spent a good part of my life advising young people about their pathways to an education to realise their dreams, and to realise their potential.
In this place, we rise to speak on a lot of bills. We rise to speak on things that sometimes don't really touch your heart very much—things that sometimes I don't completely understand either. But it's bills like these that really get you. Bills like these really get to the heart of things, because they are really about our future and about our young people. If you deal with a lot of young people, as I have in the past and as I continue to, you get a sense of just how important it is to assess the impact of bills like these before they are introduced.
Just the other day, I was flying back home to Perth and one of the cabin crew came up to me and very quietly nudged beside me and said, 'I've read a lot of your work,' and I said, 'Oh, well, thank you very much'. Michelle was her name, and Michelle is doing a bachelors degree in criminology while at the same time working full-time as cabin crew. She has an aspiration to work in counterterrorism and security. She asked for my advice and I said to her, 'Look, send me an email. I'm really happy to sit with you and advise you on how you can realise your dream and how you can craft your pathway through education to achieve this dream.' Since then, we've been contacting each other and I have been advising her on appropriate postgraduate courses for once she finishes her bachelors degree.
Michelle is just one example of the many young people that I come into contact with—and not necessarily young, some people who are mature-age students as well—who see education as a real pathway, a real opportunity, to improve their lives and to achieve something not just for themselves but also as a way of contributing to Australian society, to the political, economic and social wellbeing of our community as a whole.
It's those stories that make me proud to stand up here today to speak about this bill and to oppose this bill, because in its very essence this bill actually means a $3.8 billion cut to our universities. And these cuts come at a time when Australia really should be investing in education, and particularly investing in our universities. Cuts to education simply seem to be part of this government's DNA. We've seen them do the same thing to schools. They have a track record of not just undervaluing education but actually ripping the heart out of our education system, with no understanding and no commitment to delivering a high-quality and equitable education system.
Importantly, the bill also means increased fees and debt for university students. Australian students already pay the sixth-highest fees in the OECD. Australia is already one of the most expensive places in the world to study, and our university students are already feeling the pressure of having to struggle through their university courses. Let me tell you, as somebody who has worked a lot with university students, they're not going out for avocado on toast every morning. They're struggling with the stress of having to make ends meet while they go to university, as the previous speaker, the member for Canberra, also elaborated on in her speech, and they do this while those who have enjoyed the benefits of a free university education are introducing cuts that are going to force them to pay more.
The fee hikes in this bill will make fees and student debt even higher in this country. It will lower the threshold for HELP debt repayments, meaning students will have to pay back that bigger debt even sooner. So we're not just creating bigger debts for students while they're at university and we're not just putting more pressure on them while they're at university but even after they leave university, if they are fortunate enough to find a job in this current climate, we're putting more stress on them by making them pay a bigger debt earlier. So there is little wonder why the higher education sector unanimously opposes this package.
The government like to call the measures in this bill 'reform.' They like to dress it up as education reform. That's a handy bit of semantics that they like to use whenever they want to make it look like they're actually doing something worthwhile. The higher education sector on the other hand, which, I might add, is full of people who understand this policy and its impacts very well, can see that it is not reform at all; it is simply cuts—cuts dressed up as some kind of reform. All this bill amounts to is $3.8 billion of cuts—just like their tax cuts for millionaires and big business.
In contrast, Labor has always supported higher education in this country, and we have delivered real reform for our universities. When we were last in government we increased investment in universities because we understand that investing in education is investing in the future of both the individual student and Australian society generally. We know that a qualification from a TAFE or a university can set you up for life, as the member for Canberra iterated in her personal story and as I have iterated before in this House with my personal story as well. As I said earlier, I'm sure many, many Australians can relate to the story of just how much the opportunity for an education, whether it is a TAFE degree or a university degree, helped them to contribute more positively to Australian society.
We on this side know that many jobs both now and in the future are going to require post-school qualification. The Liberals seem to think that education is a choice, one that can only be afforded to those with rich parents who can afford to pay for it. But they need to know that, increasingly, education and post-school education—TAFE or university—is not a choice but a necessity. That's why these cuts are some of the worst decisions that a government could make. Labor's not about to take money from universities and students in order to give the big end of town a tax break. That's not who we are; that's not how we do things. As I mentioned, I've spent a lot of years in the higher education sector—at TAFE and at university—and I know from experience the devastating impact that this bill will have on universities, on students, on Australia's research capabilities and ultimately on our capacity to meet the needs of a changing world.
As the previous speaker mentioned, there is a danger here of a brain drain in Australia. Already we are seeing our young people who may be university educated in Australia going overseas to work because they can't find jobs here. What this bill will induce is a mass migration of our students to countries overseas where it's cheaper to study and where there's a better quality education framework. We simply can't afford to be losing our young people in this way.
This government likes to talk big. They like to use words like 'innovation,' 'reform,' and 'action', but in actual fact all they've shown is that they lack an understanding of any of these words. How can you 'innovate' while ripping the heart out of universities, which is where innovation begins? How can you 'reform' a sector when all you're doing is cutting funding to that sector? How can you claim to be taking 'action' when all you're doing is slugging already struggling students to pay for your $65 billion tax cuts to the big end of town? I just don't understand how this government can claim to be innovative, how they can claim that this is some kind of reform and how they can claim to be taking action when they have demonstrated absolutely no understanding of the value of education, the value of innovation or the value of research—particularly research that's undertaken in universities. They've shown a lack of understanding of all of those things, because all they are proposing with this bill is a massive cut to universities and a massive cut to the research sector while, at the same time, slugging already struggling students with higher fees.
If we take a closer look at some of the measures in this bill, there is this idea of imposing a fee on enabling courses. These courses are pathway or preparation courses for some students and for some of the most disadvantaged students. There's absolutely no support for this measure from the sector, and I would echo that. I have advised so many students from disadvantaged backgrounds who want nothing more than to be able to rise out of their circumstances, who want nothing more than to be able to get a university education and make a life for themselves. I've come across these people; I've sat with them; I've had them in my home. I've talked to them about what opportunities might be there for them. I've seen young men who are at risk of following a negative pathway in life. I have seen their lives change and their trajectory change by going through a pathway course, an enabling course, and eventually getting into university. I've seen the change that a pathway course, an enabling course, can make to the lives of some of the most disadvantaged young people, people who are vulnerable, and people who are at risk of becoming involved in criminal and terrorist activity.
I stand here to say that I have personally helped several young men get to university by accessing these very enabling courses and diverting them from a path that could have led them to a very tragic end. To propose a fee on these enabling courses will simply shut that door for all of those young people coming from disadvantaged backgrounds who seek nothing more than a better station in life through the opportunities that a university education can afford them.
The cuts in this bill will also damage Australia's research efforts. Australia already has the second-lowest level of public investment in universities in the OECD, and these cuts are only going to make that record worse. Governments around the world understand that investing in higher education is critical to ensure the futureproofing of their country's workforce, but we don't seem to get that here. We do need to futureproof our workforce. We need to do that through innovation and through research that comes through our universities.
I know how important funding and support for university research is because it was my life before entering parliament. As a professor I had several research grants that I was working on, from the Australian Research Council and from other sources. Through those research grants, partnering with some of the top universities around the world, we were able to do some groundbreaking research into what leads young people down a path of radicalisation and terrorist violence. At one of the universities that I worked at, the cuts to the sector meant that dozens of PhD students lost supervisors, leaving them and their studies up in the air.
In conclusion, we don't support this bill. We don't support cuts to education. Labor will always stand for opportunity. Labor will always stand for a quality education sector.
I rise to speak on the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (A More Sustainable, Responsive and Transparent Higher Education System) Bill 2017. Like many people in this place, I am one of the lucky ones. I got my tertiary education for free in that small window between when Labor made education free and when we introduced a modest fee for it. I slipped in there and went to the conservatorium at a time when people where I lived didn't go to university. I was one of four daughters. I had three incredibly smart sisters who all left school at 15 or 17 and later got their university degrees part time at night over many years. They were all very successful people, but university just wasn't on the agenda when I was growing up. I was incredibly lucky.
When I was studying, even though I was working part-time jobs to pay my rent I knew that the bulk of the costs of my education were being paid for by people who were paying taxes. I knew that the generation before me was paying for my education, and my expectation was that I would pay for the next one. I would use that education to do well, I would work and pay my taxes, and the next generation would go to university on my tax dollar, just as I went to university on that of the generation before me. That was my expectation.
Like many people at that time who were working our way through uni—in fact, 72 per cent of students at Western Sydney worked their way through—I had some weird jobs. I worked from midnight to dawn at a chicken factory. When people buy a chicken they think it has always looked like it does in the shop. Well, chickens don't die like that. It was my job, from 10 pm to 6 am, to bend those chickens' legs back into the aesthetically pleasing shape you see in the shop. They weren't like that when they reached me on the line, but they were like that when they left. At six o'clock in the morning I would take off my white babushka, my white coat and my white gumboots and go to the conservatorium to get a good piano so I could practise for three hours before my first lecture. Then I would get a few hours of sleep and go back to the chicken factory at 10 o'clock. I did that for quite a while. There were a few other weird jobs as well. In spite of that, I am well aware that the bulk of my education was not paid for by me; it was paid for by the generation before me, and I thank them every day for that.
This bill cuts $3.8 billion from our tertiary education sector on top of the $3.7 billion cut to the Education Investment Fund. To me, this is intergenerational theft. This is a sign that this generation is not prepared to do the work for the next one—that we've taken what we got for free and at someone else's expense and we have refused to pass that on. I think that is an incredible shame. This bill reduces access to education.
In Western Sydney, where I live, it is particularly unfair and unwise. The educational attainment gap in Western Sydney is 31 per cent. Tertiary qualifications among 25- to 34-year-olds in Western Sydney run at 16.5 per cent—significantly lower than the broader community. This bill says that's okay. It is not. It's not okay that people in Western Sydney have an educational attainment gap of 31 per cent. Through the cuts, this bill also puts at risk the outreach programs and the partnerships that work to reduce that attainment gap. Western Sydney works incredibly hard to reduce that number to get young people into university through a range of paths. The $98.3 million cut that Western Sydney University will sustain over the next four years puts that at serious risk.
My electorate is incredibly diverse. It's a fabulous place. People literally cross the oceans to get to Parramatta to build a better life for their children. But whether they are born here or migrated here, they have an extraordinary commitment to educating their children. Fifty per cent of students at Western Sydney University are the first in their family to go to university. As I'm quoting that figure, I'm realising that that's a 2015 figure—50 per cent in 2015 were first in families. It's actually 60 per cent now, so it's grown in two years—a great indication of the work Western Sydney University does to go out into the community and bring people into the education stream.
They say that parents are the greatest indication of a child's education. Well, in Western Sydney, 60 per cent of university students are the first in their family. If you go to a graduation ceremony at Western Sydney University you can see that, because it's a bit like a football match. Someone goes up to get their certificate, and there's cheering and hollering and shouting from the crowd. They're fabulous, fabulous moments. Seventy point two per cent work their way through. One in four students come from a low socioeconomic background, and 37 per cent speak a language other than English at home. This is a university that we in this place should be supporting to the full extent. This is a university doing the hard lifting in Western Sydney, working to close that educational attainment gap, and it's an extraordinary place. It's a great place to visit.
So let's look at what impact these cuts will have. They do a range of things. For all the talk of innovation and jobs and growth, they actually make access to education much more difficult. It's a $3.8 billion cut, even though Australia already has the second-lowest level of public investment in universities in the OECD, and our students already pay the sixth-highest fees in the OECD. This will make the situation even worse. Students will be hit with higher fees, and they'll have to pay off larger debts sooner. They'll have to start paying back their loan while they're earning $42,000 instead of $54,869. The HELP repayments will hit students at a time when they're trying to save for a house or start a family, and $42,000 is only $6,000 more than the minimum wage. By the time you take transfer payments and marginal tax rates into account, we'll see a situation where a person earning $51,000 will have less disposable income than someone earning $32,000.
The government doesn't like to talk about it, but that will also flow through to those who have received VET FEE-HELP or VET student loans for TAFE and vocational education or training. It also attempts to introduce fees for enabling courses. Enabling courses are all those ways that universities have of assisting people who perhaps didn't go to high school or are older. They may have workplace qualifications but not university entrance qualifications. They are ways for universities to take people into the possibility of a university education. Because they don't give qualifications, they've been free. But, under this bill, there'll be charges of up to $3,200 for these courses. Again, that alone would put these courses out of reach of many, many people in Western Sydney and put a hold on one of the great attempts to close that education gap.
Of course, for New Zealanders and permanent residents, there's a nasty in this bill. For the majority of New Zealand citizens and permanent residents studying in Australia, fees will jump significantly, as they'll no longer be able to access Commonwealth supported places. For a lot of the New Zealanders in my electorate who are working very hard to provide the best possible opportunities for their children, this is a serious blow. It simply beggars belief that many of those families would be able to afford the full rates to educate their children. It's not good for that person or for Australia to have large numbers of people who are cut out of university because of an inability to pay.
I want to talk particularly about my fabulous university and the role it plays in Western Sydney. For me, it's one of the great universities. It's incredibly innovative. It built a wonderful building across the road from my office. I had to put up with all the jackhammers for ages, but, once it topped out, it was fine. It's the most extraordinary place, where people gather. It has full IT support. Every wall is a moving whiteboard. It's an extraordinary place for new ways of thinking and for people to assemble to solve problems. The university has been working really hard on stimulating innovation in Western Sydney. It has a start-up incubator called Launch Pad and a small-to-medium tech enterprise accelerator, and neither of those would be able to continue—both would be at serious risk—under what is a $98 million cut to the university. These nice add-ons that the university provides, which solve problems in the community, reach out into the communities and take the skills of universities out into the community, are the things that get cut first as the universities get their budgets cut and pull back to the courses that they deliver. That would be an incredible shame, because it's a great program and we're already seeing the benefits of it.
They have 400 knowledge jobs created at Penrith—again, something outside the standard course structure and something that would be incredibly at risk under these budget cuts. It puts an end, really, to Western Sydney's ability to partner with industry and government in proven job creation programs like, for example, Western Sydney University's co-investment with the Commonwealth in the $30 million Werrington Park Corporate Centre in 2013. Part of the Suburban Jobs Program, this facility brings more than 400 high-value jobs to Penrith in outer Western Sydney, something incredibly important for the region, good for the local economy and good for families that benefit from these really high-skilled jobs.
We also have strategies within Western Sydney University to prepare the labour market for digital disruption, and these would be at risk. Western Sydney University, for example, initiates tests and invests in courses that support the changing labour market paradigms. Starting these courses has high transactional costs initially. It takes a while for these things to take off. For example, the university has recently developed courses in fields such as digital cultures, data visualisation, innovation and change, enterprise innovation and markets, leadership and entrepreneurship, social web analytics, robotics and automated manufacturing—all courses with high start-up costs and high transactional costs that will not generate the kinds of returns that would make them self-sustaining for quite some time. Universities in all places need to be in these spaces.
When I go out into my community in Western Sydney, one of the things I really notice that is perhaps our biggest difficulty at the moment is people with great ideas or great capacity being able to find others with whom to partner and finding fertile ground for ideas to land. You will have a great entrepreneur there, a person with a great idea there and a person with a great need over there, and there are very few places where those people will actually see each other. There's no mirror in Western Sydney that allows a person with a great idea to look and say, 'Well, there's me, and there's my community around me.' So we waste an incredible capacity by not having those linkages.
I know that, even in the last four or five years, the work that Western Sydney University has done in reaching out to the community to build those connections, not just between the university and others but within the community itself, is quite phenomenal. I have mentioned some of those programs, but there is also that extraordinary building they built across the road which is designed for that. It's designed to become a thought hub, a place where a community can think, where it can share its ideas, where it can recognise its skills deficits and where the university can step in, as they have in many of those new courses, and provide structured training in some of the new job areas. That's where our universities need to be.
Now is not the time to try and force universities to pull back to their core activity. Now is not the time for that. It's the time to grow it. It's the time for our best minds within universities and in the community to get together and find ways to position us for 20 years ahead. How a university does that when it's facing these kind of cuts I just don't know, and I know that my university will find it increasingly difficult to do that.
We've had great work by all of our universities in the last few years in trying to position their education programs for the new requirements of work and the new requirements of business, and they are profoundly different from the requirements of even five years ago. They will be profoundly different again in five years time, and that's the space that we need our universities to be in. We need universities working with local business and with local thought leaders and local innovators to work out exactly what we need for the future and deliver it.
These cuts will send us backwards. They will send my families backwards. They will send the economy backwards. They will send the community backwards. There couldn't be a worse time to do it. For all the talk about innovation—being an innovation country, being an innovation leader—and for all the talk of this government about jobs and growth, this is probably one of the most anti-jobs and anti-growth acts that this government could do, because the jobs of the future will come from these kinds of programs and these budget cuts put them at risk.
I think you can see from the length of the speakers list just how importantly Labor members regard our opposition to this terrible bill. The Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (A More Sustainable, Responsive and Transparent Higher Education System) Bill 2017 will set tertiary education in this country back even further than it has been going under the Liberals and the Nationals for the last 4½ years.
As my colleague the member for Parramatta just stated, this is exactly the wrong time to be contemplating these sort of cuts. I note that yesterday the member for Hughes said: 'There are no cuts. Funding's going up. Funding's going up.' He was his typical garrulous self. What he failed to mention to the House is that these are cuts, because the coalition went to the election stating a certain level of funding and now it has cut that funding. Every commentator and every university agrees that what is before the House and what is before the parliament is a series of cuts. What we are talking about is $3.8 billion to be cut from universities over the next five years.
This represents a philosophical divide between those on the other side and those on this side. We believe in higher education. We believe in the way it can elevate people's lives. We believe in its transformative effects. We don't see higher education as merely a contract between the student and the university. There is not merely a private gain or an individual gain, but there's also a community gain, a social gain and a national gain from having more, rather than less, young people go to university.
We all want the books to balance. Those on the other side often cry: 'It costs so much money. We've got to make sure the books can balance. It's a budget emergency.' These are some of the ridiculous statements we've heard in recent years. Well, it is a question of priorities. Do you prioritise education or do you prioritise corporate tax cuts? As we know, this Treasurer and this Prime Minister are hell-bent on delivering to this country either a $50 billion tax break or a $65 billion tax break, depending on who you talk to and on what maths you agree with. Let's go with the lower figure: a $50 billion tax break over the next 10 years. Compare that—why on earth would you be cutting university funding in order to fund a corporate tax break? It doesn't make sense. It's a corporate tax break that's only going to deliver 0.1 per cent of GDP growth over 10 years? It's a rounding error. If you put that money into higher education alone, the extra economic activity that that will generate for this country over the next 10 years will be many magnitudes higher, not to mention the benefits to the lives of those involved.
I look up to the gallery and I see school children who have come to this place—hi, kids—to see their parliament in action. Over the next 13 years, they'll be looking at going to university. Why on earth would this parliament be contemplating making it harder for these kids to go to university, rather than easier? Surely, it is the job of this parliament to make it easier for these kids to get into university, not harder? Why was it easier for the members of this parliament to have gone to high school and university and to have had either a free education—thanks to Gough Whitlam—or a low-cost university education? Why was it easier for members of this parliament, myself included, and certainly members on the opposite benches, to have a low-cost university education, and yet we're going to tell these kids in these galleries, 'Sorry kids, mum and dad have to pony up $100,000 over the next 10 or 15 years to pay for you to go to university.' It's absolutely unconscionable. It's unnecessary. It's mean.
This government just gets it wrong on everything. You would think that, if there were an area of public policy that it would have put some thought into, it would be higher education. They've had 29 reviews. Twenty-nine reviews, costing $4.7 million, and they still can't get it right. That's because this minister has not been tasked with improving higher education; he's been tasked with cutting funding, because what we have is a Prime Minister and a Treasurer who are so obsessed with their $50 billion corporate tax break that they have tasked this minister, the so-called minister for education, with cutting costs rather than improving education. What an indictment of him and his capabilities as a minister that he gives no thought to improving higher education and thinks only of running a red line through costs! When your sole motivation is to feed the slavish desires of a Treasurer and a Prime Minister more interested in corporate tax breaks than education funding, you really should be hanging up your boots as a minister.
In my electorate of Lyons in regional Tasmania, we have areas of very high disadvantage. At a forum on inequality with the shadow regions minister, the member for Whitlam, earlier this year, we listened as people in my community talked about the challenges of getting through high school, let alone contemplating college in my state—we don't have senior high school; years 11 and 12 go onto college—and how thoughts of university or other further education are simply not on many people's radar. That's now, before these cuts, before the higher charges kick in, before the demands for earlier repayments and before the $3,000 fees for the enabling courses.
What sort of a government would introduce fees for enabling courses for people who have struggled through their lives and maybe have got to adulthood through high school or maybe have struggled through high school and thought, 'You know, I want to improve my life, and maybe I'll try to get to university'? At the moment, those enabling courses allow adults to sample university life at no cost to see whether they are suited for life at university in order to improve their lives, and this government wants to introduce $3,000 fees for enabling courses for people who want to improve their lives. There's no qualification with enabling courses. There's no diploma or certificate. An enabling course merely allows people to taste what university might be like to see whether they're suited for it. This government wants to say: 'Well, you can pay $3,000 for that. You can pay $3,000 to see whether you are able to go to university. Then, if you still decide to go to university, we're going to heap a whole pile more fees on top of you and you'll be paying them back earlier.' What sort of signal does that send to people who want to improve their lives and get a university education in this country? It is the wrong signal and the wrong priority from a government that is all wrong on just about everything it touches.
When you're busy trying to keep a roof over your family's head—I'll come back to that forum on inequality—and you're dealing with life issues in the outer suburbs and the regions and thinking of putting food on the table, even the thought of fitting anything else into your life is often too much. The thought of going to university doesn't even enter your head. When you make it out of reach, when you make it seem so insurmountable that you can't even contemplate the idea that you can even afford to go to university, people won't even think about it. It won't even be on their radar. It is just an assault. It is an absolute assault on people in regional communities by the ministers at the table today, including the Nationals Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. How the Nationals can be supporting this bill is just beyond me, because it's going be people in regional communities who will be deeply affected by this bill.
You don't need to look far to see other nations that are providing free and low-cost education. There are a number of European countries now, Germany amongst them, that are starting to go back to free education for university, and they are booming. Their economies aren't diving down the toilet. They're doing very well. Their citizens are happy. Their horizons are wider. Their economies are going from strength to strength.
The notion that this bill is needed to cut costs in order to balance the books is a lie. It is an absolute lie, because, at the same time that this government wants to cut costs for higher education, it wants to give $50 billion away to corporations in tax cuts and give tax breaks to people earning more than $180,000 a year. Look, I love tax breaks. Who doesn't love a tax cut?
But when you're faced with a choice between putting money into higher education and giving corporations who are recording record profits, it is no choice at all—you put your money on the kids. You put the money on the kids and the families of this country who want to improve their lives, because we all know that higher education improves not just individual lives but Australian life. Can those opposite really look me in the eye and tell me that it is a good plan for Australia to cut this much money out of higher education over the next 10 years at the same time they want to shovel $50 billion into the pockets of CEOs and corporations? Why on earth are we following the failed model of the United States, when the evidence that it hasn't worked is before us? Sure, the United States has some great universities in the Ivy League, but, gee, you've got to pay to get into them.
A lot of universities in America are rubbish. They give out rubbish certificates and rubbish degrees. Some of the community colleges are called McDonald's universities. Is that really the model that we want to employ, when we've traditionally had one of the best-performing university sectors in this country for the last 30 or 40 years? When Gough Whitlam introduced free tertiary education, it transformed lives. It transformed the lives of so many young people in regional communities and outer suburbs who previously hadn't thought they could go past high school. And I would say it has also transformed the lives of some of those opposite. It kills me that the Minister for Education and Training, Senator Birmingham, is a product of a public school education and a publicly funded university education. Here he is, turning his back on those sectors and making it harder for people like him, for the kids like him, to get the education that he got. It is a travesty.
Let's dig down for Tasmania. The ABS did a longitudinal study of the Tasmanian student cohorts of 2006 and 2010. Of the students who completed year 12 in 2010, 57 per cent were fully engaged in work or study one year after leaving school. Just under a quarter were in full-time employment and a third were in full-time study. A small proportion were in both part-time work and part-time study. Seventy-two per cent were fully engaged. So many Tasmanian schoolkids just don't even think of university.
We've already seen what this government is doing with TAFE—the TAFE cuts which have affected my state so dreadfully. One of the first things it did in 2013—in fact, I think it was the very first thing it did in 2013—was kill the Trade Training Centres in Schools Program, a program started, actually, by John Howard. That was a program that Labor did believe in. Labor thought, 'You know, that actually works well; we'll keep it.' And we did keep it through the Rudd-Gillard years. But one of the very first things this government did in 2013 was kill that program, and that ended opportunities for kids in my electorate. I'm so passionate about it, because I know that Campbell Town, in the heart of my electorate, was pretty much next off the rank to get one, and it didn't happen, so the kids in Campbell Town have missed out on that opportunity.
I'm a big believer in TAFE. I'm a big believer in apprenticeships. And I'm a big believer in higher education and university education because I know, and all the evidence shows, that a university education is the best pathway for higher pay and better life opportunities. Those opportunities should not be denied to people based on how much they can afford to pay or how much their parents can afford to pay. We do not want this country going back to a pre-Whitlam system, where the only way you got into university was either through a scholarship or because your parents were wealthy enough to send you there.
Kids should be going to university based on merit, based on their academic ability and based on their aptitude and their desire to be there. The only things that should count when it comes to university education are whether you're up to it intellectually and whether you've got the drive to do it. Nothing else should matter. But under this government, through these cuts, what will happen increasingly is that young people will be denied a university education because their parents don't earn enough or because they live in a postcode where they're surrounded by family, friends and their peers at school who don't think that a university education is for them, because they just don't contemplate that it's on their horizon. Any barrier that this government or this parliament puts in the way of higher education is a travesty and absolutely disgraceful. We can see from the speaking list how seriously Labor members take our opposition to this bill. The bill sends the wrong signal to this country, it's the wrong bill for the times and we oppose it unequivocally.
I, too, rise today to speak on the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (A More Sustainable, Responsive and Transparent Higher Education System) Bill 2017. As speakers on this side of the House have pointed out from the outset, Labor opposes this bill, and I strongly support the amendments moved by the member for Sydney.
You can see from the extent of our speaking list that many people on our side feel very strongly about ensuring that there's proper funding for education, particularly in this case for higher education funding. They are speaking on this to highlight how unfair this bill is. It is an unfair piece of legislation because, essentially, it means cuts for our universities, increases in fees for students, larger debts for students and making students pay back those bigger debts sooner. All in all, these changes are incredibly unfair. That's why we're seeing such a large number of speakers on this side and so few on that side, which is disappointing but which reflects their views on education generally.
Coming in here speaking about the Turnbull government's harsh cuts to education is a bit like Groundhog Day. We on this side of the House have been here many times in the last few years talking about their unfair cuts to schools, to TAFE, to apprenticeships and to training generally. Now we're here talking about their unfair cuts to universities. It seems that, over and over again, you just can't trust the Liberals and the Nationals when it comes to education and on many other issues that we've spoken about here. But, today, we're talking about education, another stage in education where they've got more harsh cuts. We make it clear that Labor stands with students and universities against the government's cuts and increases in fees.
This is a government that really is determined to push ahead with this harsh legislation to increase student fees and cut university funding by $3.8 billion. That's a huge amount. In the context of my electorate, the Liberal and National plan means that Southern Cross University, based in northern New South Wales, will have its funding slashed by $22.7 million over four years. That's a huge amount for a regional university like Southern Cross University. Of course, those cuts are part of the more than $617 million in cuts across New South Wales—a massive cut for my home state of New South Wales.
The fact is that cuts to universities risk lowering the quality of education that students receive. They also mean that students will be paying more for less and, as I said before, be forced to repay their debts sooner. Remember also that there will be university jobs at risk because of this. In contrast to these policies of the Turnbull government, the policies of the last Labor government meant a greater investment in education and an extra 190,000 students who got the opportunity to go to university. The fact is that the Turnbull government simply do not believe in investing in our young people's future and our country's future. They've already made $17 billion worth of cuts to schools and almost $3.5 billion in cuts to TAFE—massive amounts of cuts to training and education.
Today, I particularly want to focus on what these cuts mean for regional and rural Australia. It is already very difficult for younger people from the regions to get to university. There are many impediments, and this government just seems to keep putting more and more roadblocks in their way. This bill means that it will be very hard for those young people to access university. Many people tell me, all the time, that it's simply not on their radar and that it's just not possible for their children even to go to university. The cuts in training that we've seen from this government and the very high levels of youth unemployment, particularly in our regions add up to the fact that our younger people will have less opportunity to access higher education.
I would like to make it clear that it is the National Party that people in the regions blame for this. I often say, 'National Party choices hurt.' The National Party's choice and decision to support a bill that cuts funding to universities and increases fees for students from the regions will really hurt those younger people and their families in regional and rural Australia. They will be held to account for these harsh cuts and harsh changes to our university system.
The bill clearly demonstrates that the government's not serious about investing in a future that grows the economy and ensures that our younger people can access good and decent jobs. Instead the bill delivers almost $4 billion of cuts to the university sector. Those on the other side claim it's reform. In fact, it's not reform. It fails as reform because it fails to make a commitment to a sector that is absolutely integral and important to our younger people and their futures. It's not reform; it's another tedious Groundhog Day moment, where the basic rights of our young people are being eroded to make room for the $65 billion tax cut for big business.
Government is about choices and the choices that are made. The Turnbull government makes choices to give these massive tax cuts to multimillionaires and big business, but Labor makes choices about investing in education because we understand how important it is. When it comes to education, we should be ensuring that we are a country of equality and opportunity. We should be assisting every young person who wishes to improve their future by providing them with the opportunity to access higher education. Indeed, this bill goes to the heart of the inequality we see imposed on every sector under this government.
Universities support more than 130,000 jobs across Australia. Cuts to universities will put those jobs at risk, especially in our regional areas. And people employed in the universities in our regions also greatly assist our regional economies. So it will have a massive flow-on impact.
I seek leave to continue my speech at a later hour.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I am pleased to present a bill today that will provide for a range of additional safeguards to support the conduct of the Australian marriage law postal survey.
The government is honouring its commitment to deliver on its pre-election promise to give the Australian people a say on whether the law should be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry.
As the government announced on 8 August 2017, the government is proceeding with a voluntary postal survey for all Australians on the Commonwealth electoral roll and eligible to vote, with a final result to be known no later than 15 November 2017.
There are a range of measures already in place in Commonwealth legislation to safeguard the public in their participation in the Australian marriage law postal survey. In particular, there are postal and telecommunications offences under the Criminal Code. There is also prohibited conduct under the Census and Statistics Act 1905.
These existing Commonwealth laws are supplemented by existing criminal and civil penalties under state and territory legislation. This includes strong protections already in place for the prevention of hate speech and incitement to violence.
The government is, however, proposing to complement these safeguards with the additional measures contained in this bill, which are broadly consistent with safeguards which would apply in the context of a federal election. This will help ensure the integrity of this process and that Australians can have complete confidence that the outcome of the survey reflects the freely given views of the respondents and that those participating in the debate can do so in an appropriate environment.
Australians need to be assured there is appropriate transparency and accountability for those who communicate their messages as part of the debate on this issue.
The measures in the bill will support responsible conduct of public discussion by applying authorisation requirements similar to those that apply in the context of elections and referendums. This will promote the transparency and accountability of those making public comments in relation to the question in the marriage law survey.
These arrangements will apply to communications of all forms, including paid advertising, social media, bulk text messages and telephony, broadcast matter under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, and printed material. There are a range of sensible exceptions provided to these requirements to ensure that people continue to be able to freely express their political views, including those engaged in personal communication.
The bill will also impose obligations on broadcasters, including the ABC and SBS, who broadcast matter in favour of one side of the issue about whether the law should be changed to allow same-sex marriage, to provide a reasonable opportunity for an organisation to broadcast matter in favour of the opposing view. Broadcasters will be able to utilise an extra minute of non-program material to facilitate compliance with this requirement. Recognising that there are community broadcasters established to service specified community interests, these broadcasters will be exempt from the reasonable opportunity requirements.
Collecting statistical information is core business for the ABS, and the government has full confidence in their capacity to deliver this opportunity for Australians to have their say.
However, we need to be assured that the statistical information obtained has not been subject to influences such as bribery and threats or misleading information about how to complete the survey form, and ensure that those that engage in such influencing behaviour are held to account.
To address this, the bill will put in place a range of measures to ensure the integrity of the statistics that are collected as part of the process.
The bill includes penalties for receiving and giving bribes or making threats to influence or affect people's decisions on this matter, including whether to respond.
It also includes a civil penalty for printing, publishing and distributing matters or things that are likely to mislead or deceive a person in how they respond to the survey, for example, how the survey response is marked.
The bill also includes offences for officers who engage in conduct with the intention of influencing the content of a response provided to the Statistician.
The government believes that the Australian people are able to have this debate respectfully and courteously.
We also believe that Australians will judge anyone harshly, on either side of the debate, who pursues inappropriate and offensive arguments.
We certainly call on all Australians to participate in this debate with courtesy and respect.
However, the government acknowledges that we cannot guarantee that all Australians will at all times express their opinions on that basis.
For this reason, the bill will also establish an offence for grievous conduct against those participating in the debate, or against those who may hold strong views on the survey question.
The bill contains provisions against vilification, intimidation, and threat to cause harm, as well as for hindering or interfering with a person in making a response, or discriminating against a person for making a donation relating to the marriage law survey.
Importantly, merely expressing a view about the marriage law survey question does not trigger the offence provisions against vilification, intimidation or the threat of harm.
While the government would like nothing more than for these provisions never to be used, their inclusion gives the parliament the opportunity to send a clear message that hateful and malicious conduct will not be tolerated.
I remind the parliament that the government's preference was to deliver on the commitment to give the Australian people a say on whether the law should be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry through a compulsory attendance plebiscite.
Such an approach would have brought with it many existing safeguards and protections.
As we proceed with the survey as the new mechanism to give the Australian people their say, we need to separately provide those safeguards to ensure all Australians have the opportunity to participate in this process in the right environment.
I commend the bill.
Leave granted for second reading debate to continue immediately.
I rise to speak on the Marriage Law Survey (Additional Safeguards) Bill 2017. It's with a heavy heart that I speak on this bill today, because the Labor Party regrets that this bill is necessary at all. It is so sad that the Prime Minister and the government have put LGBTIQ Australians into this position of having their rights voted on by other Australians. It's sad that we have to propose safeguards against the hate speech that has already been unleashed by the Prime Minister and the government's decision to hold a postal survey on marriage equality. None of this bill, none of this legislation, would have been necessary if the Prime Minister had demonstrated leadership and allowed a free vote on marriage equality in the parliament.
Nevertheless, I am pleased that the government, in particular the Minister for Finance and Acting Special Minister of State, Senator Cormann, has worked with us in good faith to reach agreement on this bill. Importantly, Labor has been able to secure an acceptance by the government to ensure that LGBTI Australians are protected as far as possible against vilification and hate speech. I'd like also to acknowledge the work of my colleague Terri Butler, the shadow assistant minister for equality, for her hard work on this bill.
Back in 2016, when the government attempted to introduce a bill for the plebiscite, I made it clear that Labor rejected the false choice that it was either a plebiscite or nothing when it comes to marriage equality in Australia. It was always clear that the plebiscite, when it was devised in August 2015 by the member for Warringah and others in the right wing of his party who are opposed to marriage equality, was an attempt to delay marriage equality and, if possible, derail it. The plebiscite was never intended to progress marriage equality, and as a delaying tactic it has been very successful. Prime Minister Turnbull had the opportunity to show leadership on this issue, but instead he disappointed all Australians by going down this destructive path. His complete lack of backbone on marriage equality has been obvious throughout his time as Prime Minister. Need I remind the House that the Prime Minister was vehemently opposed to the idea of a plebiscite when it was first proposed. He knew that the argument for a plebiscite has never been grounded in principle. It goes against the principles of representative democracy and the role of this parliament to legislate. Holding a plebiscite is not the way Australia is governed.
That's why the Senate rejected the plebiscite. This should have been a clear message to the government that their method of going about this was all wrong, but instead they've doubled down on their divisive tactics, and now they're subverting what the decision of the legislature has already been in rejecting the plebiscite bill by now turning to the Australian Bureau of Statistics to conduct a postal survey. The postal survey will ask the question: should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry? This postal survey will cost Australian taxpayers an unnecessary $122 million and it is a waste of their time. We should be voting on marriage equality in this parliament right now, instead of this unnecessary waste of time and money and the harm that it will cause. Labor are still vehemently opposed to the government's wasteful, hurtful $122 million postal survey, just as we were opposed to the plebiscite. We know that the postal survey not only is unnecessary but will inflict hurt and suffering on the LGBTI community in Australia.
The debate on marriage equality in this country has already taken a turn for the worse, with disgusting arguments being raised by opponents to marriage equality, arguments that have nothing at all to do with the actual issue. I'll give an example that's just arrived today from the Marriage Alliance, who are one of the key groups in the 'no' case. They've written with this amazing phrase:
It's crucial that all Australians understand the serious consequences of making such a radical change as they prepare to vote. Consequences such as radical LGBTIQ sex and gender education programs being made compulsory in every school classroom.
That's not about vilification. That's just a false and dishonest statement. What we need to hear from the Prime Minister and the government is the calling out of false and dishonest statements from either side in this campaign. But it is already apparent that those on the 'no' side of this debate are putting forward irrelevancy piled on irrelevancy, engaging in dishonesty and untruthfulness, and misleading Australians about the possible impact of what is, in fact, a simple change to the Marriage Act in this country to make marriage equality a reality.
It is very unfortunate that this postal survey is going ahead. I say again: this safeguards bill does not legitimise the survey. We can't stop the survey from going ahead because, unfortunately, the High Court challenge failed, but we can seek to minimise the hurtful impact that it will have on LGBTI Australians—and that's what this bill sets out to do. That's why Labor's supporting it. The postal survey has been foisted on Australians at a massive cost, but we can't simply pretend it's not happening. We're not. We're getting out there and campaigning for 'yes'. We've also got to ensure that we do everything possible to make sure that there is as little harm as possible to Australians in the course of this debate.
The government has clearly recognised that the process that we are already embarked on will be hurtful to many Australians. That's, of course, why this bill is needed. The purpose of the provisions which have been outlined by the minister are to stop LGBTIQ Australians and their families, as well as those with religious convictions, being vilified and attacked and to make sure that the campaign is conducted in an orderly manner. We fought hard for the additional protections that are now included in this bill and are over and above what the government initially proposed. We do thank the government for working cooperatively with Labor throughout our negotiations on this bill. I'm not going to take up the time of the House in going through the purpose of the provisions or what the contents of the bill are, because the minister has done this.
I want to conclude by saying that this bill does not cancel out the hurt that is already being felt. It cannot cancel out the hurt that is already being felt. We in Labor will continue to call out hurtful and divisive speech. We will stand with the LGBTI community throughout this survey process. We will do everything we can to prevent hurtful and hateful speech, intolerant speech and speech that demeans our fellow Australians throughout this debate. We are going to do that and we will continue to hold Prime Minister Turnbull responsible for hateful, divisive, demeaning speech and things that are said throughout the course of this campaign. The Prime Minister should not think that this bill is enough. He needs to get out and campaign. He needs to call out dishonesty. He needs to call out misleading statements. He needs to call out vilification when he sees it and when we hear it. We need to have the Prime Minister doing much more than simply saying, 'I'm going to be voting yes.' We need to have the Prime Minister lending the authority of his office to making sure that this debate is conducted with kindness, with grace, with acceptance and with tolerance.
We urge all Australians on both sides of this debate to conduct themselves well in the remaining weeks of this campaign, while this survey is ongoing. The whole parliament is here sending a message to the people of Australia that this debate is to be conducted as well as we can manage—as well as all of us, looking to the best sides of our natures, can manage. I say again: the whole parliament is here drawing a line, sending that message to Australia, inviting Australians to conduct this campaign, to behave in this campaign and to speak in this campaign with kindness, with grace, with acceptance and with tolerance.
I rise to speak on the Marriage Law Survey (Additional Safeguards) Bill 2017. It is inherently discriminatory and exclusionary to hold a national opinion poll about whether a minority of our community should enjoy the same human rights as the majority, yet that is what the government is presently doing. Labor opposed the plebiscite when legislation was brought before the parliament, and the plebiscite legislation failed. Despite the wish of the parliament, the government is going ahead with this non-binding opinion poll being administered by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The government has started to post out survey forms this week and they are starting to land in people's households and in people's letterboxes.
Labor is very, very concerned about the fact that this survey is happening, as I've said and for the reasons that I've said. We're concerned about the exclusionary nature of it, which is obvious. When you're asking the community to vote on whether a minority should have the same human rights as the majority, that does exclude the minority. It excludes LGBTI people. It says: 'You don't just get the same rights as everyone else. You have to go and convince the majority of your friends and of the strangers you've never met in the Australian community to fill out a piece of paper—a survey form—for the statistician, to argue you should get the same human rights as others.' That's why it's so wrong. That inherent discrimination and exclusion that is a necessary consequence of having that type of survey is bad for people. It's bad for our community. It draws distinctions and it creates division. Exclusion is a source of mental health concerns for people, including people in the LGBTI community. Of course, Deputy Speaker Vasta, you're aware of the higher rates of suicide in that community.
We think this survey process is terrible. Notwithstanding that, it has been imposed upon the Australian community by the Turnbull government. Notwithstanding our view about it and notwithstanding the views of people in the community about it, this survey is going ahead. And as wrong as we think that is, we believe that it is important, if the opportunity is offered, to try to at least mitigate some of the worst features of this kind of survey by taking up that opportunity. That's why Labor is supporting a safeguards bill, this Marriage Law Survey (Additional Safeguards) Bill 2017, because if we weren't then even the bare and minimalist safeguards that are in this bill would not apply to this survey process.
It's not an election. They're not ballots. The provisions of the Electoral Act do not apply. That's why it was necessary to look at creating a bill that would impose particular safeguards—safeguards like we're used to seeing in elections, like the obligation to authorise material that you publish, to say who wrote it, who approved it and where it's going to come from. We've all seen the reports of anonymous flyers being distributed in communities and anonymous posters being put up, and some of the terrible things that have been said on those posters and flyers, so it is important that there be an authorisation process.
Similarly, it is important to have provisions in relation to bribery and in relation to threats. These provisions need to apply to this survey process because of the nature of it and because of the fact that it is a survey about people's human rights. And, similarly, we're pleased that there has been movement in relation to an anti-vilification provision, to include a provision that prohibits vilification and intimidation against people because of religious conviction; because of sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status; and because of what they have said in relation to marriage equality. It is an important protection that is included in this bill.
There are other provisions of the bill, of course, and I don't intend to go through them either. But I did want to say this: nothing about the fact that we have been prepared to do what we can to put some safeguards around this process can be taken as any indication that we support the process as a whole. And nor can it be taken as a means by which the process can be fixed. You can't fix a process that's a popularity survey about human rights. You can't fix the exclusion, you can't fix the discrimination and you can't fix the implication that the government thinks that LGBTI people should have to plead for the same rights that the rest of us enjoy. None of that can be fixed by this bill, but I am hopeful that, at the very bare minimum, it will provide some support and some assistance to those people in the community who are particularly vulnerable. Thank you.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I rise to continue my contribution and opposition to this government's changes in terms of the university cuts they have enshrined in this Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (A More Sustainable, Responsive and Transparent Higher Education System) Bill 2017, particularly from the perspective of the impact on regional and rural areas, because it is those students and their families that will be most harshly impacted by these many changes.
As I said, many concerned parents have approached me about this government's general cuts to education, but they know that cuts like this mean their children will have so much more lack of opportunity to actually access universities. This bill means that students will be paying more and, in fact, getting less. There is also a proposed 2.5 per cent efficiency dividend on university grants through the Commonwealth Grants Scheme. This will occur in both 2018 and 2019, impacting, of course, on both teaching and program resources. In addition to all of that, as we have said, the government is pursuing an increase of 7.5 per cent in student fee contributions over four years. The reality is that, with those increases in place, so many more students won't be able to afford to get to university and pay those fees. Indeed, with the fee increases, those young people will also have their repayment threshold lowered. That means they have to pay back more and at a much faster rate. Students will start paying back those amounts when they are earning $42,000 instead of $54,000 as it is now.
We also know that this government wants to introduce what can only be described as a very bungled attempt at performance based funding. Whilst we are supportive of the principles of performance based funding, the government has failed to provide adequate information on how this funding pool will be measured or distributed. There is little detail and no consultation on how it would be delivered. In stark contrast to this government's poorly constructed policy, Labor would look to work with the sector with adequate consultation on the best way to introduce a policy on performance based funding. Labor has a real history of reform to our universities. When we were in government we increased investment in universities from $8 billion to $14 billion. We opened the doors to an additional 190,000 Australians to access university. Remember, for many of these students, this represented a huge milestone in their family. They were often the first member of their family to gain a university degree. That is something we are very proud of with our continued investment in education. We made those investments because we know they are not just good for individual students; they are good for the economy overall.
Of course, this government's cuts represent so much more than their efficiency measures. This bill really goes towards our young people being saddled with bigger fees and bigger debts. As I have said, on top of that, the government wants to make these students pay back these debts sooner. That makes it even more unfair in the context of the time line. Those students will have to pay the debts back at the time when they often have the most expenses. They are developing their careers, raising a family and trying to purchase a house. There are so many increased expenses at that time and this government is making it more and more difficult.
We know that our university students already pay the sixth-highest fees in the OECD and we currently have the lowest level of public investment in our universities in the OECD. They are pretty startling figures. The cuts and fee increases in this bill will only make this lack of funding worse and the situation worse. Again, for regions like mine in northern New South Wales, this is really disastrous. My local university, Southern Cross University, has a number of fantastic campuses providing outstanding educational resources. For students from the regions, having their own university is a wonderful initiative. But the Liberal-National plan means the Southern Cross University will have its funding slashed by $22.7 million over the next four years. That is a substantial amount for a regional university. It is a huge funding cut that will impact on its capacity and ability to provide outstanding educational resources to students. As I have said, this is part of the more than $617 million being cut right across New South Wales.
Also, because of those cuts, thousands of jobs will be at risk in our regional universities. As we know, universities are major economic drivers, particularly in the regions. So it's going to have a huge flow-on effect. You've got students not able to get to university, cuts to the university's funding and the impact on regional economies, which is absolutely massive for areas around northern New South Wales in my electorate. Every single cut made and every single dollar taken will impact on the entire sector in a very negative way.
We know that the sector is opposed to the bill. Quite rightly, they have been very outspoken about it. Universities Australia, the peak body for universities, has reported that an overwhelming majority of vice-chancellors could not recommend supporting this bill. They are the people at the front line. They are there every day trying to balance the provision of meaningful education and quality teaching staff and the resources to assist both. That's why, quite rightly, they are also opposed to these very harsh measures. The National Tertiary Education Union, the sector's union, quite rightly is opposed to the bill as well. Many student groups are opposed to the bill. The TAFEs are opposed to it. Almost everyone in the sector is opposed to this bill.
We on this side of the House have been highlighting for the government how so many different areas and interest groups are opposed to the bill. I certainly want to add my voice to those of the families from the regions, who are completely opposed to these very harsh cuts. Now is actually the time to invest in our universities, TAFEs and training because a qualification from such areas can make a huge difference to the future of our young people. In this rapidly changing world, as we know, so many jobs of the future—indeed, so many jobs now—require that post-secondary-school qualification. It is those qualifications that we see this government constantly cutting. It is wrong because the demand for high-level skills is a reality in the world we live in and tertiary education is critical in meeting this demand.
I also want to add that one of the cruellest measures in this bill is the plan to introduce fees for enabling courses. These courses provide essential skills to students who are preparing for university study. Often these students are from disadvantaged backgrounds and need this assistance to get to university. The fact is that, if the government now goes ahead and introduces fees of more than $3, 200 for these courses, many of the students just won't be able to proceed with this. They will be unable to get this assistance and then go onto university, so it's yet another barrier for those people who are disadvantaged.
It really feels like Groundhog Day to be here again talking about the government's cuts to education. The government talks about innovation, yet all they do is cut all the measures that could lead to innovative responses and improvements that can happen. We've seen so many cuts from this government, and I want to point out again that it's only Labor who has delivered real reforms for our universities. In contrast, this bill and this government just continue to deliver cuts. They're not fooling anybody. People in the community are very much aware of the harsh extent that this government has gone to through this bill and, indeed, many others.
We on this side of the House make these points because we know participation in higher education and gaining those skills is not just great for the individual; it's good for the economy and it supports a society that's both productive and prosperous. We have the best interests of students at heart. We know that universities, TAFEs, students and their families really need that help to make sure they can get the quality education they deserve and that it does really provide for a growing economy and better jobs for the future.
I want to finish by highlighting again what a severe impact these cuts will have upon regional and rural Australia and students who have every right to access a decent education. Those families and those students will hold the National Party to account for these harsh cuts. As I say, National Party choices hurt, and this choice the National Party have made to support harsh cuts to our universities will certainly be noted. It is noted; many families raise it with me. Every day up until the next election, the National Party will be held responsible for these harsh cuts they are bringing in which mean kids from the country will not be able to go to university. It is quite despicable that the National Party comes in here and votes this way, yet again, against the best interests of people from country Australia. They do it because they have a abandoned the people of regional and rural Australia.
My friend the member for Richmond absolutely nailed the key problems with this bill, and it's my pleasure to follow her and talk about the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (A More Sustainable, Responsive and Transparent Higher Education System) Bill 2017.
We on this side of the House have a really fundamental belief that your life chances shouldn't be dictated by the circumstances of your birth. We on this side of the House believe that, with the right combination of effort, enterprise and education, every single Australian from every single community should have the ability, the possibility and the opportunity to succeed in this country. We agree with what Jay-Z said:
Every human being has genius level talent, there are no chosen ones …
That's our approach too. Success in this country should be based on your ability to work, to educate yourself and to apply effort and enterprise to getting ahead and providing for your loved ones.
We on this side of the House also believe that the absolutely key ingredient for economic growth in this country is social mobility. We believe that growth and inclusion are complementary and not at odds. We believe government has a role in turbocharging social mobility and not stomping on it. We believe that every single Australian has the right to be ambitious for themselves and for their families. Early childhood education, schools, TAFEs, vocational education, including apprenticeships, and universities all have a role in feeding, fuelling and structuring that ambition.
Unfortunately, this higher education bill runs counter to all of those beliefs and all of those objectives. What it proves is that, when those opposite talk on and on about aspiration, they only believe in aspiration as a slogan, because, at the same time as they try and pretend they are the party of aspiration, they do their best to extinguish it in communities like mine and in communities like many of those represented by colleagues on this side of the House. That is because they believe that ambition and aspiration should be the preserve of the fortunate few, and that it should be an exclusive thing only within the reach of those with the financial means or the family background to be able to afford to go to university.
I am pleased to be able to report that my community does not share the view about aspiration and ambition of those opposite. And it's not just my community. I believe that communities right around this nation believe that ambition and aspiration should be within reach of everybody in this community. I am very fortunate to represent the Logan campus of Griffith University, a truly outstanding university doing such good in this country. I know it's a great university and I know it's an outstanding place, because I spend a lot of time there. I do what I can to work with friends and colleagues from Griffith University, and with students, their families, the staff, prospective students and former students—the alumni—from Griffith University. I do what I can to work with them, but I also know it's an outstanding place because I went there and my mum went there. My mum did a mid-career degree in midwifery at Griffith University. I went to Griffith University and did my undergraduate degree there. I know, firsthand, of the positive, life-changing impacts that Griffith University has on our community.
We gathered, just last month, to farewell a truly wonderful person in Lesley Chenoweth. Lesley Chenoweth was the head of the Logan campus until the end of August this year. As we gathered to farewell her and mark her retirement, we reflected on the big objective of her career. The big objective of her career, in her words, was 'to build aspiration and widen participation'. She did that over a lifetime of higher education, but particularly at the Logan campus of Griffith University. I pay tribute to her here for all of the work she put into that really noble and really important objective to build aspiration and widen participation.
Although Lesley has retired from that campus, her mission continues. It continues in the work of Griffith University and it continues in my work in the community. We stand with the students, with the potential students, with the staff and with the families and we oppose these cuts in this bill which would see $3.8 billion ripped out of universities over five years, including more than $85 million from Griffith University alone. We oppose the fee hikes of up to 7½ per cent for students who will be forced to pay back their debt even sooner. We oppose the unfair measures that would see New Zealand students, including many in my community, pay $80,000 more for a university education as a consequence of these bills. All of these things are deterrents. They are all obstacles to university participation with consequences for our community, for our country and for its economy.
The bill, as you know and as others have pointed out, enacts more than 12 measures in the government's so-called Higher Education Reform Package. I won't go through them in detail. People are aware that there's: an efficiency dividend; the fee increase; the Commonwealth Grant Scheme changes; the changes to HELP loan repayments; the increases in student loaning for vets and dentists; ceasing access to Commonwealth-supported places for New Zealand students; cuts to post-graduate places; a voucher system; and an extension of demand-driven funding for conditional sub-bachelor places. Other changes include: the performance funding pool; legislating the Higher Education Participation and Partnership Program, which I will come back to; some Commonwealth support for work experience in industry units of study; and some other minor and technical changes.
As others have pointed out, there are some aspects of the bill that we don't necessarily oppose. We certainly understand—and I certainly understand—the fiscal challenges that this country has, but we don't think that those positive aspects of the bill should be held hostage to some of the truly awful parts of this bill, which are the reasons why we oppose the bill and why I will not be voting for it today. That is because, if we care about ambition, if we truly care about aspiration and not just talk about it, if we care about participation, we need to make sure we are investing in people and not pricing them out of the market, not making the price of education a key deterrent or a key obstacle to people participating in higher education. In that context, I think those new figures out from the OECD in Paris overnight make some pretty unhappy reading.
What the OECD showed was that Australia is lagging behind other nations when it comes to public investment in education. Australia is well below the average when it comes to all education and below the average when it comes to investment in universities. In fact, our investment in universities is among the very worst in the OECD, which is a pretty shameful thing when you consider the importance of education to the future of our economy. The report also showed that tuition fees for Australian students are amongst the highest in the OECD, and the fee hikes and cuts in the bill we are discussing today will only make our international standing worse.
Despite already having high fees by international standards, the Turnbull government want to jack up student fees by 7.5 per cent over four years. It wants to change repayment thresholds and indexation arrangements so that students are paying back their debt much earlier, and the government wants to change the indexation rate. There are a lot of facts and figures that I won't go into but the upshot is that students will be paying back higher debts and they will be doing so sooner. That is really the first major problem that I wanted to identify with this bill but I want to touch on three other areas as well.
The second area is the funding cuts themselves. For those who do make it into university, for those who have the means or are not deterred by making those higher repayments sooner, the quality of their education will suffer, because the government wants to pull out $3.8 billion over five years. As I said before, that would be more than $85 million just out of Griffith University and my community alone; more than $400 million would be taken out of Queensland universities over four years. When you combine that with what those opposite are doing in ripping $22 billion out of schools and what they are doing right up and down the education pathway—one obstacle after another for our young people—you can see the damage that will be done to our young people, to their life prospects and to their life chances.
The third area I wanted to touch on briefly is the Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program. It is called the HEPPP. A lot of us have interacted, I'm sure, with the HEPPP in our communities. There is a special place in my heart for the people who work in the HEPPP at Griffith University. I have spent a hell of a lot of time with my friends and colleagues who deliver that program. They go to primary schools and high schools and really try to show the young people of my community, which is so crucial in my community, that universities are not just something that people from the fancy suburbs can go to. On the contrary, if you work hard, get the grades and do what is necessary you should have a place in university. What my HEPPP friends do is not only demonstrate to young people the possibilities of education but also show that universities can be inclusive places and not exclusive places. So I am pleased, and give credit where it is due, that this bill does legislate the HEPPP. Unfortunately, it comes after something like 40 per cent cuts to HEPPP plus a whole lot of uncertainty. And in their usual cynical way, those opposite want to hold the HEPPP hostage to the rest of the bill. If they did the HEPPP thing on its own we would support it, and we could get on with it and the people delivering the HEPPP could have some certainty. Instead, of course, they attach it to big cuts and attach it to jacking up fees so, in that respect, that part of the bill is held hostage. It should be put into a separate bill so we can pass that and get on with delivering those important programs in my community and around the country.
The final aspect that I want to touch on in a little bit of detail is the impact of this bill on New Zealand students. It hasn't received a lot of attention but it is a very important change, a very detrimental change, the government is proposing to the arrangements for New Zealand students. I proudly represent one of the biggest Kiwi communities in the country. There is a concentration of New Zealand friends in South-East Queensland, and where I live really is the epicentre of the Kiwi community. I am proud to represent them. I am proud to work with them. I am proud to live amongst them. I am proud to have grown up with a really important, growing New Zealand population in my part of the world.
The government wants young New Zealand citizens, often kids who have grown up here, lived here for a long time and gone through Australian schools with Australian friends, to lose access to publicly funded university places. The changes from 1 July next year mean that any New Zealand students who commence study after that will have to pay full fees. When you think about a bachelor of education degree at Griffith University, for example—a very popular degree amongst the Kiwi community in my part of the world—they would be required to pay more than $100,000, which is an increase of around $80,000. They go from about $20,000 to $100,000. You can imagine what that does to the ambitions and aspirations of young Kiwi kids who have grown up next to their Australian friends and gone to school with them. You can imagine what signal that sends to people in my community.
I want to thank and acknowledge Oz Kiwi, Glenda Stanley from Griffith University and a range of other people for campaigning against this change. I also want to acknowledge the member for Sydney on our side of the parliament, who has written to the New Zealand community in my part of the world to assure them that we stand against this unfair change. We do not see the merit of pricing young kids who have been in Australia for a long time out of higher education. I am proud that I have worked with Oz Kiwi and other campaigners to deliver an important change to the HECS-HELP system earlier on, which took a bit of a fight. I am disappointed to see that a lot of that good work has been undone with these new measures. These new measures say to a lot of kids in my local schools, 'University is something for other kids to aspire to, not for you to aspire to—even if you have the talent and the grades and the ambition to go further.'
When it comes to building aspiration and broadening participation, Labor has a really proud record. When we were in government last, we lifted investment in universities from $8 billion in 2007 to $14 billion in 2013. That is a terrific effort and something that we are very, very proud of. It opened the doors of university to an additional 190,000 Australians. Many of them were the first in their families to attend university. We understand the crucial role played by universities in ensuring that life chances are not dictated by birth. That, in a nutshell, is why we are opposing this bill.
We are not naive about the budget challenges that this country faces. For the first time in Australia's history, under those opposite we have more than half a trillion dollars of gross debt. That is a new record. We know that we need to be careful about how we spend taxpayer funds. But we have a government that says, 'We couldn't possibly find $3.8 billion for higher education, participation and making aspiration a reality, but we can find $65 billion to give to multinational corporations and the four big banks'. This bill stamps out ambition. It extinguishes aspiration. It makes deep cuts. It prices kids from communities like mine out of the system, with real costs to social mobility and the economy.
With this bill, the Turnbull government continues its war on young people. This bill combines massive cuts to our universities with placing greater burdens and very significant disincentives on our students. I am very proud to stand here with all of my Labor colleagues in opposition to the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (A More Sustainable, Responsive and Transparent Higher Education System) Bill 2017 and in support of the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Sydney. It is worth remembering that the education minister, Senator Birmingham, has already ripped $17.3 billion from schools funding. In doing so, he has seriously undermined both equity and excellence in our school education. He is compounding this attack on young people, on our future, by ripping nearly $4 billion from our universities.
I was reflecting in the second reading debate about the Orwellian title of this bill: 'a more sustainable, responsive and transparent higher education system'. What an extraordinary description of this bill. It is a title that completely belies its contents and their very serious consequences. Those consequences attach to individuals, constraining their aspirations, denying them the capacity to reach their full potential. It shows the poverty of this government's vision for Australia and all Australians, and shows the government's lack of confidence in young Australians.
The Bills Digest, despite what many government members have said in their contributions, really sums it up:
This Bill proposes to amend—
the substantive act—
to reduce Commonwealth funding of tuition costs for undergraduate courses … through increasing the student contribution towards these costs, and reducing the funding universities receive to cover these costs.
It's a pity that government members, in making their contributions, didn't attend to this.
Order. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the member for Scullin will be given an opportunity at that time to conclude his contribution.
Connie Johnson: a fearless, warm, generous, courageous woman, who, in the face of tremendous adversity, was an inspiration to people right across Australia. Connie inspired us to be aware of our bodies. Connie inspired us to be aware of any changes to our bodies. Her message to women in Australia—right across Australia—was simple: 'Don't fall into the booby trap. Be breast aware.' So, if there's one thing that we can take from her tragic passing, so young, is the fact that we've got to carry on this message. We have to carry on this message to not fall into the booby trap and to be breast aware. Australians, check your breasts regularly, and tell every single woman you know to do the same.
Connie took the fight to cancer and set up the Love Your Sister foundation with the help of her brother, Sam. The foundation has raised $5½ million for cancer research. And, during this journey, she became a world record holder through her Big Heart Project. She inspired the Canberra community to donate, and raised over $2 million for cancer research by making the biggest heart from 5c pieces.
Connie's legacy was recently honoured by the Governor-General when he presented her with the Medal of the Order of Australia. We have to keep Connie's legacy alive. I encourage everyone to donate to the Love Your Sister charity. Vale, Connie Johnson. You were such a shining light, and you will be sorely, sorely missed by all Australians.
Last week I hosted a group in Canberra who were taking part in the National Student Leadership Forum. I sponsored two students in Gilmore, Tori Jones and Emily Bristow. This forum is a wonderful opportunity to meet young leaders and everyday people who are making a difference. Thank you, Emily, Alan, Elle, Intisarul, Jakob, Rebekah, David and Jenny for joining the program. It was a pleasure to meet you.
On Friday I had the opportunity to judge the Shoalhaven Art Society exhibition and see our local talent on display. The artworks were incredible and quite unique.
I then visited St Georges Basin Public School's spring fair, which was terrific. Team Sudmalis shared a cupcake stall with the students. We handed out educational posters and colouring-in books, and cupcakes were sold for the school.
The next visit was to Huskisson Public School where it was an honour to present the principal, Mr Sansom, and school leaders with organ donor jerseys. One of the leaders, Lauren, had previously asked for help in raising awareness for organ donation. She's a wonderful young girl with a bright future, and also a double lung transplant recipient of five years. I'm sure she will be encouraged with the help from her principal.
As I've been a strong supporter of the Nowra Jets, Carol also presented me with a thankyou certificate. They've worked hard and made a great success of the two blended teams.
The Milton-Ulladulla Rotary business awards acknowledge a number of businesses down at the southern end of the Shoalhaven, and I commend each and every one of the businesses that were either nominated or became finalists. They are doing a fabulous job down there.
Tasmanians are well and truly sick of being left off the map by this Liberal government. But, sadly, it continues. I've been fighting for the restoration of an Australian Federal Police presence at Hobart Airport—or for at least an explanation of why they were removed—since 2014. But, last weekend, we had some new, disturbing numbers about Australian Federal Police in Tasmania. Nationally there are around 6½ thousand Australian Federal Police. Tasmania has about two per cent of the population, but the number of Federal Police on duty in Tasmania today is five. Five. That is it. What does that mean? It means that Hobart is the only capital city in Australia that has no permanent police presence at a capital city airport. Not only do we not have a permanent police presence, but obviously there are no AFP officers at Hobart Airport.
My constituents are fed up with this. My constituents, Tasmanians, have the same right to feel safe and secure as every other Australian. We have continually asked this government for an explanation as to why this has occurred. When this decision was originally taken we were told that it was an AFP resourcing issue. We were then told that apparently the Office of Transport Security have done a report, but that report was done after the AFP decision to withdraw services. Tasmanians are sick of it. It's not good enough.
I rise in this chamber today to officially pass on the gratitude of a local widow in my community, Ms Penny Peel. Ms Peel is the widow of Lindsay John Peel, who was a petty officer with the Navy for 25 years. Mr Peel's service finished some years ago, but it had long been his desire to have his ashes scattered at sea. Upon her husband's death, Ms Peel contacted the Navy to formally request the scattering of her husband's ashes, and their response was swift. They told Ms Peel, 'Of course, you are our family,' and said that everything that could be done would be done to see Mr Peel's wish carried out.
I'm pleased to report in the House today that, on what would have been Mr Peel's 78th birthday, this was done. I wrote to Ms Peel last night to tell her that I would announce this good news in the House today, and she replied immediately, saying:
It has been through the efforts of Lieutenant Commander Mark Burton and Lieutenant Commander Ned Sparkes that this matter has been successfully accomplished. These two men are very special, and the country should be very proud of them.
She also wished to pass on her thanks to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Dan Tehan, and the Prime Minister. I'm so pleased to say that Ms Peel would like to say thank you to all in our community for their dedication in seeing her husband's final wish carried out. (Time expired)
In the infamous horror budget of 2014, the former Prime Minister and member for Warringah cut resources for the Australian Federal Police at Hobart Airport, aided and abetted by the Tasmanian Liberal senators and the former three Liberal backbench amigos—and you'll notice they're not here anymore. This cut meant the AFP was forced to withdraw 27 police officers from the state. I note the irony of the party of decentralisation from Canberra to the regions cutting resources from regional Australia. Like so many other cuts, whether axing ATO or CSIRO jobs in Tasmania, this government claims to support the regions, but its actions say otherwise.
But it's not just Hobart Airport that is impacted by this cut. Tasmania Police have been forced to take up the roles left by the AFP. Tasmania Police have been forced to review their operations and allocate the necessary resources to fill this gap. Clearly this reallocation will come not just from Hobart but from all over the state. The AFP Association has warned that the absence of AFP at Hobart Airport will lead to Tasmania becoming the open-slather destination for international drug traffickers when international flights commence.
Why should Tasmanians' safety be compromised by the Abbott-Turnbull government cutting Federal Police from Hobart Airport? There are over 6½ thousand AFP officers nationally. How is it right or fair that this government treats Tasmania as a backwater, as a second-class state of the Commonwealth? (Time expired)
My electorate of Petrie occupies the northern outskirts of Brisbane as well as Moreton Bay. Those people in Brisbane, where I grew up, would all be well aware of the Gateway Upgrade North project, a project worth $1.142 billion, which the federal coalition government has driven, has promised and will deliver. This Friday, I'll be opening the new bridge at Nudgee, the Nudgee overpass bridge. For people in Bracken Ridge, Carseldine and Fitzgibbon, when you head off to the dump next with a trailer full of rubbish, you'll go over that bridge—smooth sailing on the way back. That will be opening this Friday.
For those people in my electorate, this comes on the back of over $2 billion in transport infrastructure spent in and around Petrie over the last few years, with the Gateway Upgrade North; the Moreton Bay Rail Link; the Rothwell roundabout; the Boundary Road overpass, which I opened last week; money in this year's budget for the Deception Bay overpass; and six lanes all the way up to Caloundra, which will also benefit, of course, Longman and Lilley as well. I'm not stopping there. You think I'm stopping there? No way. We're going for the Linkfield Road overpass at Carseldine. People in my electorate—Rod McClaren, Anthoney Buckler, Neale Stuart, Matt Henley, Mayur Metry, Shirley Lang and Tren Dickson, as well as the owners of the Friendly Grocer at Bald Hills—want that overpass delivered at Carseldine, and we'll deliver. (Time expired)
If there's one issue which demonstrates the absolute and utter contempt this government holds for Tasmania and Tasmanian residents, it's the absence of Federal Police within Tasmania and stationed at Hobart Airport. This is vitally important to the entirety of the state, not just to the staffing of police at the Hobart Airport. The Abbott government cut resources for the AFP at Hobart Airport in the horror 2014-15 federal budget, forcing the AFP to withdraw 27 police officers from Hobart Airport. This has left it as the only capital city airport within Australia without an AFP presence, which has forced diversion of Tasmania Police resources away from community policing to patrol the airport. And, of course, that affects people throughout Tasmania. This has placed significant strain on Tasmania Police resources and has reduced their capacity to ensure community safety across the state. The results of this are potentially devastating to Tasmania, with reports of drugs flooding into Tasmania whether through the airport or across Bass Strait.
Even state and federal Liberals have called on the Turnbull government to reinstate the AFP personnel. I call on Malcolm Turnbull to reconsider this disastrous decision—
The member will refer to members by their correct titles.
I call on the Prime Minister to reconsider this disastrous decision. (Time expired)
This week is Disability Action Week in Queensland. This initiative aims to raise awareness of disability issues and to improve access and inclusion for people with disability throughout our state. As a parent of a child with a disability, I know about many of the challenges that face families in our community. But I also know about the strengths, diversity and achievements of all Queenslanders living with disability. This year's theme is 'Everybody has a role to play'.' Whether it be the Events Centre Caloundra, whose successful $3 million Building Better Regions fund application this year is allowing them to improve disability access at a community facility, or the constituent who approached me at a recent listening post to tell me from his wheelchair about the issues of accessibility on Nicklin Way, we can all play a part in making life better for people with disability.
There are events taking place throughout Queensland this week. An exhibition on unlocking the barriers to education will be held on Thursday in Mountain Creek, near my electorate. Other events reflect the full diversity of this community: a golf day, a dance, a river walk and a photographic competition. There's something for everyone this week.
I encourage Queenslanders to attend a Disability Action Week events this week to find out more about disability issues or to share their own story at www.allabilities.qld.gov.au. (Time expired)
Colleagues, can you join me in welcoming to parliament the representatives of Beechworth Secondary College Student Representative Council?
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
It's great to have you here. To teachers Storme and Kelly and to Owen, Madelaine, Wajiha, Sarwar, Annika, Madison, Liam, Tayla and Lloyd: I'm so pleased to have you here and acknowledge your leadership in our community. You represent so much of what's good about my electorate of Indi. Colleagues, over lunch these students have told me some of the things they love about their school. They have been involved in a solar challenge in Albury. They've entered a team in the Brave Hearts dragon boat race. The senior boys' hockey team went to the state final. The under-14 footy team, Beechworth Bushrangers, won the local footy competition. Asha Bright, from year 7, and Indigo Walker-Stelling, from year 9, entered the battle of the bands and made the state final in Melbourne. There were 90 bands in the competition. One song performed and written by Asha was judged best original song—a huge achievement for a country school.
Over lunch the students told me that what they love about their school are the teachers and the opportunity to work in their community to deliver meals on wheels. I am so proud to say that these young people are now involved in lobbying the Victorian government to lower the standard age for probationary licences to 17 so that we can work across the border with New South Wales to make sure our kids can access jobs. Welcome, everybody. (Time expired)
I would like to mention a really special family in my electorate today: the Russells. There was a great event held in their honour last Friday night called 'Hustle for the Russell's'. The Entertainment Grounds in West Gosford was packed with hundreds as our community united to support Phil Russell.
As the invitation to Hustle for the Russell's said:
You might know him as Flash, Jack, Russo or Lucky Phil, but however you know him, you will know him as a top bloke. The guy with the quick dry wit, the guy always smiling, the guy who is always accepting of people, the guy who is the first one to help you out when you need it.
He is known as a wonderful husband, a beautiful father and a friend to everyone in his Wamberal community, including during his first-grade football days for Erina Eagles and indeed right across the Central Coast. But Phil has battled brain cancer for close to eight years and, sadly, he's in decline, which is understandably heartbreaking for him, for his wife, Sarah, for their daughters, Stella and Clancie, and for his extended family and friends.
I first met Sarah Russell when I was invited to take part in the Stars of the Central Coast Dance for Cancer event a couple of years ago, as Sarah is the community engagement manager for the Cancer Council in my electorate. It's incredible to think that despite her own personal family situation in battling cancer, Sarah is still out there every single day as an advocate and a fundraiser for the Cancer Council, including when she persuaded me to dance the Charleston on top of a table for cancer research.
I just want to say thank you to those people who helped contribute and raise over $114,000 for Hustle for the Russell's. Thanks to Jayne Moloney and Myf Pilon, who were the organisers of this and who are tireless community advocates. (Time expired)
Nothing says what this government feels about Tasmania more than how it has treated the AFP presence in Tasmania. What we've seen today is all four Labor MPs in this place—the members for Franklin, Bass, Braddon and myself, and, indeed, the Independent member for Denison, when he's here—all calling for restoration of the AFP presence at Hobart Airport, the only capital city airport without an AFP presence.
An 85 per cent cut under this government cut the AFP in Tasmania from 27 down to five people. It's an absolute outrage—an absolute outrage! Three years ago, this government ripped 27 AFP officers out of Tasmania. At a time of increasing concern about national security, why on earth are they taking AFP officers out of a capital city airport? It beggars belief. It just goes to show the contempt that this government shows for every single Tasmanian.
It's not just the Labor MPs calling for this and it's not just the Independent member for Denison; it's Liberal senators and it's the Tasmanian Liberal government calling for the restoration of AFP officers. When is this government going to listen? When is this government going take Tasmania seriously? We are sick and tired of being treated like second-class citizens by this outrageous disgrace of a government.
I rise today to express my frustration and disappointment at seeing a key Building Better Regions Fund project in my electorate of O'Connor thrown into disarray by a decision of the WA government.
The Great Southern Housing Initiative was on track to construct 79 houses across nine rural shires in O'Connor. These units were to provide housing for the elderly and quality accommodation for those working in the public sector. In these small regional shires, the financial return for private sector investment in new properties is very limited and this has led to a severe shortage of suitable housing. Attracting skilled workers and their families to rural towns takes more than just a generous salary; they need a reasonable standard of housing. And our valued seniors deserve to live in fit-for-purpose homes close to their families in the communities that they have contributed so much to.
It is for these reasons that the federal government saw fit to step in and assist. We pledged $10 million through the Building Better Regions Fund. This is only one of two projects across Australia to receive the maximum amount of funding. That funding was allocated on the basis that the previous government in Western Australia had committed $11 million to co-fund this project. Now, the WA Labor government has decided to withdraw that funding, despite the fact that public housing is a state responsibility and that the entire project is now in jeopardy.
For these nine shires—Broomehill-Tambellup, Gnowangerup, Jerramungup, Cranbrook, Katanning, Kent, Woodanilling, Kojonup and Plantagenet—this is a devastating blow. I call on the Minister for Regional Development, Alannah MacTiernan, to act in the best interests of these Great Southern towns and immediately reinstate funding for this project. (Time expired)
I will never forget sitting with constituents after they had received robo-debt letters from Minister Tudge, telling them that they owed money to Centrelink dating back years and that they would have to provide pay slips to prove that those assessments were incorrect. Well, I have never seen such injustice.
Today we wake to the headlines telling us that, from him issuing those and that terrible Christmas that people had to March, 20,000 Australians have been found either to have owed less than was asked or not to owe at all. In my electorate, that includes, in the postcode for Werribee, 30 people who were told they owed the Commonwealth money and who owed nothing. Forty-two people had their debt severely reduced.
This is completely and utterly unjust, and it highlights for my community just how much this government cares about them: it cares nothing. It didn't care about disrupting people's Christmas. It didn't care about the pain and misery. It didn't care about how people felt being accused of theft when they were not thieves. Minister Tudge should resign today on the back of this front page. Minister Tudge is a disgrace to this government and a disgrace to this country.
Today I raise the concerns of many constituents about the rate of Australia's immigration intake and whether it is sustainable for it to take around 190,000 people on an annual basis, particularly because constituents are concerned about the impact it is having on their lives and whether it should be halved. Many cities are now becoming increasingly congested, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to manage the challenges of a rising population. It is particularly bad in the great state of Victoria, where the state government is more interested in funnelling more and more money into public sector wages to the benefit of their union members at the expense of major infrastructure that we need in our state.
The challenge of higher rates of immigration has been partly driven by the need to lower the average age of the population to make sure that we can have people who are working to be able to support our ageing population. The challenge for us as a country is whether we can continue to sustain this in the future, particularly in a tax system where tax is mostly paid by people during their working years, and whether we need to amend and reformed taxes to make sure people pay them at all stages of life.
Opposition members interjecting—
It's time, despite the hectoring from those opposite, that we had a proper conversation about tax reform and what is driving our migration policy so that we can have an Australia that is free and just and makes sure that it can support the people that this country is here to serve.
Following in the vein of the rest of my good colleagues that have been talking about this government taking their communities for granted, I hate to be the person to join that chorus and tell you what a disgrace this government's treatment of Western Sydney is. On Friday I was lucky to host the Labor Medicare task force, who came out to my electorate to talk about all things to do with Western Sydney health care. Let me tell you: Mike Freelander, the member for Macarthur, and Sharon Claydon, the member for Newcastle, did a fantastic job listening to the concerns of my community, and not just the members of the general public. When 10 doctors are turning up to your Medicare task force in Western Sydney to tell you what a disgrace this government's treatment of their profession is and what contempt it's treating our community with, you've got to start to stand up and take notice. That's what I'm here today to do: to tell those opposite to take notice of what my community is saying.
Nepean Hospital is the most under-pressure hospital in the state. I think the ears of the people in this place are probably bleeding from me mentioning it time after time, day after day. The $550 million pledge the Liberal government in New South Wales has given us is an absolute pittance compared to what the rest of New South Wales has been afforded. I stand here and say it's a pittance when you see the members opposite from areas like the north of Sydney and the east of Sydney, who are seeing over a billion dollars funnelled into their healthcare system. I will also mention that we have the fastest rate of growth in population in any part of New South Wales, so the $550 million isn't enough. The task force says, 'Give us a billion dollars now.'
Later in September, it will be Men's Shed Week, and I would like to pay tribute to the benefits this organisation delivers in cities and towns right across Australia. In my own electorate of La Trobe, we are fortunate to have six Men's Sheds established in very different locations. Each is unique in style, because Men's Sheds members come from all walks of life. But the bond that unites them is having some spare time and the desire to do something useful in that time. They also share roles in promoting, supporting and improving men's health, which is so vital. I also congratulate the Men's Shed for all the toys they supply in the local area when it comes to Christmastime.
I would like to acknowledge the volunteer work of each of the coordinators in La Trobe's Men's Sheds—Lindsay Harding, at Akoonah Park Men's Shed in Berwick; John Podger, at Belgrave Men's Shed; Mike Allery, at Emerald Men's Shed; Walter Meuller, at The Gully Men's Shed; Gavin Harrison, at The Hills Men's Shed; and Eric Bumpstead, at Upper Beaconsfield Men's Shed.
Again, I would really like to thank the Men's Shed for all the fantastic work they have been doing in the electorate of La Trobe and right across the country. To those guys at home who feel they need to get out, to get into an activity and do something a bit different, I encourage them to join a local Men's Shed.
I rise today to talk about a disastrous policy implemented by this government and by the Minister for Human Services. I'm talking about the debacle of robo-debt at Centrelink, which has caught in its web 20,000 innocent people. They owed no debt, they didn't owe Centrelink anything, but they were notified by the department and falsely told that they were in debt to Centrelink. Some of these people were pensioners and some of them were the most vulnerable people.
Every time it was raised with this minister, whether it was through questions by the member for Barton in question time, through letter writing or even in the media—I fronted with the minister and asked the question—he said: 'Nothing to see here. It's all working well. Please move on.' We put a question on the Notice Paper a few months ago and the answer has come back. The Minister for Human Services has admitted that 20,000 people were wrongly given notices and told they owed money to Centrelink. They were all wrong. The debts were either reduced or brought back to zero.
That was only in March this year. Just think: between March and now, there could be another 60,000 people wrongly accused of owing money to Centrelink. I ask the Minister for Human Services to get up in this place today and apologise to all of those Australians he's wrongly accused of owing money. Some of them, as I said, are vulnerable people and pensioners. I ask him to stand up and apologise in this House. (Time expired)
It is important that all Australians participate in the postal survey on marriage equality, and I encourage voters to complete and post back the survey form as soon as they receive it so their views are counted. If the majority of Australians vote yes, the law will change by Christmas. I will be voting yes because the relationships of all Australians should be treated equally and fairly before the law. I will be voting yes because I want every person born in our great nation to know they will be able to marry the person they love. I want to say today to my fellow Australians: if you think that the love and commitment of your brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, friends and neighbours, work colleagues and teammates should be treated equally, join me in voting yes.
Marriage equality requires a change to the law. But it's more than that. It's about very personal Australian stories. I have a 97-year-old constituent in Greenwich who was born when homosexuality was still considered a crime. He desperately wants the affirmation that will come when he can marry his life partner before family and friends. There is a dad in Lane Cove who wants to give his daughter the wedding he has given to his other children. There is a young gay man in Cammeray who simply wants the same opportunities as his mates. I will be voting yes for these Australians and so many more.
We are a nation that prides itself on fairness and equality. Our laws should reflect these values, of which we are rightly proud. This can be a unifying moment for our nation, as our friends in democracies such as the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Ireland and Canada have already shown. Let's get it done. (Time expired)
Finally we get the truth from the other side. Finally we've found out there were 20,000 inaccurate letters sent out by in robo-debt debacle. We have found out that 7,456 people owed absolutely no money. We have found out that 12,524 people actually had their debts reduced. What a monumental mistake from a government that does not care about equality. What a monumental mistake from a government that is careless about people's futures and careless about how people feel.
I say to the members for Robertson, Groom and Dawson: your electorates suffered the worst from this big stuff-up by this government. We have found out also that the people who have been accused either did not owe money or owed less than they were accused of owing. Who knows how many people back paid the money without it registering? Who knows? None of us does.
This government and this minister should either resign or apologise. Stand up and admit the truth. You are an outrage. It is not funny. People's lives were disrupted, people's lives were hurt and some people will never recover. You are an outrage. You should be disgusted and you are disgusting. That's all I've got to say.
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on my left! I would prefer it if all members, including the member for Barton, didn't address their remarks at me!
I rise to talk about the loss of two friends—two great tennis players: Mervyn Rose and Peter Doohan. Mervyn Rose was a great champion during the fifties. He won the Australian Championships and the French Championships, and he represented Australia in the Davis Cup in 1951, over Frank Sedgman and Ken McGregor, and in 1957, over Lew Hoad and Ken Rosewall. He played in that golden era when the great players of Australia, Frank Sedgman, Ken McGregor, Lew Hoad and Mal Anderson—the others didn't pay me to mention their names!—were all household names. He did so with a great character and a great sense of humour, and we miss Merv greatly. He also had a way with the ladies. He coached Margaret Court, Billie Jean King and Arantxa Sanchez Vicario.
Peter Doohan we lost far before his time, to motor neurone disease. Peter Doohan came to notoriety in 1987, when he played the great Boris Becker, who had won Wimbledon in 1985 and 1986 at 17 and 18 years of age—and the man from Newcastle took him apart in four sets on court No. 1. I was there to see it. We celebrate their lives and their times and regret their passing.
I thank the member for Bennelong. He's very lucky—we'd gone past two o'clock. Apologies to the House. In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
My question is to the Prime Minister. On Monday, the Prime Minister was asked if power prices were higher or lower since this government came to office and refused to answer. On Tuesday, the Prime Minister was asked about the average Sydney household paying $1,000 more since this government came to power and refused to answer. So Prime Minister, just answer: how much have power bills increased since the Liberals came to office?
Government members interjecting—
The Leader of the House and the Minister for the Environment and Energy will cease interjecting.
I'm glad to get a question on energy prices from the Leader of the Opposition. One thing we do know is that they doubled under the previous Labor government. One thing we do know is that they have increased substantially in very recent times because of the increase in the price of gas, and we know that that was because of a shortage in gas on the east coast because of a policy failure by the Labor Party, to which the member for Port Adelaide has, albeit belatedly, confessed.
Government members interjecting—
He has. Absolution will be delayed, however—he shouldn't hold his breath for that. He needs a bit more penance. We also know that there has been an increase in the price of electricity in New South Wales in recent times because of the closure of Hazelwood and because that created a large gap in dispatchable energy across the electricity market. That resulted in an increase in excess of $50 a megawatt hour in New South Wales alone.
What we're doing is ensuring that everything we can do brings those prices down. This is what we've done. Firstly, we've gone to the retailers and said, 'You've got to get in touch with your customers and tell them if they're on the wrong plan,' and, do you know, thousands of people are now—
Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order, on direct relevance. The question is: how much have they gone up?
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. As he knows from my previous rulings—
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The Leader of the House will cease interjecting. As the Manager of Opposition Business knows from my previous rulings, I give even extra latitude when the preamble is about 90 per cent of the question. The Prime Minister is in order.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. We have taken steps to ensure that those people get a discount and we know that many have, indeed many journalists have. They have written about it with pleasure and approval in their columns recently—hundreds of dollars. There is no compassion for the Press Gallery on that side of the House, no compassion for their household bills and no compassion for the blackout bills they will have to pay for if they don't get action on energy prices. We are bringing down gas prices already.
In terms of dispatchable energy, we are taking practical steps with AGL on Liddell. One obvious option to avoid it creating a big gap is to keep that power station running for longer, so we are exploring that with the company. In the longer term, we are building the biggest renewable power system in the country's history since Snowy 1. Snowy Hydro 2.0, which will make renewables reliable, is derided by the Labor Party as a stunt. They have no policies and no plan. The only thing that we know Australians will have to pay for is the blackout bill.
Honourable members interjecting—
The member for Kingston, who has already been ejected this week for persistent interjecting, is warned, as is the member for Barker.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on actions the government has taken to reduce the cost of electricity and gas for households and businesses including—
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The member will resume her seat. The member for Sydney is warned. The member for Chisholm can begin her question again.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on actions the government has taken to reduce the cost of electricity and gas for households and businesses, including in my electorate of Chisholm.
I thank the honourable member for her question. Our focus is on ensuring Australians have affordable and reliable power, that the lights come on and stay on, and that they can afford to keep them on. We know what happens when Labor governments fail to plan their electricity system properly. We know what happens in South Australia. The great confessor himself, the member for Port Adelaide, knows all about that. His state, thanks to absurd and ideological and idiotic Labor policies—
Mr Champion interjecting—
The member for Wakefield is warned.
have resulted in that state having the least reliable and most expensive electricity in Australia. We can't do what the opposition leader has said about the challenges we currently face and treat them as 'an issue down the track'—that was what he said—so we did the right thing. We went to the Energy Market Operator and we said, 'Tell us what is going to happen to base-load power in the years ahead: in the immediate term—this summer, for example—and in the future,' a very important question. We were advised that the closure of Liddell in 2022 would result in a big gap in dispatchable power, which would inevitably provide a similar shock to the closure of Hazelwood unless something was put in its place, and there was no evidence of anything being put in its place. So what did we do? We went to AGL and we said, 'Can you keep it going for longer? Can you consider selling it?' They've said, yes, they'll put that to their board. We thank them for that. They reckon they've got some other ideas. We'll look at them, too.
But what we are doing is addressing long-term problems today. I mentioned earlier the work that we're doing to ensure that we have the back-up. The storage that we need is vitally important. I'll give honourable members an insight into how uninformed the Labor Party was. When they published the modelling for their CPRS in 2012, all that they said about storage was this—in fact, they said nothing about it. They said that as intermittent generators such as wind produce less generation per unit of capacity on average than other generators it will require the installation of a greater amount of total generation capacity, particularly additional gas. Well, of course, thanks to them the gas was unaffordable. Labor never gave a thought to the fundamental challenges that face our market. We need to ensure that we have affordable and reliable power and meet our international obligations, and to do that you have to have a plan. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. I ask again: Prime Minister how much have power bills for Australians gone up since the Liberals formed government in 2013?
Of course we have seen increases in power prices recently—of course we have!
Opposition members interjecting—
They came down significantly when the coalition came into government and the carbon tax was abolished, but we have seen them going up again recently. The reason they have been going up is the impact of decisions taken by the Labor Party.
Opposition members interjecting—
The Labor Party can wave their arms around and shout as much as they like, but it was the Labor Party that allowed gas to be exported without any protection for the domestic market—none! They did not give any thought to the protection of the Australian market. They did nothing to ensure that gas would be developed onshore.
The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Members on both sides will cease interjecting. The one thing I will disagree with the Prime Minister on is that members can't shout as much as they want. Anyone who continues to do so will be leaving under 94(a). The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order—I think I know which one.
My point of order is on direct relevance. This question, as you know—
The Manager of Opposition Business will take his seat. I am ready to rule on the matter. Whilst it was a short type of question, the Prime Minister addressed the substance of it very early on and he's entitled to remain on the policy topic. The Prime Minister is in order.
The important focus for all of us here should be ensuring that Australians' electricity prices are lower and that electricity is reliable, not just today and tomorrow—and I have described the steps we're taking to ensure that—but in the years and, indeed, decades ahead. That requires careful planning. The Leader of the Opposition groans when you talk about 'careful planning', and well he might: he is a complete stranger to it. He has never thought more than a moment ahead in time. He is all tactics and no strategy. What he said about Liddell is typical. When the Liddell closure and the implications of that were made plain, he said, 'That's an issue down the track.' Well, that's what happened with Hazelwood. It closed on five months' notice, or a bit less, and we saw a massive gap in dispatchable power. Had there been proper planning in place for that, which should have started many, many years before, that gap in dispatchability could have been taken up by something else or perhaps it could have continued for a few more years. But the reality is that the market fell off a cliff, and it's households and businesses that are paying the price. The same lack of planning was seen over gas, when the member for Port Adelaide first said, 'We weren't warned,' then had to admit that he had been warned—he had to fess up. The reality is that of course they were warned and they ignored it. Why? Because it was another issue down the track. That's the problem with Labor: no plan, no confidence, all ideology, all idiocy.
I would like to advise the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon a very prominent Australian, Olivia Newton-John, accompanied by her husband, John, and her team from the Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute. On behalf of all members, I offer them a warm welcome. I will also point out that she is a prominent Carlton supporter.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline to the House why it is important to take an all-of-the-above approach to sources of energy to put downward pressure on energy prices? Why is this important for jobs in my electorate? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative approaches?
I thank the member for Bonner for his question. A key part of the Prime Minister's plan to put downward pressure on rising electricity prices is to have a durable investment framework that will encourage investment in new sources of energy supply, but also to ensure that we have base-load energy supply to support the growth of our economy, to ensure that businesses don't shut down, as they had to do in South Australia because of the failed energy policies and experiments that are the policy of the federal Labor Party. That is the way that Australians can get more hours; when their businesses stay open. That is the way Australians can get jobs; when the businesses they work for can stay open. Our policy is designed to put downward pressure on electricity prices in order to do that.
It is very important when you land on an investment framework that you ensure that you embrace all of the potential energy sources available to you, that you have an all-of-the-above approach, that you ensure you are taking advantage of the traditional advantages that we have as a country with our traditional sources, such as coal, but also to ensure that we are taking advantage of the renewable energy resources as well. The Labor Party is standing in the way of us achieving that type of durable investment framework, because they are imposing a coal veto on Australia. They are putting a coal veto on an investment framework that can secure base-load energy support for Australia. They announced it before the last election. In their policy released in April before the last election, they said they would introduce a framework to kick-start the closure of Australia's coal-fired power plants. That was the plan. That was the design. That was the intention.
The member for Shortland, the member for Hunter, the member for Paterson—the whole crew—signed up to a plan to shut down coal-fired power stations in this country. In fact, they went further. They said they would retire them. They said they would retire Australia's existing coal-fired generation. They had the policies to back that up, because they had a 45 per cent emissions reduction policy, which is twice what the government's is. The cost to jobs and the cost to wages and the cost to the economy would follow from that. They would be responsible for that. On top of that, they have a 50 per cent renewable energy target that the shadow Treasurer cannot even explain, let alone own up to when asked about it.
No-one who works in the coal industry or in traditional power generation should be in any doubt that this Leader of the Opposition or the Labor Party are on their side. They are not on their side. They can count on this side of the House. As we have seen at Whyalla and in Portland, this government, the Turnbull government, stands up for jobs in those industries, while those opposite have a policy to shut them down. They are cheering on the closure of Hazelwood and they are cheering on AGL as they close down Liddell. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Before coming to office, the Liberal Party promised families they would be $550 a year better off because of lower power prices. This government is now in its fifth year in office. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the average Sydney household is paying almost $1,000 more on power bills this year than when the federal Liberal government was first elected in 2013?
I can tell the honourable member she has just made that number up. Where is your evidence? There is absolutely no evidence for that. What I can tell you is the evidence from the ACCC's report from 2015, which said: 'The Commonwealth Treasury’s estimated $550 cost saving to households is reasonable.' That is what came from the abolition of the carbon tax. Under the Labor Party, electricity prices increased by more than 100 per cent. That was the record of the Labor Party. Indeed, in your own election platform that you went to the last election with, you said: 'From 2007 to 2013, average retail electricity prices in Australia soared.' That's the Labor Party's own election platform. That is what you acknowledge happened on your watch.
On the Prime Minister's watch, what we have seen is an attempt across a whole range of areas to put downward pressure on prices such as the gas price. The spot price for gas has come down significantly from the beginning of this year, and every dollar a gigajoule that it comes down is worth $10 a megawatt hour to households in reduced prices. When it comes to the networks, under the Labor Party the rate of return for those investments was around 10 per cent. Today, it is just above six per cent. That leaves Australian consumers about $300 a year better off. In the state of Queensland, it was government-owned generators that were gaming the system and saw Queensland have the highest wholesale electricity prices in the National Electricity Market for the first five months of this year. Under pressure from the Commonwealth government, the Queensland Labor government had to give a direction to those operators to put more supply into the market and no longer game the system. This can be worth up to $100 a year to Queensland households.
So right across the board we're taking action, not to mention for retail customers. The actions by the Turnbull government can see Australian households save more than $1,000 a year by moving retailers or by changing contracts. We know that 50 per cent of households have not changed retailers or contracts in the last five years, even though there are these enormous savings to be found. So, whether it's the work we're doing with the networks, the work we're doing with the retailers or the work we're doing with the gas, we are driving electricity prisons down, whereas Labor's record was only higher prices, which more than doubled on the Leader of the Opposition's watch.
Mr Butler interjecting—
The member for Port Adelaide—no, sorry. No, the member for Port Adelaide will resume his seat. He hasn't asked the question, so he's not in a position to table anything. It's the Independents' question.
Just before I call the member for Mayo, I would like to advise the House that we have present in the gallery a delegation from the Northern Territory, led by the Chief Minister, the Hon. Michael Gunner. I am also told he's joined by the Treasurer, Nicole Manison. On behalf of the House, a warm welcome to you and your delegation.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. In a letter enclosing the interim investigation into New South Wales water management, Ken Matthews stated:
… compliance and enforcement arrangements in NSW have been ineffectual and require significant and urgent improvement.
He stated that 'individual cases of alleged noncompliance have remained unresolved for far too long' and that 'a systemic fix is required'. Given Ken Matthews' findings and water theft allegations in at least two states, do you now agree we need an urgent judicial inquiry into the implementation of the $13 billion Murray-Darling Basin Plan?
I thank the honourable member for her question and note that the Ken Matthews inquiry which she refers to, which has been diligently carried out, was actually instigated by the coalition in New South Wales. It was instigated by Niall Blair. What we had in that inquiry was three qualified ICAC investigators, people with experience in ICAC, and the information that they have brought forward is now available if further prosecutions need to occur. That goes on the back of Hanlon referring himself to ICAC, and I note there have been discussions that he certainly has questions to answer there. On top of that, of course, we had the independent inquiry by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority which is currently underway, and we also have an auditor's inquiry as well as a Senate inquiry. ICAC is well and truly capable of sending people to jail, as we've seen with a couple of members who were formerly in the New South Wales Labor Party, now residing at Her Majesty's pleasure in respective institutions around town. We never, ever condone water theft. We don't condone any form of theft, and we certainly don't condone water theft. In pursuit of this we will make sure that, if any of these allegations stack up, they will be pursued to the full extent of the law.
What I can say also, and it is important, is that at this point they remain allegations. I am also aware of other issues that have been brought forward with regard to defamation cases, so we have to be very careful that we differentiate between allegations and proof.
My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. Will the minister update the House on action the government is taking to ensure that Australian families and businesses have a reliable and affordable energy supply? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
I thank the member for Banks for his question. I know that he is deeply concerned about the pressure that households and businesses are facing by a less stable and higher priced electricity system. He is working to do everything possible to bring downward pressure on prices. That's why he supports the actions that we've taken on this side of the House, whether it's to ensure more gas is available to the domestic market, or whether it's reigning in the powers of the pole and wire companies with the abolition of the Limited Merits Review, which Labor sees fit to send to committee, or whether it's the actions and the concessions that we have received from the retailers, which will allow Australian families and businesses to get a better deal.
I am asked, are there any alternative views? We know that the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Port Adelaide have bumbled, have fumbled and have stumbled on the key question: what would they do with existing coal-fired power stations? We know that on that side of the House they have a policy to close Australia's coal-fired power stations. We know that they have sold out blue-collar workers in order to win green votes in the city. We know when the member for Port Adelaide was asked numerous times what he would do—keep them open or close them—he dodged and he weaved. He wouldn't answer. The piece de resistance was when the member for Port Adelaide went on Lateline. When he was asked by Emma Alberici, 'What would Labor do with the coal-fired power stations in Australia if you were in the same position as the Turnbull government?' He said, 'Well, we would put all the options on the table.' I thought this was a rare show of bipartisanship, but then Emma Alberici asked the next question: 'Can you just give me a yes or a no?' The member for Port Adelaide said, 'No.' Emma Alberici then asked him a very simple question: 'Why not?' The member for Port Adelaide said, 'No, I can't give you a yes or a no.' That's because the member for Port Adelaide wants a multiple choice question. He wants to say one thing to the blue-collar workers, he wants say another thing to the green voters, whose support he wants, and he wants to say a third thing to the press gallery. He can't give a simple yes or no answer on whether they would support existing coal-fired power stations. That's because the Labor Party is the party of higher electricity prices.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Since this government came into office power bills have gone up by $1,000 for the average Sydney household. That figure is based on data from the government's own Australian Energy Regulator and the Australian Energy Market Commission, reported in The Australian newspaper. Why is the Prime Minister refusing to admit that power prices have never been higher than they have been under this government? Everyone else knows it. Why won't the Prime Minister admit it?
The member for Port Adelaide is making up more numbers, because we know that power prices increased by 100 per cent under him. The member for Port Adelaide should know better. Do you know why? Because in his own electorate Adelaide Brighton, which has 450 workers, lost power for 36 hours when South Australia had a blackout.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The member for Isaacs is warned!
We know that Adelaide Brighton, the company in his own electorate that employs hundreds of people, had to book a $13 million penalty or price because of that blackout. That is the price of Labor's reckless policies.
It takes some kind of genius, that the member for Port Adelaide must be, to describe the energy policy in South Australia as 'a hiccup'. He described it as 'a hiccup'. This is a policy that has led to more than half a billion dollars in expenses in South Australia when they had a statewide blackout. This is a policy that led Premier Jay Weatherill to spend $110 million on diesel generators that use 80,000 litres an hour and, during the peak summer months when they are supposed to be used, don't work when the temperature is hot. That is the Labor policy. It takes some kind of genius in South Australia to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a new gas-fired power station.
The Prime Minister might be interested to know that when the Northern Power Station was open in South Australia, South Australia only got 12 per cent of its brown coal-fired power energy from Victoria through the Heywood interconnector in 2014-15. But in 2016-17, after the closure of the Northern Power Station, how much brown coal did you get from Victoria in South Australia? Twenty per cent! The Labor Party's policy is to follow Jay Weatherill in South Australia, who gave them: diesel generators that don't work when the sun is out, diesel generators that use 80,000 litres an hour, gas-fired power stations that have to be built by the government and more coal-fired power from Victoria than when the Northern Power Station was in operation. That is what the green policies of the Labor Party look like.
The member for Port Adelaide should know better, because a company in his own electorate, where hundreds of workers are employed, had a blackout, which has cost that company its own money. The member for Port Adelaide should look in his own backyard before asking questions in this place about the price of power.
Is the member for Port Adelaide is seeking leave to table a document?
I am seeking leave to table copies of the data reported in The Australian newspaper that the minister says doesn't exist.
Is the article from The Australian newspaper?
Yes, it is.
I've made clear on numerous occasions we are not going to—
Mr Speaker, a point of order.
Yes, the Manager of Opposition Business.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
Order! The Leader of the House is warned.
Mr Speaker, the ruling that you've made previously about articles not being able to be tabled is on the basis that it's accepted they're in the public domain. The minister has just advised the House he doesn't believe it exists. In those circumstances, it's the exact time where it should be allowed to be tabled.
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. I think you're quibbling, but I will just be quick. Is leave granted?
Leave not granted.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources and Minister for Resources and Northern Australia. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on the importance to agricultural industries, including those based in my electorate of Calare, of affordable and reliable energy supply? Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of any threats to jobs in energy security in my home state of New South Wales?
I thank the honourable member for his question and note that the wine industry is doing spectacular work in the seat of Calare. It's great to see the wine industry will be going from $2.2 billion to $3.5 billion by 2020. A remarkable turnaround in prices, and it has happened under this government. It's one of the sections of remarkable turnarounds in the record-producing agricultural sector, record to our GDP. But in all these things—the wine industry, the beef industry, the sheep industry and the irrigation industry—there is a major threat, and that is the price of power. If you can't lift the water for irrigation, then it doesn't matter what's going down the river; you can't actually irrigate. It doesn't matter what margin you make on the wine industry if it's gobbled up by power prices. Most importantly, the member for Calare would be well aware of those people who live in weatherboard and iron in Orange and Bathurst. How do we actually respect the dignity of their lives by keeping affordable, reliable power so they can maintain the dignity of their lives and maintain their standard of living?
We have seen the threat to that, and no better expose would be that of South Australian Labor. What we saw when South Australian Labor knocked over the Northern power plant—in fact, they blew up the chimney to celebrate it—was a complete fiasco in power prices in South Australia. The lights went out, the lifts stopped, the traffic blocked up and people felt insecure because of Labor Party power policy. And then, if that was not enough, they went to Victoria. And what did we see from the Labor Party of Victoria? The closing down of Hazelwood. What was the effect? It put under pressure manufacturing workers' jobs. It put under pressure, and lost, power workers' jobs. What else did it do? Of course, it put up the price of power. So every person, no matter where they were—whether they were in Wodonga, Mildura or Shepparton—had their lives made worse by the Labor Party in Victoria because they lost money and were put under pressure.
And now federal Labor do not stand by Liddell. We can see this because they're all going for that great title that they now have in the Labor Party. They used to sing Solidarity Forever, but now they're all fighting for the title of 'Basket Weaver No. 1'!
The member for Hunter did a good job last night when he said: 'Andy Vesey and AGL did us all a big favour. They did what no-one else has ever done before.' Well, he's right there: they're doing what no-one else has ever done before, which is to put the member for Hunter's workers out of a job, to put more pressure on manufacturing workers and to put more pressure on coalminers. They don't believe in blue-collar workers anymore.
Then we see the Labor Party policy—this is from Mark Butler, 'Wind Chime No. 2': Labor will introduce—
The Deputy Prime Minister will refer to members by their correct titles.
He said that Labor will introduce a framework to kickstart the closure of coal-fired power stations. You can't get any better than that. That is the Labor Party! (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Just over three months ago, the Prime Minister described the clean energy target this way:
Well it would certainly work, there is no question it would work …
And:
It has a number of virtues, very strong virtues.
And, again:
… it has a lot of merit and as I say we will look at it very favourably …
Prime Minister, will there be a clean energy target, yes or no?
Honourable members interjecting—
The members on my left! And right! The Minister for Social Services! The Treasurer! I remind the member for Hunter that he has already been warned. The Prime Minister has the call.
As I made very clear, we are considering the 50th recommendation of the Finkel review, which is about a clean energy target. What we need to achieve in our policy is to ensure that energy remains affordable—becomes more affordable, in fact—that it becomes more reliable and that we meet our emissions reduction obligations. We have seen that there is a major problem in ensuring reliability. We've seen a big loss in dispatchable power following the closure of Hazelwood and have foreshadowed another big loss from the closure of Liddell, were it to go ahead, in 2022.
The renewable energy target, for example—and the clean energy target is an evolution of the renewable energy target—
An evolution?
Well, it is—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr Speaker, they are able to shout and carry on as much as they like, but it is the facts that make them uncomfortable. The fact is that a clean energy target is an evolution—a refinement, if you like—of a renewable energy target. What the renewable energy target did not do—has not done—is to provide support for the storage and the backup that is required to make renewables reliable.
I know that this is not taken seriously by the Labor Party. The problem, however, is that blackouts and unaffordable power bills are taken seriously by Australians. And they know that they're the ones that have to pay for Blackout Bill. They're the ones that have to pay for the—
Opposition members interjecting—
Well, they do. They do have to pay—
The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Has the Prime Minister concluded his answer?
Yes.
The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.
Mr Speaker, on Monday you made rulings about people being referred to by their titles. The revisiting of that term, I've got to say, is too cute by half. If we're going to descend the place into name-calling, it's not going to reflect well on anyone in the chamber, including those who engage in it.
Honourable members interjecting—
I am very happy to address the chamber, if people cease interjecting. As the Manager of Opposition Business points out, my ruling on Monday, I hope he appreciates, was where I asked the Prime Minister to withdraw, and indeed I sat down the Minister for the Environment and Energy for not referring to members by their correct titles. The Prime Minister was not doing that on that occasion, as you know. I am not in a position as Speaker to rule out language when there is not a breach of the standing order with respect to addressing members by their correct titles. I do make the point, though, that I can only operate within the rules that are here, and it does cut both ways. I make that point.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The member for Grayndler just might be uncharacteristically quiet for a bit, I think, and we'll move on to the next question.
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, integrity and manages the potential for conflict of interest? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The member for McMahon is warned. I haven't ejected anyone under 94(a) yet, but I sense I'm getting very close. The minister has the call.
I thank the member for Groom for his question. I hear the members of the Labor Party cat-calling about the head of the ABCC, but I didn't hear them saying that John Setka should resign or be sacked for the terrible things that John Setka did—or any of the others. So they stand up for John Setka while they criticise Nigel Hadgkiss. Doesn't that just sum up the Labor Party of today? It absolutely sums up the modern Labor Party. They want John Setka, one of the worst people in the union movement, to have a place at the cabinet table but they criticise former public servants.
The member for Groom asked me about the importance of managing conflicts of interest. It occurred to me that there's quite a number of these issues the Leader of the Opposition is yet to answer and I thought I might outline a few of those conflicts of interest to the House. He's yet to answer, for example, if he declared his conflict of interest when he was the secretary of the AWU and whether he was on the board of GetUp! when he gave $100,000 to the GetUp! organisation as a start-up loan. In fact, he's yet to say whether he declared a conflict of interest when he was on the board of Australian Super and they donated to the Australian Workers' Union or when, not long after, the Australian Workers' Union employed a full-time employee to work on the Maribyrnong campaign when he was the candidate there for the Labor Party. There are two, so far.
More recently, of course, we have been asking in this House for him to explain why IUS Holdings paid $560,000 to the AWU at the same time his union was negotiating 28 EBAs with businesses where IUS Holdings was the required income protection business. And he still hasn't answered why Incolink gave $405,000 to the AWU when his union was negotiating 48 enterprise bargaining agreements with businesses, where Incolink was the required workers' entitlement fund.
So there are at least four or five significant conflicts of interest or unexplained payments that the Leader of the Opposition thinks he can keep avoiding. All these Deidre Chambers moments that we've experienced with the Leader of the Opposition, all of these amazing coincidences, remind us of Muriel's Wedding and Bill Heslop and Deidre Chambers. The thing with Muriel's Wedding was that it ended up catching up with Deidre and Bill; eventually, they were undone by all the coincidences. You can only be this shifty for so long before the public work you out. You can't get away with being this shifty for this long. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. In June, the Prime Minister said of the clean energy target: 'Well, it'd certainly work. There's no question it'd work.' But a government MP has said in today's Sydney Morning Herald, 'If we were going to do Finkel's clean energy target, it'd be done already.' Is the Prime Minister so weak he's letting a few backbenchers stand in the way of a clean energy target, a policy about which he said, 'There's no question it'd work'?
) ( ): The feebleness of the opposition is shown in this sort of question. There is no place for complacency or neglect in energy policy; the Labor Party has proved that comprehensively. The have made one mistake after another, and we're still living with the consequences. I referred a moment ago to the detailed Treasury analysis of the CPRS in 2012. There is no thought whatsoever given to the problem of storage. The reality is that energy policy in Australia has been labouring under a huge misapprehension. There has been a failure to consider storage and the need for backup. If you want to have a lot of renewables—
Build some!
The member for Sydney says 'build some'.
Opposition members interjecting—
That's what your leader called 'the helicopter stunt'. That's Snowy Hydro 2.0. Give me a break! We're building the biggest renewable energy project since Snowy Hydro 1. The fact of the matter is this: a clean energy target, for its operation, depends entirely on its design. But if it is to be effective in delivering not just a reduction in emissions but affordability and reliability it has to have built into it measures which support dispatchability, base-load power, affordability and reliability. It's not an easy nut to crack. We've only recently had detailed advice from AEMO which shocked many people, particularly on the Labor side. We're working through it. We're going through it very, very carefully. We are not going to make the same glib mistakes the Labor Party did, the price of which is being paid by Australian families and businesses today.
My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection: Will the minister update the House on steps the government is taking to strengthen Australian citizenship? Why is it important that aspiring Australians are of good character? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
I thank the honourable member for his question and for the great work he does in Western Australia. Over the course of the last couple of years, this government has cancelled the visas of about 2,800 noncitizens, people who have been here on visas on a temporary basis and who have committed very serious offences against Australian citizens. We've ramped up by about 1,200 per cent the number of those visa cancellations, and we've made Australia a safer place as a result of that action.
The reality is that, under the Labor Party, many of those people would have gone on to become Australian citizens. That is an unacceptable outcome. Ninety-nine per cent of people who come to our country do the right thing and abide by Australian laws. But the one thing that this government will deliver to the Australian people is the best possible national security environment. We will keep our borders secure, and we will make sure that the Labor Party does not get in the way.
We've introduced a bill into the parliament, which has passed the lower House and is now in the Senate, in relation to tightening up in relation to citizenship so we can make sure people who have abided by Australian laws, adhered to our values and integrated into Australian society can become Australian citizens and those who haven't do not become Australian citizens.
The reality is that, when you are looking at a Labor leader, you know that he or she is most weak when he or she sides with the Greens. We saw it in Julia Gillard, we saw it in Kevin Rudd and we see it with this leader as well. The fact is that, in the Senate at the moment, the Greens have moved a motion to wipe this citizenship bill off the Notice Paper, and it is being supported—you wouldn't believe it, Mr Speaker—not by Nick Xenophon, not by Cory Bernardi, not by Pauline Hanson and not by anybody else except for the Labor Party. The Labor Party don't want this debate because they are torn internally in relation to it. You see what happens when the Labor Party cuddle up beside the Greens. You know that they're in this battle in inner city seats around the country where they're desperate to stave off the attacks from the Greens. What does it result in? In relation to boats, when the Labor Party cuddled up next to the Greens, 50,000 people came on 800 boats and 1,200 people drowned at sea. And do you know what else, Mr Speaker? The Labor Party cuddled up beside the Greens and they were in coalition with the Greens. Do you know what happens when that happens in relation to energy policy? The fact is that we get blackouts and we get blowouts in electricity prices.
The fact is that under the Labor Party, particularly when you've got a weak, shifty leader like this Leader of the Opposition, boats will always come and energy prices will always be higher under that leadership.
Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—
The member for McEwen is warned.
My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister used to say: 'I will not lead a party that is not as committed to effective action on climate change as I am.' Has the Prime Minister forgotten that, when Labor was in government, not only did he support the policies he just ridiculed, but he crossed the floor to vote for them? Prime Minister, what happened to the member for Wentworth people used to know?
Honourable members interjecting—
The Leader of the House! Members on my left! The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The members for Wakefield and Bruce will leave under standing order 94(a).
Mr Champion interjecting—
The member for Wakefield is about to be named!
The members for Wakefield and Bruce then left the chamber.
The point that we have to recognise is that energy policy has failed Australians over a very long time. It is a fact that we have to address and we have to redress. The difference between our side of the House and Labor's is that we recognise that failure, and we're getting on with sorting out the problems we inherited. We are getting on and dealing with it. We are ensuring that Australians are getting discounts on their energy bills right now. We're ensuring that wholesale gas prices are coming down right now. We're ensuring that we're planning for the future of an energy market that will deliver the emissions reductions we need and deliver the clean energy Australians expect but will also deliver affordable and reliable power.
The Labor Party can assume, if they like, as has been done in the past, that you can bring more variable energy into the grid and do nothing about backup or storage. If you want to continue doing that, you'll have more blackouts and more blackout bills to pay for. We believe that energy policy must be guided by engineering and economics, and that's what we're doing—ensuring that we have all the measures in place to protect Australians.
Mr Burke interjecting—
The Manager of Opposition Business!
The member for Watson there is shouting his head off. What a pathetic display. He's getting so red. Oh, he's settling down now. That's good. That's good for his heart—very important. Don't overdo it. What we need is affordable and reliable energy because the reality is: if we don't have it, Australians will pay the blackout bill.
Mr Burke interjecting—
The Manager of Opposition Business will cease interjecting.
My question is to the Minister for Social Services. Will the minister update the House on the government's commitment to create a simpler, fairer welfare system that helps move people from welfare to work? Are there any challenges to this commitment?
Opposition members interjecting—
The level of interjections is ridiculously high. I need to hear the question. I would have thought most members in the chamber would want to hear the question, and certainly people in the public gallery want to hear the question. If there's a repeat of those interjections—
Ms Bird interjecting—
The member for Cunningham knows better; she's on the Speaker's panel. She can remove herself under 94(a).
The member for Cunningham then left the chamber.
I thank the member for her question. As the member is aware, this government has reduced spending growth on unemployment benefits down to 3.7 per cent a year. That is down from a whopping average growth of 13.5 per cent each year for six years under Labor. That success in moving Australians from welfare to work has been underpinned by policies like business tax cuts, increasing investment in job growth and welfare reforms designed to activate more people into job preparation and Job Search. The welfare reform bill that passed this House yesterday will see an extra $10 million for rehabilitation and treatment in drug test trials. It will see a $100 million investment to activate more people into job preparation and Job Search.
Of course, I'm asked about alternatives. It is often quite hard to tell what the alternative Labor policy is on a key issue from week to week. The opposition leader once said, and I'll quote him:
… we need to encourage employment participation, not greater welfare dependency.
And yet this week, Labor voted against a $110 million investment to help move people from welfare into work through increased employment participation.
Members, in some good news, we have found a way to work out what Labor policy positions will be. What you do is you apply what public policy analysis will call 'the Costanza method of policy identification'. In the famous Seinfeld episode, the notoriously shifty George Costanza decides that the best way to make decisions is do the precise opposite of what you think to do first. When you apply the Costanza method to the Leader of the Opposition, it is uncannily accurate. Tax cuts to decrease welfare dependency? First, the Leader of the Opposition said, 'Friends, corporate tax cut reforms create jobs right up and down the ladder, including people who might now be on welfare.' Apply the Costanza method, and he now says those same tax cuts are a 'crazy plan'. NDIS funding? First he said anyone who opposed the 0.5 per cent increase was 'dumb'. Apply the Costanza method and now the Leader of the Opposition vigorously opposes the very same funding. The marriage plebiscite? First he said, 'I'd rather the people of Australia could make their view clear on this than leaving the decision to 150 people.' Apply the Costanza method and now the 150 people are the only people who get their say and the Australian people get no say. The cashless welfare card? The Leader of the Opposition had two opposing points of view in the same sentence. He said, 'There are some people who probably will benefit from this scheme.' He then said, 'But also it's a hard measure just to get a headline.' Members, he's the only Leader of the Opposition shiftier than George Costanza. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. The government is now in its fifth year of office. In that time seven coal-fired power stations have closed, removing capacity equivalent to nearly six million households' power, or more than enough energy to power every home in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. After seven power station closures, why has the Prime Minister only discovered that energy supply is a problem now?
Well, the member for Port Adelaide has some hide, because he comes from a party that supported a motion in the Senate on 22 March this year that said:
… coal is in structural decline and has no long-term future in Australia.
Those are the words of the motion supported by the Labor opposition. The member for Port Adelaide also said to the Press Club in April of last year that Labor will introduce 'a framework to kick-start the closure' of coal-fired power stations, and at numerous other times Labor has made it very clear that it is selling out blue-collar workers in order to win Green votes in the city. That is what has happened, and as a result, in the state of South Australia, where the Northern Power Station closed, we saw energy prices dramatically increase, and we also saw the people in his own electorate have blackouts and higher electricity prices.
The Labor colleagues in Victoria—and the Leader of the Opposition should know better—described the continued operation of Hazelwood as 'disgraceful'. That is what the Labor Party has said about the continued operation of Hazelwood. The Victorian members on this side know all too well that it was the Andrews government that increased coal royalties on those coal-fired generators in the Latrobe Valley by 300 per cent. We know that Engie, the owner, with Mitsui, of Hazelwood, had said that this had caused them problems. So it was the Labor Party—the Labor Party in South Australia and the Labor Party in Victoria—that was responsible for the closure of coal-fired power stations, and now it's the Labor Party member for Shortland who won't stand up for the workers in his own electorate. The member for Hunter is happy to box on in front of the press gallery, but he is very sheepish in the parliament. He is happy to say one thing to the Newcastle Herald and happy to say another thing to the press gallery. It's the members for Shortland, Hunter, Newcastle and Herbert and the Leader of the Opposition who have sold out their blue-collar base, have walked away from the party of Chifley and Hawke, and have decided to join the party of Bob Brown and Richard Di Natale. It's the Labor-Greens alliance that the blue-collar workers and the families of Australia have to be aware of, because that is a recipe for higher electricity prices. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Human Services. Will the minister update the House on the government's approach to identifying welfare recipients with substance abuse issues and support them to pursue treatment and overcome barriers to employment, and are there any alternative approaches?
I thank the member for Forde for his question. As members would be aware, from early next year the government will undertake drug-testing trials in three locations around the country, including in the member for Forde's electorate, and the member has been a very strong advocate of these drug-testing trials. Under the trials, an unemployed person who tests positive the first time will have 80 per cent of their payments placed onto a system of cashless welfare. By doing so, they'll obviously have less cash available to purchase drugs.
We know from our cashless welfare card locations that such a system of cashless welfare can actually reduce drug taking. Indeed, an independent evaluation of our cashless welfare card trials found that half of all drug takers were using fewer drugs as a result of being placed onto a cashless welfare card. They were using drugs less frequently and they were taking drugs less overall. The evidence also showed that there was consequently a reduction in the harm and the violence which results from drug taking, and our expectation is that in the drug-testing trials, by placing a person who tests positive onto a cashless welfare card system, we'll get similar results: people will take fewer drugs and therefore they'll be better able to get into the employment system.
Now, are there any alternatives?
Well, the Labor Party, Mr Speaker, as you would know, have explicitly opposed the drug-testing trials, in large part because it places a person onto a system of cashless welfare. But, interestingly enough, the Labor Party did not always have such a position, because, when they were last in government, the Labor Party actually introduced a measure which placed people onto a special form of welfare when the Northern Territory drug and alcohol tribunal found that a person was taking drugs. And what sort of welfare would that tribunal have placed them on, with the blessing of the Labor Party? Cashless welfare. Indeed, the member for Jagajaga, who introduced this legislation, said at the time that this new measure would assist the referred person to address alcohol and substance misuse issues. She said that cashless welfare had 'discernible benefits', including less money being spent on drugs. So apparently cashless welfare was a great response for drug users under the Labor Party, but apparently it's a dreadful response now. Not only are they hypocritical, but they do a disservice to those people who need our assistance, and the only people that they're planning on assisting are the drug dealers.
My—
Ms Madeleine King interjecting—
The member for Brand will cease interjecting. The Leader of the Opposition has the call.
My question is to the Prime Minister. What has been the net reduction of energy capacity in the national energy market since this government came to office in 2013?
Honourable members interjecting—
Members on both sides: the Prime Minister has the call.
Mr Speaker, I can certainly point him to the closure of some very large base-load stations, which was actually connived at—and in fact delivered by—state Labor governments. I mean, the two power stations in South Australia are very good examples. The member for Port Adelaide should be very well aware of that. And Hazelwood certainly was very much a key part of the Victorian Labor government's strategy. But the disappointing part of the opposition's approach to this is: they will not face up to the failure of their own policies. They will not face up to the fact that they pursued the massive introduction of renewables without the backup to make them reliable. If you want to have an economy that is powered by renewable energy, you need to have something to back it in when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine.
The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order?
Direct relevance—it was a serious, specific question.
The Prime Minister I am listening to very carefully, as you'd expect. He addressed the substance of that very specific question. He's still on the policy topic. The standing orders make it clear that questions are up to 30 seconds, and answers are up to three minutes. A questioner cannot demand that the minister answering the question simply answer the question and sit down. If he's on the policy topic, he's being directly relevant to the question.
There are two statistical matters I want to conclude with. The first is that the opposition leader has claimed in the House that the Australian Energy Regulator has stated that the average price for electricity in Sydney has, since the date of the coalition government being elected four years ago, increased by $1,000 per household. That has been his claim. We've noted that. He has not produced any evidence for it, but we've noted it. He has produced no evidence for it. He hasn't cited any publication at all.
In terms of the changing energy mix, I can refer the honourable member to the AEMO's advice to the government of just a few days ago, in September this year. It says that, over the past decade, 5,199 megawatts of base-load generation has retired and has been replaced by 2,895 megawatts of GPG, 273 megawatts of hydro, 91 megawatts of liquid fuel, 2,965 megawatts of wind, 265 megawatts of large-scale solar, 240 megawatts of coal plant expansion and 160 megawatts of other sources of generation such as biomass. I would encourage him to read the rest of the report.
On that note, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
I move:
That leave of absence until 16 October 2017 be given to Mr Hastie for parental leave purposes, and leave of absence until 7 December 2017 be given to Mr Entsch on the ground of public business overseas.
Question agreed to.
Pursuant to standing order 17, I lay on the table my warrant revoking—
Mr Keogh interjecting—
Just resume your seat. Pursuant to standing order 17, I lay on the table my warrant revoking the nomination of the honourable member for Hughes to be a member of the Speaker's panel.
Mr Speaker, in accordance with standing order 105(b), I ask that you write to the Prime Minister seeking reasons for the delay in answering questions in writing. It's been 310 days since I wrote to the Prime Minister—
The member for Burt will resume his seat. We'll get the numbers, yes. Thank you. I'm just going to say to the member for Burt a couple of things. If I'm addressing the House, it's important that he waits. He will always get the call. But he'll particularly get the call if he follows the established practice—and he might seek some advice from the Manager of Opposition Business—of letting me know that he's going to seek the call after question time.
An honourable member interjecting—
It was your error? Okay, that's all right. Throw you out under 94(a)? Okay, then. I wondered why you were trying to get my eye!
I've received a letter from the honourable member for Port Adelaide proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The energy crisis created by this Government.
I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
It was four years ago last week that the Liberal Party made a memorable promise to the Australian people. On a whim, it would appear, the Leader of the Liberal Party then said that there would be 'no cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to pensions' and 'no cuts to the ABC or SBS' under a Liberal government that might be elected in 2013, and, within only a few months, each and every one of those promises was smashed in the 2014 budget.
But Australians also remember another solemn promise made by the Liberal Party in the lead-in to that election in 2013, and that was that Australian households would be $550 better off in their energy prices if a Liberal government were elected in 2013. And this, perhaps unlike the other promise, was not a whim at the end of an election campaign. This was a promise that the member for Warringah repeated day in, day out, as he angrily marched up and down the country railing against climate and energy policy. Well now, into the fifth year of this government, Australians also know that that was a lie as well. Far from being $550 better off under this government, the average Sydney household is almost $1,000 worse off just in its electricity bills since 2013—$1,000 worse off. That is a $1,500 gap every year. Indeed, it's likely to be a gap that grows next year.
The Prime Minister, in question time just now, sought to deny the AER data. When I tried to table the data to show the government what we were relying on in those figures, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House denied me the ability to do that. So what I will do is read into the transcript the AER data that The Australian newspaper published on their front page on 10 July 2017. It said:
The regulator data shows the average Sydney household has been hit with annual electricity bill rises of 11.6, 11.7, 10.6, 10 and 10.8 per cent since June 2013 …
Cumulatively, that is a 75 per cent increase in power bills since 2013, when this government was elected. An average household power bill is $935 up, not $550 down, from 2013. Businesses also haven't been spared from this. Businesses have been talking to members on both sides of the House, I'm sure, about the power contract negotiations they're now subject to that are seeing power prices go up by as much as 100 per cent for businesses across Australia under this government.
This government's stunning failure has also seen closures of seven old coal-fired power stations across the system. That amounts to a loss of 4,000 megawatts of power, which is equivalent to six million households, or every household in Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne combined. Old coal-fired power stations close. We on this side of the House recognise that reality. The problem, though, is that there is no additional supply being built. The Prime Minister talked about 2½ thousand megawatts of gas-fired generation being added to the system in the last decade. That was all under us. Not a single new gas-fired generator has been added under this government. In a shocking indictment of this government's failure on energy policy, the AEMO reports last week warned that—
Mr Frydenberg interjecting—
That was opened well before you were there. The AEMO reports last week warn that two-thirds of our nation are now at risk of blackout—
Mr Frydenberg interjecting—
Order! The Minister for the Environment and Energy will remain silent.
Two-thirds of our nation is at risk of blackout in coming summers because while these stations have closed under this government's watch, nothing has been built to replace that generation, and we are short.
It is not just skyrocketing power prices and the risk of blackouts that have emerged under this government; every other indicator of energy policy has been a stunning failure on this government's watch. Pollution is up and gas prices are up—and this Prime Minister won't pull the trigger, as my colleague the member for Blaxland has been saying time and time again over the course of this week. In the renewable energy industry, a massive jobs driver around the world, one in three jobs, according to the ABS, has been lost since this government came to power, while jobs in that industry around the world have skyrocketed by 45 per cent.
As Australians open up their power bills with skyrocketing prices, and as they contemplate the risk of blackouts across two-thirds of the nation in coming summers, they understand who is to blame for this mess: this Prime Minister; his predecessor, the member for Warringah; and the minister for energy. We know why. It is because, as in so many other areas of policy, this government had a plan to dismantle and destroy policy but put nothing in its place. For more than four years this country has been without an energy policy.
If only we had a plan. If only there was a blueprint somewhere to get us out of the deep energy crisis this government has plunged the nation into. Of course, we do have a plan—it's a report that this government commissioned from the Chief Scientist of Australia, Alan Finkel. It's a blueprint that, if implemented, will deliver more renewable energy, more gas-fired power, more batteries and storage, more reliability into the system and, most importantly of all, lower prices for Australian households and businesses. It's a blueprint that has been endorsed by the states and territories and endorsed by industry.
This morning, we read an article in Fairfax—'Turnbull retreats on clean energy'—that it's not going to be backed by this government. A report commissioned by this government, from its own Chief Scientist, is not going to be backed by this weak Prime Minister. I think it was pointed out in question time that one MP from that side of the House said to Fairfax:
… if we were going to do Finkel's [clean energy target], it would be done already.
And you have to wonder why? There's a deep crisis. There's a clear blueprint that the government itself commissioned. There's strong consensus behind it. There's an opposition willing to engage with it. Well, we know the answer; it has a familiar ring to it. We saw it in The Australian newspaper in an article headed, 'Tony Abbott fuels push from backbench against clean energy target'. In it, the member for Warringah very helpfully outlines his alternative energy policy, which is the heart of the problem here—that is, the coalition's focus is not on reliable power, the coalition's focus is not on affordable power, the coalition is obsessed with this fantasy that Australia's energy future lies in building new coal-fired power stations. That is the plan that the member for Warringah is forcing on this government. We know it is a fantasy. We know from the lending industry, from the banks and from equity investors that there is not going to be a new coal-fired power station built in this country.
Everyone knows that the AEMO report that was released last week on dispatchable power was commissioned by the coalition in the hope that it would recommend new coal-fired power stations as a solution to their energy crisis, but, of course, it didn't do that. It is time for this Prime Minister to stop indulging the fantasy that the member for Warringah drives: that the future of Australia's energy is in new coal-fired power stations.
The future of Australia's energy sector was outlined by the Chief Scientist in a blueprint commissioned by this government. It's more renewable energy. It's more gas-fired generation. It's more batteries and other storage systems. It's more reliability in the system and the lower prices for consumers, businesses, and households that that will deliver. This Prime Minister is weak in refusing to argue against and resist the push by the member for Warringah to take us back to the 20th century. His decision to play politics, the personal abuse, the name-calling, the misleading statements about clear data from their own regulators about what has happened to power prices under this government's watch—it means one thing: Australians will continue to suffer higher prices and they'll continue to suffer the risk of blackouts across summers in New South Wales, in Victoria and in South Australia, across the system, representing two-thirds of the nation's population. If this government doesn't stand up to the member for Warringah and endorse the blueprint delivered by the Chief Scientist, Australian households and businesses will hold this government to account.
Well, we know that the Labor Party—the party of blackouts and the party of a doubling of electricity prices the last time they were in office—have now sought to repeat the mistakes of their brethren in the Labor states of Victoria and South Australia. They seek to take this energy horror show national. That is what the Labor Party want to do with their 45 per cent emissions reduction target, which will cost the Australian economy billions of dollars in lost productivity, lost economic growth, job destruction and investment lost. That will be the legacy of that policy. Combine that with the reckless 50 per cent renewable energy target, which they said to the Australian people that they would legislate but that they are now seeking to walk away from. Also combine that with their policies to adopt, right across the board, emissions reduction without understanding its true consequence and impact on jobs, investment and growth.
On this side of the House we have been making positive inroads into the energy question. We have ensured that we are providing more domestic gas for users across the country. We've already seen announcements by Origin and Santos that more gas will be made available to the domestic market. We have also seen significant reforms that we've undertaken in the gas pipelines to ensure that there's more competition, more transparency and, ultimately, lower prices. And with transportation of gas being up to 15 per cent of the gas bill and the electricity bill, this can be quite a significant component of reducing power prices. We've taken action with the networks, the poles-and-wire companies that make up the 50 per cent of the household power bill. When Labor was in office, they saw a massive rise in the gold-plating of the networks but they did nothing. They stood still; they sat on their hands. It's the coalition who said we're going to abolish the limited merits review process and put through this House legislation which, now in the Senate, the Labor Party is seeking to push off to committee. Labor didn't do anything when they were in office to rein in the power of the network companies. Indeed, when they were in office we saw a regulator rate of return of around 10 per cent. That has fallen to just above six per cent today, which is worth hundreds of dollars to an Australian consumer.
We on this side have been doing work with the retailers. The retail component of the bill is significant. We've seen high margins, particularly in states like Victoria. We've asked the ACCC to look into that market and to look at the operations of the particular retailers around the country. But the concessions that we're able to win from the retailers are going to be very significant in getting lower prices because, again, the Labor Party did absolutely nothing.
The member for Bendigo has sold out the blue-collar workers in her electorate. The member for Bendigo has nothing to say about electricity prices. The member for Bendigo does nothing to improve the household power bills. If she did, she would speak out in favour of the Turnbull government's efforts to ensure that more information, better information, more transparent information is made available to households by their energy retailers. The fact that 50 per cent of Australian households have not changed retailers or contracts in the last five years despite benefits or gains or savings of more than $1,000 being available to them is quite significant. That is why we've taken action.
As the Prime Minister has indicated, a key part of the energy story, as we transition from more synchronous generation to less synchronous generation, as we move from a system where lots of people are on the grid to more people being off the grid, is having storage in place for wind and for solar in particular. The Labor Party didn't put in place any preparations for the necessary storage. Whether it's the pumped hydro schemes that you see around the country or indeed around the world, which are so vital in providing storage for renewable power, or battery storage, we saw nothing from those opposite. It's only the coalition that has put storage at the top of the policy agenda. And we've started to see big investments underway—whether it's through the Kidston pumped hydro facility that is being looked at in Queensland, whether it's the one in Cultana in South Australia or whether it's Snowy Hydro 2.0.
You have a premier in South Australia, Jay Weatherill, whose only energy policy is to spend $110 million on diesel generators, take more coal-fired power from Victoria and then also invest hundreds of millions of dollars in a gas-fired power generator. But then the big daddy of them all was to have a battery from a bit of Hollywood and a few doughnuts on sale. He thought a battery could solve—
An honourable member interjecting—
Yes, he had doughnuts at the launch. He thought that some doughnuts, some Hollywood, some Elon Musk and a big battery would be the answer for South Australia's energy woes! But that battery can keep South Australia going for as much as five minutes. That is what the storage answer from the Labor Party is whereas we are investing in Snowy Hydro 2.0, which can add up to 350,000 megawatt hours of storage. That compares to the 129 megawatt hours you get from Elon Musk's battery and some doughnuts and some Hollywood in South Australia.
So the coalition has taken steps around networks, steps around retailers, steps around storage, steps around gas and we are going to see a much more stable energy system. We quickly accepted the 49 Finkel recommendations to ensure that large generators give a minimum of three years notice before they can close—not to mention the requirement that, from now on, wind and solar provide their own levels of storage, which previously wasn't the case. They're just some of the recommendations that we accepted from the Finkel review which will make a difference to the stability of the system.
The Prime Minister was concerned that, with the predicted closure of Liddell in 2022, there would be a supply shortfall in the market. That's why we asked the Australian Energy Market Operator to give us a report into the level of dispatchable power we need in the system, and they indicated that, were Liddell to close in 2022, there would be a 1,000-megawatt shortage of supply. What did the member for Port Adelaide say? He said that this is not a problem. He even challenged the premise of the Australian Energy Market Operator's own findings. What did the Leader of the Opposition say? The Leader of the Opposition said: 'This is a distraction. This is the wrong priority. This is an issue for down the track.' An issue for down the track? This is an issue for today.
That is why the coalition is taking steps, reaching out to AGL and asking them to consider keeping Liddell open for an additional five years or selling it to another party. That is what the AGL board will consider. But the reality is that the Labor Party turned their back on the Australian Energy Market Operator and have turned their back on the recognition that when they were in office they ignored the warnings from the Australian Energy Market Operator and from their own energy white paper about the need to ensure sufficient gas supplies in the domestic market and not to export all their gas overseas.
So we're taking actions across a number of fronts, but the Labor Party is in denial, because that is the party that has seen, in Victoria and in South Australia, a heightened risk of blackouts. My colleagues the member for Chisholm and the member for Deakin would be interested to know that, according to this AEMO report, the state with the highest risk of blackout coming to the end of this year and the state that AEMO is most concerned about is Victoria, where there is a 43 per cent risk of load shedding or supply shortfalls. The member for McMillan would be interested to know that in his own state the Daniel Andrews Labor government has closed down Hazelwood, has restricted gas, has put in a renewable-energy-only target and is doing nothing to ensure the affordability and reliability of the system. The member for Port Adelaide should be ashamed to associate himself with that failed, big experiment in South Australia, from a tired old Labor government, nearly 16 years old. The Labor Party is the party of higher prices and a less stable power system.
What a tired charade of a speech from the minister! Even he didn't have the energy to completely utter the myths and untruths they perpetuate. I feel like saying to them, 'Could someone get him an energy drink.' He looked like he was about to collapse halfway through it, and that's because his heart really isn't in it, because this is about position No. 8 for him and this government on energy policy. The truth is they're in their fifth year of government and have managed to completely mismanage energy policy over that entire time. And why have they done that? Because they don't believe in anything except for the petty pursuit of electoral power. Ultimately it's my constituents and the constituents of everyone on this side of the House who pay the price for this mismanagement.
The government have made massive mistakes in energy policy. The first one was that they abolished the emissions trading scheme. By abolishing the emissions trading scheme, they destroyed certainty in the market and destroyed the price signal that was bringing in gas-fired power, which was always going to be the complement to renewable energy. All the modelling for all the legislation that they voted for at given points—the Prime Minister certainly did; he seemed to forget about it in question time, but he voted for it—assumed that gas-fired power would complement renewable energy coming into the market. But they abolished the emissions trading scheme. They dillydallied around the Renewable Energy Target, but eventually they decided to keep it. That meant that more renewable energy came into the market. At the same time, they destroyed investment certainty for dispatchable power, and that's why we're in our current situation.
In their four years of government, we saw seven coal-fired power stations close down. And three of them were in states with Liberal governments. So you can't blame Labor for it. You perpetuate this blame game, but closures of coal-fired power stations occurred under Liberal state governments—seven coal-fired power stations with a total combined capacity of 4,000 megawatts. AEMO has pointed out that we've lost 5,000 megawatts of base-load power over the last decade—and 4,000 of the 5,000 megawatts have come under this government. So they can do their blame game, but the truth is they have been mismanaging power policy since September 2013.
And what have we seen now? They're walking away from the clean energy target. The minister and the Prime Minister don't have the ticker to take it to their party room. And what's the result of all this? We've seen a 75 per cent increase in power prices in Sydney. That is, on average, a $1,000 hit to consumers in our largest city. And that's for people doing it tough, that's for mums and dads on really tight incomes—when wages growth is actually negative, a $1,000 hit to power prices. We've seen a third of renewable energy jobs go. At the same time, renewable energy jobs have gone ahead in leaps and bounds everywhere else—2.5 million clean technology jobs in the United States alone—and we've lost a third of ours.
Why have we done this? Why has this occurred? Because we've got a spineless Prime Minister bereft of any ticker. And there's probably only one person who's more ashamed of the Prime Minister than the people on this side, and that's 'Leather Jacket Malcolm', the member for Wentworth, the man who went on Q&A with his leather jacket, the man who crossed the floor to vote for the CPRS—although he forgot about it today. He's probably more ashamed of his behaviour than even the Labor members of parliament. He wouldn't recognise the man he is now. He is a man who has junked every belief to stay in power, a man who has junked every intellectual belief in the market to stay in power. And it's just not doing him any good. We've seen 19 Newspolls in a row. There are 11 more to go. If he repeats the bluster we saw in question time, they're coming soon.
I've got a message to the Prime Minister and the government. If you're going to be Abbott-light, if you're just going to ape the member for Warringah, there's no point. At least that guy believed in something. He believed in the wrong things, but he believed in what he said. We get three-word slogans from the current Prime Minister. We get the blame game. We get a continuation of the chaos in the energy sector, a continuation of electricity bills $1,000 higher. We get more power stations closing down, more uncertainty and more pressure on our consumers and our households who are doing it tough. Shame on you, government.
I rise to oppose the hypocrisy of this motion by the opposition and to, in particular, support the coalition's policy, as well as the Minister for the Environment and Energy's statements before. We need to ensure energy stability, reliability and affordability by our traditional power sources while enabling investment in renewable energy, battery storage and new technologies. We must ensure the lights stay on, and the prices stay low for Australian households and businesses, including in Dunkley.
Ours is a technology-neutral and non-ideological approach. So what are we doing? And what is the opposition's previous track record on this, as well as alternative policies? Firstly, on what we are doing, business as usual is not an option. In July, the COAG Energy Council agreed to immediately act on 49 of the 50 recommendations of Finkel's independent review, which will help drive down prices. This includes a new generator reliability obligation requiring intermittent sources of generation, such as solar, to provide an appropriate level of backup. It also includes energy security obligations to provide the necessary support services to intermittent sources of generation; a new requirement for large generations as well, to give a minimum three years' notice before closing; and, in particular, it calls on states and territories such as Victoria to accept the Chief Scientist's recommendation to adopt a science-based approach to new gas supply and to end their arbitrary bans and moratoria.
On base-load power: the Australian Energy Market Operator's dispatchability report confirms that the accelerated withdrawal of base-load power, as pushed by those opposite, creates major risks. Base-load power is what anchors our electricity system. Government will exaggerate work around this strategic reserve, which will beef up how AEMO currently contracts for reserve generation to manage summer peaks. The Prime Minister has also started discussions with AGL on keeping Liddell operating longer, which is important for families and businesses in terms of affordability. Indeed, we are also working with ARENA on multiple pumped hydro projects in multiple states, and developing Snowy Hydro 2.0, which will increase the generation of the scheme by 50 per cent and add 2,000 megawatts of renewable energy to the National Energy Market. That is enough to power 500,000 homes.
On energy affordability: too many families are not on the best power deals. Fifty per cent of households have not moved retailers or contracts in the past five years, even though savings are potentially significant. So the Prime Minister has secured agreement from retailers on immediate measures, which will be backed up by law, to put families and businesses first. This includes contacting all the customers who are now on expired discounts and telling them how they can save and requiring companies to report to the government and the ACCC on what they are doing to get families onto a better deal, as well as requiring companies to inform customers when their discount benefits end and ensuring that families and individuals on hardship payments will not lose benefits for late payments. Retailers will also contact another one million customers on standing offers, which are normally the most expensive rates.
The Turnbull government will also legislate to remove the ability of networks to appeal the merits of decisions by the Australian Energy Regulator, removing the ability of regulated energy network companies to game the system at the expense of consumers. This reform is critical, given that network costs make up a large proportion of household bills.
On gas: we have finalised tough new regulations in the gas sector to give Australian customers priority access to gas supplies before gas is exported. And we are calling, as I said before, on states and territories to drop their mindless bans on gas exploration and so forth.
At the same time, we are also renewing and investing in our renewable energy market. For example, Australia's emissions per capita and per unit of GDP are currently at their lowest level in 27 years, and Australia is on track to beat its 2020 target of five per cent below 2000 levels by 224 million tonnes. This is better than the 755 million tonnes by which Labor was estimating to fall short in 2012.
So, what's Labor's alternative? They're pushing a dangerous mix of policies that will hit energy security and affordability: a 45 per cent emissions reduction target by 2030; a 50 per cent renewable energy target by 2030; an emissions intensity scheme; Labor's climate action plan, forcing the closure of coal-fired power plants; and no energy security plan. Labor's track record, whether it be on the carbon tax or other measures, shows their hypocrisy around this issue, and I call on them to take proper action, like we are doing. (Time expired)
Colleagues, who said this?:
I will not lead a party that is not as committed to effective action on climate change as I am.
That was the old Malcolm Turnbull, the bloke that used to get around in the leather jacket—
Order! The member for Kingsford Smith will refer to members by their titles.
The old Prime Minister, who used to get around on Q&A in his leather jacket, talking about climate change and effective policy on energy.
Who said this: 'Abbott's climate change policy is BS'? Now, of course, I'm using an acronym there for the last word in the title of this particular article that appeared in The Sydney Morning Herald on 7 December 2009. That, of course, was the old Prime Minister, who was speaking then of the member for Warringah when he was the Prime Minister, and the climate change and energy policy that this government had. The member for Wentworth, as he was at the time, said that he would:
… tell a few home truths about the farce that the Coalition's policy, or lack of policy, on climate change has descended into.
He then went on to describe in quite colourful language the member for Warringah's—as the then Prime Minister—climate change policy and what a complete joke it was. Once again, that was the old member for Wentworth. He's now adopted, holus-bolus, the policy that he once described as complete BS. Those were the days when the member for Wentworth had principles and believed in something. He was the bloke who actually crossed the floor to vote for Labor's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme when he believed in taking action on climate change.
That was, of course, before he was elected to the leadership of the Liberal Party and before he did that dodgy backroom deal with the right wing of his party and the National Party, a deal, by the way, that he refuses to release publicly—so much for transparency. He sold out his beliefs and sold out the future of all our kids through refusing to take real action on climate change. 'Turncoat' Turnbull, the ultimate sellout, not only adopted Tony Abbott's view of climate change and energy policy but now actively advocates for it as his policy. He once described it as BS.
Australians are asking: what happened to the old member for Wentworth? What a disappointment he is—some might say a fizzer. The Australian people are suffering because this bloke sold out his principles on climate change and energy policy. I'm talking about people in my electorate—for instance, the pensioner who now can't afford to switch on their heater at night to warm themselves because of energy prices; the family struggling to pay their bill and having to enter into a repayment plan with their energy retailer because they simply can't afford the increase in the cost of their electricity; and the small business that has to go out of business because they can't afford to pay their energy bills anymore. In fact, in the city that I live in, the average energy bill has risen by $1,000 since this government came to office. All of this is because this government is in chaos and cannot make a decision about energy policy to guarantee investor certainty and bring on additional supply.
There are two basic reasons why Australians are facing a massive increase in their energy prices. One is that Liberal governments privatised the network. They privatised the poles and wires and the generators in New South Wales and Victoria and South Australia. Governments don't own them anymore, so they can't force these private companies to bring on additional supply. And guess what? Those companies are not investing in new supply because they know that the federal government have made a shambles of energy policy, are chaotic and can't make a decision. They can't make a decision on a clean energy target. The government actually asked Professor Alan Finkel, the Chief Scientist, to advise them on what they should do on energy policy. He issued a report, and the Prime Minister and the energy minister went away and then said, 'No, we can't adopt that. That's far too revolutionary for our party. Our party will never agree with a clean energy target. Go away and rewrite your report.' So Professor Finkel did. He went away and rewrote it, at significant cost to the taxpayer. He watered it down. And guess what? They still can't make a decision on it. They still won't make a decision on a clean energy target, and because of that all Australians are paying through the nose through their energy costs going up. It's an absolute disgrace. Because this government can't make a decision, Australians are paying for it.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to table an article from The Sydney Morning Herald on 7 December 2009, 'Abbott's climate change policy is BS', by Malcolm Turnbull.
Leave granted.
I'm glad we're discussing energy and energy policy today because it will further shine a light on the extent to which those members opposite have turned their backs on coalminers, on the mining industry and on blue-collar jobs. The extent to which they've done that is quite breathtaking. They've cut them loose, and they've cut them loose in the name of transitioning to a new economy. That's what they call it, but what it really means is they're cutting those workers loose and they're all going to lose their jobs. That's what they're on about on that side of the House. They are betraying the very people who built the Labor Party: the workers in the blue-collar jobs and the miners. They are the people that they are betraying. The reason that they're doing it is pretty clear: they're terrified of the inner-city Greens. They're trying to out-green the Greens in the inner cities in Melbourne, in Sydney and in Brisbane. That's what they're trying to do. It's breathtaking, but it's also disappointing.
I grew up in the Hunter Valley and I know those coalmining communities up there pretty well. I grew up with them. I did. Whenever you played sport out in the coalfields you knew you were in for a tough day at the office. They were cold, hard playing fields; they were tough competitors out there. But I tell you what, they're resilient people out there. They're tough competitors, but they're resilient and good communities. They don't deserve what's happening to them. They don't deserve to be cut loose. They don't deserve the betrayal, the abject betrayal, which is going on at the moment, from those opposite. They have been betrayed. All of those coalfields communities in the Hunter have been betrayed. They've essentially been told that they're all going to lose their jobs and that coalmining is finished—it's just a matter of time.
Let's have a look at the Calare electorate and the coal and power jobs that those opposite want to cut loose. Let's have a look at Mudgee. In Mudgee, we've got about 2,500 people working directly in the coal industry. There are probably another 500 or so working indirectly in the coal industry. That's about 3,000 people in the Mudgee area alone. When I've had an issue with the coal industry before, I've called them out. We saved the drip on the Goulburn River just near Ulan. We got that resolved.
What they want to do is to cut the whole industry loose. That's what they're doing. Look at what's happening over in Lithgow, where you've got the Mount Piper Power Station and the Springvale mine. Those two operations together probably have over 600 jobs at stake. Those on that side of the House want to end coal-fired power generation. That's what they want to do, and it's scary. Look at a community like Lithgow. Coal was instrumental in building Lithgow. So many people from the Lithgow community and the coalmining community have supported the Labor Party over the years only to be betrayed by it now. It's unbelievable and breathtaking at the same time. Mount Piper Power Station needs to remain open. It supplies the equivalent of 15 per cent of the electricity supply of New South Wales. There are many people, including me, who would like to see Mount Piper expanded, but not those opposite.
We still have outstanding legal issues regarding the Springvale mine. I don't deign to provide any comment on the Springvale situation, but I hope all relevant parties are able to work to find a resolution to all outstanding issues over there, because under Labor Mount Piper would close. That's what would happen. The Mount Piper Power Station would close under a Labor government. It's terrifying for those communities who've always supported Labor through the years.
I would say to Labor, the Greens and representatives of Lithgow City Council: 'Don't stand with the Greens when their roadshows roll into Lithgow. Don't stand with them and tell those power workers and coal workers that their futures mean nothing and that they won't have jobs.' I would say that to the councillors of Lithgow: 'Tell the coalmining community of Lithgow and the people of Lithgow that you think the coal industry has a future. Tell them where you stand.' All Lithgow city councillors should tell everyone where they stand: 'Don't stand with the Greens. Don't have photo ops with them in local newspapers. Don't tell them that we have to end coal and that we're aware we have to move on.'
These things are happening now. Their allies are doing it now in Lithgow when the Greens' roadshows roll into Lithgow. They need to stop it. Don't have a bet each way. Don't be like Labor and have a bet each way and sell your constituents out. On the one hand they say, 'Oh, yes, we support coal,' but on the other hand they're working, doing everything in their power, to end coalmining and coal-powered generation in this state and in this country.
Ms Husar interjecting—
Order! Before I give the call to the member for Lindsay, we do not need a countdown at the end of the previous speaker.
I was just trying to be helpful; I'm here to help. It is my great privilege to stand up today and speak on this matter of public importance and follow such a diabolical speech from the member for Calare, over there, who talked about selling his constituents down the river. Let me tell you: I represent an area out in Western Sydney. For those opposite, I'm happy to provide a road map of where that actually is and what area that takes in. Last summer, Penrith experienced 23 days of above-average, 35-degree temperatures and eight days that hit above 40 degrees. We also had a series of long—
Mr Gee interjecting—
I'm happy to take the member's interjections. We also had a series of long and hot evenings, including 36 degrees at midnight on 13 July.
How do you front those miners? What do you say to them?
Order. The member for Dunkley will remain silent.
I don't have any miners in my electorate of Western Sydney, which goes to my point about these morons on the other side not knowing anything about Western Sydney.
Order! The member for Lindsay will withdraw.
I withdraw—unqualified. Last February—as I've now tried to say four times while dealing with the interjections from those over there—we had a day that was 45 degrees. Let that sink in—45 degrees in Western Sydney. We have a population that is growing and will continue to grow. That should be no surprise to those opposite.
Mr Gee interjecting—
The member for Calare is warned. I call the member for Lindsay.
When he's done, Deputy Speaker.
Honourable members interjecting—
Are you a woman?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Order! The member for Lindsay! I will start to evict people in a minute.
When you consider the weather station that takes the temperature in my electorate of Western Sydney is located next to billions and billions of litres of water
Honourable members interjecting—
Oh, God. This is outrageous!
Mr Broadbent interjecting—
Order! Member for McMillan—
She shouldn't have said that. It's a disgrace.
I am in the chair at the moment. I have given the call to the member for Lindsay. I've got a general warning in this House. The next interjection will be out the door. I call the member for Lindsay.
I'm so glad that they are so interested in what a woman on this side of the House has got to say, what they've actually got to listen to and how they can actually hear what is being said.
Government members interjecting—
The member for McMillian on a point of order.
I'm calling for a withdrawal because she referred to herself in a manner that was demeaning to me in regard to her gender. Absolutely outrageous!
There is no point of order.
Honourable members interjecting—
It was because she happened to be a female member of parliament, not because of the presentation that she was making. It's absolutely outrageous.
I might not agree with the comment but it was not unparliamentary.
Deputy Speaker, this is outrageous. I haven't even gone past the first page of my speech notes because of the constant interjections. But, as I was saying, the weather station that records the temperature in the Western Sydney area is located next to the lake system, which is obviously going to record the temperature at a much lower rate than anywhere else. We've got the heat island effect out there. Anybody who lives in Glenmore Park, Jordan Springs or the new development of Thornton will know that it is up to three degrees hotter than anywhere else in Western Sydney.
When we talk about an energy crisis, you can appreciate how hot it gets and how much we are relying on power to cool our homes and also swimming pools so that people can actually cool down. But what gets Western Sydney residents very hot is this incompetent government's energy crisis. Day after day we come in here looking for answers from those opposite, and all they can do is blame us. Well, I've got some news for them: they are in government; they've had the opportunity to fix it. To continue to come in here and blame Labor for something that may or may not have taken place four or five years ago is their incompetence on display on a grand scale.
They've let this problem fester and get to the point where it is now. The time has come though; summer is now on our doorstep. It is 35 degrees today in Western Sydney. It's the 13th day of spring and it's already 35 degrees. The rise of blackouts this summer will be higher than ever before and the residents of Western Sydney have had enough. They've had to swallow the lies and the nasty policies from those opposite and promises of electricity prices going down by $550. They're not idiots. They're not stupid. They know that their prices have gone up and are up to $1,000 higher. And this government has taken away the energy supplements paid to people who can least afford it. This is an outrage, an absolute blight on a government that will leave no track record other than destruction. Take that, Calare! It's a disgrace.
The member for Lindsay will return to her seat and withdraw.
I withdraw. It's a shame you don’t do it on the other side.
The member for Lindsay will return to her seat and withdraw or I will name her. I call on the member for Lindsay to withdraw.
I withdraw.
The gall of the member for Port Adelaide—to come into this place and want to talk about energy when he is the person who has admitted that the Labor Party knowingly allowed gas producers to export gas without providing for gas to be provided to the domestic market in a way that would keep prices under control—is extraordinary. When David Speers asked the member for Port Adelaide whether or not Labor received warnings when in government about the impact of their gas policy, which would enable the LNG suppliers to basically export pretty much all of the gas and not provide very much at all to Australia, he said yes—'Everyone knew there was going to be an impact on prices.' And yet the member for Port Adelaide, and all of his colleagues on the other side of the chamber, let that happen. What that has required is for this government to step in and go through the process of placing controls on the export of LNG, because all of the modelling says that the biggest factor that has been driving up wholesale prices of gas and, therefore, of electricity in the last twelve months is the excessive export of LNG. The member for Port Adelaide is the one who has admitted that the Labor Party was responsible for that, and that they were warned about that and they did it anyway. So it is quite extraordinary. You would think he would be so sheepish as to not want to draw attention to this extraordinary policy failure, but, nonetheless, he has.
The Labor Party's policies in this area have one consistent theme, and that is: higher prices. Not controlling LNG exports—what does that mean? Higher prices. A 50 per cent renewable energy target by 2030, which will wreak havoc on baseload power in this country and force the mass closure of existing baseload power facilities—what does that mean? Higher prices. That's what the member for Port Adelaide and the Labor Party want—a 50 per cent renewable energy target by 2030. And they are so unashamed about this that, when they talk about coal-fired power stations, they don't talk about them closing down over time, as part of an orderly process; they say they want to 'kickstart' the closure of coal-fired power stations. What does that mean? That means a loss of jobs in those communities, like the Hunter in New South Wales, and again it means less supply and higher prices. That is the member for Port Adelaide's policy. A 45 per cent emissions reduction target by 2030? Again, that will mean less base-load power, and less base-load power means higher prices. We saw it with the Hazelwood closure. We've seen it with the excessive export of LNG. Their policy over there is to have more and more of that, which means higher and higher prices.
We've seen the practical reality—the canary in the coalmine, so to speak—in South Australia, where 1.7 million people were out of power because of the extraordinary and crazy renewable energy policies of the South Australian government. We saw prices up by 50 per cent for business customers after the closure of the Northern power station, and the member for Port Adelaide called that a 'hiccup'. Do you think that's a hiccup, Deputy Speaker Coulton? Well, if you are one of those small businesses in South Australia that are employing locals and your power price goes up by 50 per cent, that's not a hiccup—that's a disaster. All of these Labor policies mean higher prices.
In contrast, we have a clear agenda of reducing power prices: abolishing the limited merits review, so that the poles and wires companies can't game the system as they have in recent years, which has led to $6½ billion of additional costs for consumers; requiring the retailers to proactively get in touch with their customers to tell them about better deals and requiring the ACCC to follow up to ensure that the retailers actually do that, because people can save hundreds and hundreds of dollars just by working to get a better deal; and, importantly, moving to put in place export controls on gas, to fix up the mess created by the member for Port Adelaide and those opposite, which is already having a meaningful impact on reducing the wholesale price of gas that gets bid into the National Electricity Market. That is a very positive thing for reducing the pressure on household energy bills.
So, over there, you have a litany of previous failures and you have a series of new policies which will make things far, far worse. On this side of the House, you have practical steps being taken right now to reduce energy prices. Those opposite should be ashamed of their energy policies.
This government's paralysis on energy policy is astounding. While their members take to the airwaves decrying the state of our energy sector, power bills continue to rise while they do nothing because they're too busy arguing amongst themselves. Meanwhile, people in my electorate continue to face increasing power bills, which have continued to rise in the five years since this government was elected. On top of that, my most vulnerable constituents are losing access to the clean energy supplement. This means that, while power bills continue to increase, pensioners are losing the financial support to help them afford it. That double hit will put even more financial strain on the people who need it least. All the while, this government continues to focus on itself, deciding that a moment of crisis would be a great time to discuss the future of a 50-year-old coal-fired power station. If there isn't a policy supporting the plan, or any buyers interested in investing, it is impossible to think that a responsible government would keep such a plant operational. The mere fact is that the technology in these plants is so old they can't generate at optimum levels any longer without significant investment.
AGL is looking to the future, and that is exactly what this government should do. Focusing on one ageing plant does nothing to solve the immediate problems we face in solving systemic policy failures in the energy sector. If anything, even with this one issue, the government has somehow managed to make its approach to energy policy even less clear. What hope do we have of resolving this situation when they can't even agree to implement the recommendations of a review conducted with the express purpose of guaranteeing energy security and reliability? Instead of creating certainty, they've placed the energy sector inside a policy vacuum. This lack of direction and indecision has created a situation where energy companies have not invested due to uncertainty, starving the sector of vital investment. We are now entering summer with the Australian Energy Market Operator warning of deep-seated problems with our national electricity grid creating a scenario where many households will face blackouts and reliability issues. Given that the government made so much noise about how they were going to take action on power bills and create a more robust energy sector, people have the right to feel betrayed when the generation capacity available in our network now is 4,000 megawatts less than when this government took office, and nothing has been done to fix it.
It's extraordinary arrogance for those opposite to pretend they have anything to be proud of. Through their inaction and carelessness over the past four years, we have now reached a critical point and they seem content to continue to do nothing. Households in my electorate and across the country will continue to hurt under this absence of clarity of policy, particularly the continued prevarication around implementing a clean energy target, a measure that has been endorsed by key business figures and experts from the energy and finance sector as well as consumer groups.
While the government continues to avoid its job on making a decision, the market won't invest. Companies like AGL have real responsibilities to their shareholders, their board and AEMO. They have real governance requirements, and their businesses have decisions to make. Four years of policy paralysis has seen wholesale power prices double, reliability of electricity supply fall, and carbon pollution rise by 1.5 per cent in just the last quarter. Getting CEOs of power companies in for a chat about power prices and having them write to their customers to tell them about discounts that might be available on their bills is not a substitute for an energy policy As the wholesale price of power has doubled in the last four years, a small discount is not making any real difference to the lives of people in my electorate. Power bills are still more than $1,000 more than they were, and that is pretty hard to find when wages have stagnated and everything else is rising.
The evidence and the experience from around the world is clear: in order to ensure dispatchable power and reliability, we need to create policy certainty. We need to have bipartisan support. With policy certainty, businesses will invest, banks will finance and jobs will grow. Planning and market certainty will ensure that there are enough different types of generation options to provide for a reliable, safe and cheaper electricity grid. This is what the people of my electorate expect of their government. Stop pointscoring and actually govern.
The negligence and inconsistency from the Labor-Greens alliance on the issue of energy is nothing short of appalling. Not only have they sold out the blue-collar workers across Australia but they've done the same to Australians across the country with regard to high electricity prices. We're not the coal party; we're not the anti-coal party. We're not the renewables party; we're not the anti-renewables party. We are the party that is about affordable, reliable energy.
Consistent with the Labor-Greens' appalling history in relation to energy, their approach is that important things should only be looked at, in their words, 'down the track'. When South Australians experienced their blackouts, they couldn't drive in the dark, businesses shut down and hospitals had to go on generators. The whole state was in darkness. This is what Labor governments do, particularly when they're in alliance with the Greens. Not only was the cost to businesses and thousands of South Australians terrible but it affected all aspects of life.
It goes without saying who Australians should blame for these blackout bills. You see, in business—which none of those on the other side know anything about—you actually have to deliver and get things done. That's what the Turnbull government does. We get things done. In business, sometimes you also have to clean up messes from those before you. That's what the Turnbull government is doing. We're doing what we do well: we get things done in a measured, pragmatic way. The Turnbull government is getting on with the business of keeping energy prices at affordable levels for all Australians. Unlike Labor, the government knows that Australians are concerned about the rising costs of energy and living. In particular, the government is listening and taking action on this front. Our priority is energy affordability and reliability as we meet our international targets.
The Turnbull government is delivering a comprehensive plan to put downward pressure on electricity prices for households and businesses. We've taken policy actions to deliver tangible outcomes for Australians, ensuring that the lights stay on and that prices remain low for Australian households and businesses. Unlike former farcical, idealistic Labor governments, the Turnbull government's focus is on what matters to Australians. What matters to Australians is when that electricity bill comes in. What matters to Australians is that they don't have to endure those blackout bills that our fellow South Australians had to endure under a Labor government. Our focus is affordability and reliability, not ideology.
Unlike Labor, we are heeding warnings of the energy white paper and the Energy Market Operator. The Turnbull government has taken very strong action to ensure more gas in the domestic market. We've finalised tough new regulations in the gas sector to give Australian customers priority access to gas supply before it's exported. We want to ensure that retail providers are giving Australians the best deal. This will remove the ability of regulated energy network companies to game the system at the expense of consumers, which is what they were able to do under the Labor government. The Turnbull government knows that messy regulation of the energy sector under Labor has contributed to driving up prices for many Australians. Opening up competitive markets and educating Australians on how best to choose a provider delivers low-cost, more affordable energy for Australians.
We know that Australia's emissions per capita and per unit of GDP are currently at their lowest level in 27 years and that Australia has a strong track record of meeting and beating our emissions target. The Turnbull government has introduced legislation to amend the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to allow investment in carbon capture and storage, which can reduce emissions by up to 90 per cent.
We need storage to back up our renewables. That's something that the Labor government never considered. The Turnbull government has embarked on the largest storage project ever undertaken in Australia. Snowy Hydro 2.0 will add 2,000 megawatts of energy storage for 7½ days. In short, the Turnbull government is keeping Australians connected and ensuring we have backup so that Australians aren't kept in the dark.
The Turnbull government is taking pragmatic action to ensure that Australians can access affordable and reliable energy. I know our measures will have a considerable impact in Chisholm, my electorate. In Victoria we've been feeling a pinch due to rising energy prices and egregious Labor policy. As a result of the pushing out of Hazelwood, companies AGL and EnergyAustralia increased bills by up to $135 this year. They have a vested interest in doing that. We are all feeling the rise, and the Turnbull government's priority is to ensure affordability for Australian households and businesses. Our comprehensive plan to put downward pressure on electricity prices for households and businesses is making a difference for my constituents, and I'm proud to be a member of the Turnbull government. We're keeping the lights on and we're making sure Australians can afford reliable, dependable and sustainable energy.
The debate has concluded.
by leave—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.
On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the committee's report entitled Report 466: Annual report 2016-17.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—The Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit is one of parliament's oldest and most autonomous committees, with the committee empowered to initiate its own inquiries. In 2016-17 the committee sustained high-quality scrutiny of Commonwealth expenditure and public administration matters. Through 10 active inquiries, the committee examined matters contained in 18 Auditor-General reports, which is a 50 per cent increase in the number of reports reviewed compared to the previous year.
Themed inquiries are an important change, we think. We've been conducting more themed inquiries into core aspects of public administration as a feature of our activities. The themes picked up included Commonwealth procurement, Commonwealth infrastructure spending, Commonwealth grants administration and the Commonwealth performance framework. So we cluster a number of reports across agencies with similar themes and try and tease out common lessons. It's also a bit more interesting!
Submissions to the committee also increased significantly, with 111 received, compared to 56 the previous year. The committee continued its strong contribution to enhancing accountability and improving efficiency in public administration, making 17 clear recommendations to the government. Other activities throughout the year included inquiries into Defence sustainment and expenditure; the Defence major project report; considering the audit priorities of the parliament; commissioning an independent review of the Parliamentary Budget Office; and, as required by legislation, approving the appointment of the new Parliamentary Budget Officer.
In conclusion, I'd like to extend my thanks to all members of the committee for their commitment through 2016-17. As those who've served on the committee know, it's certainly not a light workload sitting on this committee. It is heavy in paperwork. As deputy chair, I look forward to maintaining the high standard of committee work over the coming year through our inquiry and oversight activities, ensuring as best we can the proper and efficient use of public resources. I commend the report to the House.
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport, I present the committee's report entitled Still waiting to be heard: report on the Inquiry into the Hearing Health and Wellbeing of Australia, together with the minutes of proceedings.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—For most Australians hearing and balance are such natural, intrinsic parts of life that it is not until they begin to be lost that we realise how much we have taken them for granted.
Yet for the more than 3.6 million Australians who experience hearing loss and balance disorders these conditions can have profound effects on their everyday lives and their relationships with their family, friends, and work colleagues.
Our committee received evidence time and again pointing to the challenges faced by the deaf community and those suffering hearing loss.
Young Sydney student Olivia Barnes powerfully told the committee of how hard it is to be at school and keep up with her peers and teachers. One submitter described, in their words, of 'often being treated as being daft, when I am just deaf'. It is support for these Australians that has been the driving force behind the work of our committee.
In so many ways, Australia is a world leader in supporting those with hearing loss.
The nation that invented the cochlear implant also has one of the best universal screening programs for newborns, a sophisticated support structure for those under 26 and a voucher scheme for hearing aids for pensioners.
Our early intervention services and the work of health professionals, researchers and educators are generally outstanding.
Yet there is much more we can do to support those with hearing loss.
In 2010, the Senate Community Affairs References Committee presented its report entitled: Hear us: Inquiry into hearing health in Australia.
Seven years on many of its recommendations have not been implemented, much to the frustration of hearing-impaired Australians, their families, the organisations that support them, and many in the medical community.
Hence, as the title of this report suggests, these Australians are still waiting to be heard.
The time has come for hearing health to be recognised as a national health priority.
During the inquiry, the committee was particularly disturbed by the evidence about hearing health issues in Indigenous communities.
It is a crisis that Indigenous Australians living in remote areas have the highest incidence of middle ear infections—or otitis media—anywhere in the world.
While most Australian children experience three months of their young lives with middle ear infections, the average for Indigenous Australians is closer to 2.5 years—often leading to permanent hearing damage and all that follows—including reduced educational and employment opportunities.
In remote communities as many as 90 per cent of children will be experiencing otitis media at any time.
This cannot be tolerated and the committee has recommended concerted federal and state action.
We need a national strategy. We need to expand programs like Queensland's impressive Deadly Ears scheme. And we need to finally implement simple solutions like introducing sound amplification in classrooms which still eludes educational authorities despite being recommended seven years ago by the Senate committee.
Australia has a world-class system of paediatric hearing care that includes universal newborn hearing screening, free audiology services provided by Australian Hearing, and a network of early intervention services providing treatment and therapy.
But it can be improved.
The committee has recommended universal screening as children enter the school system to capture those who have developed hearing difficulties since birth.
Delayed diagnosis means delayed learning and potentially years of catching up.
Many inquiry participants were concerned that the implementation of the National Disability Insurance Scheme could disrupt what is an excellent system, potentially having a detrimental impact on hearing-impaired children's development of language and communication skills.
The committee has therefore recommended that, following the implementation of the NDIS, Australian Hearing retain its role as the sole provider of audiological services to young children.
In addition, the committee recommended the development of a 'guided pathway' to assist parents access early intervention providers.
We should not risk adversely changing a system which is already performing well.
Hearing loss is particularly prevalent among older people, affecting three out of every four Australians over 70 years of age.
A troubling issue that emerged during the inquiry was the potential for the financial exploitation of vulnerable older Australians through the use of sales commissions in the hearing aid clinic industry.
The use of commissions creates an incentive for clinicians to provide advice based on the potential for financial gain, which is clearly unacceptable.
The committee has recommended that Australian Hearing cease the use of commissions and that the Department of Health takes steps to phase out their use by private providers.
While associated with hearing health, balance disorders do not receive a lot of attention but their effects, which may include acute attacks of dizziness and nausea, can be severely debilitating.
The causes of balance disorders are not well understood and there is a need for more research in this area, which may result in the development of new treatment options.
The committee has also recognised the role of education.
We need a national campaign to ensure Australians understand how vulnerable their hearing can be to noise damage—be it in the workplace or a nightclub.
And for many sectors, like our farmers, better understanding can prevent significant hearing loss in later life.
I would like to thank the organisations, agencies, and individuals who participated in this inquiry, especially those hearing-impaired and deaf Australians who provided the committee with accounts of their personal experiences.
I would like to thank my fellow committee members for their commitment and constructive contributions during this inquiry. Inquiries such as this show parliament working at its best.
During the inquiry we were exceptionally well supported by the staff of the committee secretariat and I thank them for their professionalism.
I commend the report to the House with the plea to governments—state and federal—that the needs of Australians with hearing loss are finally heard.
I move:
That the House take note of the report.
The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order for the next day of sitting.
I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton, I wish to make a personal explanation.
Has the minister been misrepresented?
I believe we have. During question time today, the Labor Party said that, based on data from the Australian Energy Regulator, power bills for the average Sydney household increased by $1,000 since the time the coalition came to government. This is false. The data published by the Australian Energy Regulator in the State of the energy market May 2017 report shows that, since the start of the coalition government in 2013, prices across average Sydney households on standing offers have varied from increasing by $1 to falling by $473. I call on the Leader of the Opposition to come to the House and correct the record.
() (): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, I present the committee's report, entitled Whistleblower protections.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, I present the committee's report on its inquiry into whistleblower protections. The inquiry into whistleblower protections was referred to the committee by the Senate on 30 November 2016.
There were 75 submissions received by the committee and we conducted five public hearings—one in Brisbane, one in Melbourne, and three in Canberra—to provide individuals and organisations the opportunity to provide evidence to the committee.
The committee's work on this inquiry was also greatly assisted by a substantial body of academic work over the past two decades on whistleblower protections, and I notice Professor AJ Brown is in the gallery. He did some fine work for the committee and presented on numerous occasions to the committee, and I thank him for that.
The committee used the best-practice guidelines set out in the Breaking the silence report as a systematic basis for conducting this inquiry and structuring this report.
Australian academic Professor Brown brought the report to the committee's attention and has been a leading researcher into whistleblowing. I understand Professor Brown, as I just said, is in the chamber this afternoon, so again I thank him for his work.
The committee found that effective whistleblowing protection is essential in both fostering integrity and accountability, and also deterring and exposing misconduct, fraud and corruption.
It became evident early on in our inquiry that while Australia's public sector whistleblowing laws were relatively comprehensive, they were lacking within the private sector.
The Moss review has also identified areas where public sector whistleblowing legislation would benefit from reform.
The committee heard evidence which noted gaps in our current laws, making it very difficult:
Through evidence received it became obvious there were significant inconsistencies—not only between various pieces of Commonwealth public and private sector whistleblower legislation, but also across the various pieces of legislation that apply to different parts of the private sector.
One of the committee's main recommendations is that the public sector whistleblower protection legislation remain in a separate act and all private whistleblower protection legislation be brought together within a private single act, and I'm sure the members opposite will have comments about that as well.
Subsequently, the committee has recommended that the government examine options to ensure ongoing harmony and alignment between whistleblower protections in the respective public and private sector acts.
The committee also recommended the establishment of a whistleblower protection authority to be housed as a single body or within an existing body, that can:
In addition to this, the committee has also made important recommendations on:
I'd like to thank all of those who have contributed to this inquiry into whistleblower protections.
Whilst the committee was unable to include specific whistleblower stories in the report to ensure protection of whistleblowers, the committee would like to acknowledge those who shared their experiences as a whistleblower with the committee to ensure we were fully informed about the sections in need of reform, and, in particular, the journeys they went through during their whistleblowing time.
I thank the committee members for their participation and contribution to this important inquiry, and, of course, to this report.
I thank: the Deputy Chair, Senator Deb O'Neill; Senator Nick Xenophon, who is a passionate advocate for whistleblower protections and a driving force behind a lot of this report. I also thank my parliamentary colleagues: the member for Forde, Senator John Williams, the member for Mackellar, the member for Griffith, the member for Burt, Senator Chris Ketter and Senator Peter Whish-Wilson.
It would also be remiss of me not to thank Hansard and Broadcasting, and also, in particular, the secretariat for the work that they did on aligning the members and also putting up with some of the issues that were raised.
Finally, to the committee secretariat—particularly Patrick Hodder and Jon Bell—who put an enormous amount of work into ensuring the committee has had the opportunity to liaise with the academics, whistleblowers and other representatives, and to ensure we were able to put forward informed recommendations to protect whistleblowers. That's what this report is about: the protection of whistleblowers against reprisals.
Without further ado, I commend the report to the House.
'Dobbers kiss robbers' was a catchcry of many school playgrounds around Australia, including mine. Unfortunately, it's this mentality that has made it so hard to detect corporate and other wrongdoing, and it needs to change if Australia is going to clean up its act and stop sliding further down the global Corruption Perceptions Index. It's essential to ensure that corporate, environmental, financial, banking and employer crime, and fraud, corruption and misconduct are stopped. It's also essential to ensure a culture of public accountability and integrity. Encouraging employees to report wrongdoing by their employer, and protecting them when they do, is an important part of preventing corruption in both the private and public sectors. Employees are uniquely placed to recognise misconduct both in the workplace and by their employers; generally, they are often the first to detect illegal behaviour. Unfortunately, all too often those employees don't want to do anything about the misconduct on their own.
For me as a new MP, and I'm sure for the Australian public, the conduct of this inquiry and the report produced by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services is an example of the great work that can and does come from members and senators from across political divides working together to achieve better outcomes for our nation. To that end, I would also like to thank the great assistance given to us by the secretariat and all those who made submissions to the committee.
This consensus whistleblowers report makes significant recommendations that the government should implement to ensure whistleblowers are protected, supported, given guidance and provided with proper opportunities to raise their concerns. A key recommendation is a single piece of legislation for whistleblower protections in the private sector. This will provide clarity and ease of navigation for all. It's also important that the nature of such legislation be harmonised with the existing extensive public sector protections that should also be expanded. While this may not initially occur through a singular public and private sector piece of whistleblower protection legislation, it is my view, and that of my fellow Labor committee members, that it would be preferable if a single piece of legislation was employed to effect the other recommendations of the committee so as to ensure that provisions not only start out harmonised but remain so, as well as to ensure that unnecessary distinctions between the private and public sector are not created when it comes to whistleblowing protections.
Importantly, it is recommended that the scope of whistleblower protections be expanded to apply whenever a current or former employee, contractor or volunteer has a reasonable belief that there has been a breach of any law of the Commonwealth; any law of a state or territory by an entity covered by the Fair Work Act or relating to a constitutional corporation; or an industry code or professional standard with force of law or prescribed as having protections apply. This extended scope is vital to ensure the capacity to expose breaches of, for example, the insurance industry code, the superannuation industry code and many other voluntary industry codes that apply to the financial services sector and many others. It is therefore vitally important that, along with adopting the committee's recommendations, it is prescribed that such codes are picked up by the legislation. Additional obligations will also be placed on law enforcement agencies in their dealing with whistleblowing disclosures as well as a regime for protections when disclosures are made to the media.
Finally, after much consideration, it is the committee's unanimous view that, as well as providing adequate—and, importantly, timely—access to compensation for whistleblowers where required, it is important that they have access to part of the penalties obtained against wrongdoers where successful action against them is taken. These will be determined by a whistleblower protection authority within legislated percentages and will come from the penalties that are imposed by a court. These two recommendations will be a significant shift in Australian law, but a necessary one. This is not only to encourage greater disclosure and enforcement against corporates and financial service wrongdoing but also to incentivise firms to ensure they have appropriate and genuinely functioning internal disclosure mechanisms, and this is now the case in many jurisdictions.
I strongly encourage the government to promptly attend to implementing all of the recommendations of the committee. I commend the report to the House.
I seek leave to make a statement.
Leave granted.
I'm pleased to rise today and speak on the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services on whistleblower protections in the corporate, public and not-for-profit sectors, as has been tabled by the chair of the committee, the member for Swan, who is now acting in the role of Deputy Speaker.
This inquiry was tasked with looking at a wide range of matters in the space of whistleblowing. It looked at effective ways to integrate strong whistleblower protections, at what, if any, compensation arrangements should be put in place and at how these have worked in other jurisdictions. Furthermore, it examined what measures are needed to ensure an effective access to justice for people who make or may make disclosures and then require protection as a whistleblower in the sectors I mentioned earlier.
I believe there are two key considerations that must be made in considering the legislation around whistleblowing. Firstly, why is it so important? Secondly, how do we protect whistleblowers both when they come forward and afterwards? It was clear from many submissions and witness testimonies that whistleblowing is critical for fostering a culture of accountability, integrity and transparency. I want to make the point that it remains vital as a strong deterrent against misconduct, fraud and corruption. This was made particularly clear regarding information provided to the committee by the Australian Federal Police.
The AFP made it very clear that whistleblowers play an important role in detecting serious financial crime that is often sophisticated, well concealed or part of a culture of secrecy. Furthermore, the AFP noted that, due to the nature of such crimes, there is a very low likelihood of them being uncovered by law enforcement at all unless whistleblowers feel secure in coming forward. This is a great example of why ensuring we have a robust framework around whistleblowing is so important. The AFP said the types of matters where whistleblowers become vital players in criminal investigations include foreign bribery, serious tax crime, identity crime, corporate and government corruption and serious fraud offences. Yet, despite there being a generally positive view of whistleblowing, it was pointed out to the committee that being a whistleblower is rarely easy or glamorous and can often involve great risk both publicly and personally to the person speaking out. Perhaps inevitably, then, evidence showed current protections for whistleblowers remain not as robust as they could be. So the recommendations in the report and the legislation ultimately introduced must have practical effects in both the public and the private sector, enabling effective investigation and avenues of appeal in cases of retaliation against a whistleblower.
Whistleblowing, in my view, is an essential part of our democracy. We're well aware that free speech and the importance of protecting and even advocating it has been high on the public agenda, but Australians in any workplace or in any sector must also have the ability to speak out and governments must act to protect the capacity of those people to do so. The committee has recommended that the public sector whistleblowing protection legislation remain in one act, while the various private sector whistleblowing protection legislation be brought together in another single act but separate from the first one. It is also recommended that the government examine options for ensuring ongoing harmony between the whistleblowing protections in these respective acts. This is important because, as outlined in the hearings, a recent analysis of whistleblower protections across G20 countries found that, whilst Australia's public sector whistleblowing laws were relatively comprehensive, they were lacking in the private sector. We looked at the establishment of a whistleblowing protection authority, which would be effective in overseeing the implementation of the whistleblower regime in both the public and the private sector.
I join the committee in acknowledging the work on this inquiry that has been greatly assisted by a substantial body of academic work over the past few decades. I also acknowledge the contribution of the witnesses and the submitters who participated and the secretariat for the detailed work they have done to assist us on the committee. I also thank my colleagues on the committee and the chair. I commend this report to the House.
by leave—This is a unanimous report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, which is no mean feat when you consider that the committee has on its membership Greens, Senator Xenophon from the Nick Xenophon Team, Liberals, Nationals and Labor representatives, and, perhaps even more remarkably, both members of the House and senators. Yet, despite all of our differences, we were able to come up with a unanimous report in relation to this very significant whistleblowing inquiry.
The reason that whistleblowing protections are important is fairly obvious when you think about the individual whistleblowers. It's an incredibly dangerous thing to do. To blow the whistle on unlawful conduct or conduct that breaches your professional standards or your industry codes, particularly when you've found out about these breaches through work or through a contract that you might have with a principal, can result in anything from just a slap on the wrist, to being demoted, to losing pay, to even being sacked, to having your reputation ruined, to not being able to get a job in the same industry, to not being able to earn an income. These things are serious ramifications, and so it is important for individual whistleblowers that there be a strong regime of protection in place in order to ensure that their lives are not ruined just because they've done the right thing by disclosing wrongdoing.
Similarly, and much more importantly, in my view, the importance of having a pro-whistleblowing culture should not be disregarded when it comes to the public benefit of that culture—not just the private benefit to whistleblowers in that they get protected but the public benefit that we obtain as a nation from having wrongdoing brought to light and finding out about it so that regulators are in a position to take action. For example, corporate tax evasion harms everyone. If corporates aren't paying their taxes, then it's you and me and people in our electorates who are then turned to to pay taxes to make up the shortfall. If firms are engaging in environmental vandalism and tipping toxic chemicals into the river, that's something that harms the environment and harms everybody who enjoys it. So there is a public benefit in that wrongdoing being brought to light by people who are getting access to information about it. I think when we talk about a pro-disclosure culture or a pro-whistleblowing culture, it is the public benefit that is really motivating us as a parliament to look at what can be done to extend whistleblower protections to the private sector and the not-for-profit sector and to strengthen them in the public sector. This is a report that is really very significant, I think, in that it deals with that desire to have a pro-disclosure culture.
It's also important because it tries to grapple with the questions about why someone should blow the whistle—why someone should disclose unlawful conduct or conduct that breaches professional standards or industry codes. It's certainly the first parliamentary inquiry in which I've been able to have a discussion about Immanuel Kant with a witness. We did quite enjoy the discussion around whether people should do the right thing because they should do the right thing, or whether it would be possible to look at rewards or incentives for people to be forthcoming with information about wrongdoing. As the member for Burt said, this is a fairly significant change of approach for Australia. There are some precedents—there are some bodies that will pay rewards for information about criminal offences, for example—but to look at a possibility of incentivising people to come forward with information about wrongdoing is quite a new thing for us to have looked at. So it was really useful that we got such differing perspectives from such expert bodies and witnesses. We were so grateful to all of the submitters that took the time to make a submission to our inquiry, no matter where they stood on any of the issues they came and spoke to us about. Each of the submissions was very useful; I certainly appreciated it and I know the other members of the committee did as well.
This report does recommend the possibility of incentives or rewards being paid. If someone discloses information about wrongdoing to a regulator and they're then able to get a successful prosecution or proceeding brought against the wrongdoer, this report recommends that there should be the possibility of a reward being paid to the person who has given the information. It does not recommend the right or the entitlement to a reward, but a discretion on the part of the regulators or a whistleblower protection authority—which we have suggested establishing—to be able to pay a reward if they consider a number of things, including that the information was material to getting the good result in the proceedings, or in the prosecution, as the case may be. We were informed during the course of the inquiry by some expert witnesses from the US who had been looking at their own security bodies that the Securities and Exchange Commission has been implementing its own rewards system—though they used slightly different language there—for some time now, and they've seen very strong results in terms of increased numbers of prosecutions and success. So it is a new idea. It's something that's been kicking around for a while, but it's a new thing for a committee like ours to have considered in any detail. I think it's a very sensible recommendation to allow a bit of flexibility for the regulators to be able to make a decision to pay a reward in appropriate and limited circumstances.
I want to join with the other members of the committee in thanking all of the members of the committee for their collaborative approach. Of course, I thank you, Deputy Speaker Irons, as the chair of the committee, and the deputy chair, Senator O'Neill. I particularly wanted to thank members of the secretariat like Patrick Hodder and Jon Bell, who have been incredibly supportive and, might I also say, patient with the committee. I also want to again thank everybody else who made a contribution. There are a range of members of the secretariat whose names appear on the inside of the report, and I encourage people to have a look at those names and to be grateful for the work that has been done. Also, to the people undertaking logistical work, Hansard, the broadcasters and other people who have made this inquiry possible, I wanted to record my thanks as well.
On indulgence, I congratulate the committee for coming up with the report. It's been unanimous. Well done to the members of that committee.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.
I'm very pleased to be able to continue my remarks in opposition to this Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (A More Sustainable, Responsive and Transparent Higher Education System) Bill 2017 and in support of the amendments moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I'm struck when I think about education by the continued insistence by the minister and government members generally that money doesn't matter. Of course we know it does, and the overwhelming body of evidence is to that effect. Of course, it is not simply the money in itself but how it's used as well. Overnight, we began the debate: what is significant legislation? It is significant in as much as it would send our university sector backwards and radically constrain the life opportunities of many thousands of Australians.
I'm struck by reports from the OECD, which are extraordinarily worrying and concerning and should give government members pause for thought before persisting with this legislation. What the OECD is telling us is that Australia is ranked 30th of the 34 OECD nations in our public investment in higher education—right at the very bottom. Of course, those statistics were collated before the very significant cuts which are contained in this legislation. The context of this is really important because, while my remarks and those of my colleagues are largely focused on talking about the retrograde impact of this legislation on my constituents and young Australians in the Australian economy, our economy does not exist in isolation. That's particularly true of higher education, which makes such an enormous impact on our economy, and that is certainly so in my home town of Melbourne.
When the Deputy Leader of the Opposition spoke on this, she expressed her concern about the decline of some Australian institutions in significant international rankings and talked through the significance of this. The OECD report is further cause for alarm in that Universities Australia said—quite rightly in my view—that it is increasing investment that is driving the rise of other universities within our region, particularly in places like mainland China. This has caused Belinda Robinson, the CEO of Universities Australia, to warn us—and she's right to warn us—that we simply can't afford to cut our investment at a time when other countries, including those in Asia, are 'turbocharging their investments'. They are turbocharging their investments and are deriving a serious return from them in boosting their human capital, ensuring that their young people have their potential fully realised and are equipped for the changing future world of work. Again, this will have a significant impact on our ability not just to boost the individual capacity of young Australians but to earn significant export income.
Now is the time to take, effectively, the opposite tack of that which the government proposes. Now is the time to back-in our universities; those fantastic hardworking people who work in them; those who are presently studying in them; and those who should continue to be studying in them into the future, particularly those who come from disadvantaged backgrounds and those who would be, should be, first-in-family-participants in higher education. These are the people who are already being adversely affected by this government's walking away from needs based schools funding.
I say to government members: far from blithely assuming that current funding levels for universities are excessive, as an efficiency dividend would imply, we should be querying this assumption. We should be querying it because it flies in the face of the evidence and it flies in the face of the wider importance of higher education to the Australian economy, as well as to individual Australians. I was really struck by it when I was reflecting on, in this context, the contributions of government members to this debate, some of which have been quite extraordinary, not simply in their preoccupation with an imagined past. The member for Barton, who is in the chamber, will no doubt share my interest that government members seem much more interested in talking about Menzies—imagining his record in government—than setting out their vision for the future of Australia. It's telling as to the crisis of confidence that goes to the heart of this government. It's not just in energy policy; it's right across the board.
We have a Prime Minister who sought office but, having attained it, has no power and hasn't got the courage of his convictions to set forward any course for Australia. In education, the consequences of this are huge. And there is this preoccupation with the past, this reification of Menzies in defiance of the evidence and their attempt to claim Labor's record in higher education. Many of my colleagues have gone through this and rebutted it effectively.
But I think it is worth saying that it is Labor governments which have made Australian universities what they are today and have ensured that the opportunity of university education has been opened up, whether it be by the Whitlam government, the extraordinary public-policy-making efforts of John Dawkins in the Hawke and Keating governments or, of course, the massive expansion of participation in higher education that took place under the former Labor governments of Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard. Those governments really opened up higher education to so many Australians. And it's amazing, I think, as a member of this place, to reflect on what would have been lost had these people not been given the opportunity by Labor's reforms—the demand-driven system, opening up higher education.
I note that there are some positive elements contained within this messy bill dressed up as reform. I will make particular mention, as many of my colleagues have done, of the HEPP Program. It is a good thing—unequivocally a good thing—that we will continue to have the opportunity to address some of the cultural barriers to higher education participation in many disadvantaged cohorts and that people will continue to be able to reach out into the community and make sure that universities are not cloistered, shut-away places for the elite. That is vital. But it is cruel that this legislative recognition, firstly, comes on the back of very significant cuts to this important program and, secondly, is held hostage to reforms that completely undo the worthy work of HEPPP.
But I think that, as well as the attitude to Labor and higher education, we see something quite revealing from the contribution of many government members with their utter preoccupation with private benefit in their attitude to the benefits of education. We see their complete failure to acknowledge the wider benefits, economic and beyond, provided to our community at large from higher education. That we have world-class doctors in Australia surely matters just as much as those doctors' individual earnings and, I'd hope, their satisfaction in carrying out their work following graduation. This was a point very effectively made in the contribution of the shadow assistant minister for universities, the member for Griffith. The narrow, rigid individualism that characterises the engagement of government members with this challenge is extraordinarily disappointing. Surely, when we look at the sorts of professions on the one hand and the skill sets and disciplines on the other that result from university graduation, there needs to be a wider reflection on the purpose of higher education beyond simply supporting an individual's capacity to earn their income.
I also want to touch on the second reading contribution of the assistant minister. She pays homage to the minister, Senator Birmingham, in talking around rather than engaging with the key issues in the legislation. She speaks of the goal of a more student-focused system and asserts—amazingly, for me—that we are all in this together. Of course, we should all be in it together when it comes to university education, but what this government is doing through this bill and its wider neglect of our education system is quite the reverse. In fact, what it's saying to young Australians thinking about pursuing a university education and to Australians working in our higher education institutions is: 'You are on your own. You are not part of our vision of Australia's future.'
In Labor, we believe, all of us, in the power of education. We believe in the importance of early learning and of schools which are funded and equipped to enable every child to fulfil his or her potential. We believe in TAFE as the cornerstone of skills development, not just post school but throughout life. And we believe in our universities, which are so important to building individuals up to their potential and in supporting our economy, particularly in Melbourne. We are optimistic on this side. We believe in young Australians. And that's what's so disappointing about this government's attitude: its failure to see that our future lies in our capacity to develop our human capital more than anything else.
And it is telling also, beyond these contributions of government members, that this legislation arrives after, I believe, 29 reviews but no consultation. When you look at this bill, it is easy to see that there hasn't been meaningful consultation. This package of so-called reforms has done something quite remarkable: it has united the higher education sector against the government and this flawed legislation. Not even the member for Sturt was able to do that. It's quite a tribute to Senator Birmingham that he has managed to do that!
On the other hand, with my colleagues, led by the member for Sydney, I have been listening to what universities say and, vitally, to students too. I'm particularly concerned about the impact on the universities that principally service the communities that make up the Scullin electorate. I'm concerned that Victoria over the forward estimates will receive $533 million less. La Trobe University, just outside the electorate, will be impacted by cuts of over $68 million, and RMIT university's Bundoora campus faces cuts of over $80 million. This will have a huge impact on the communities I'm so proud to represent.
I note the contribution of the La Trobe University Vice-Chancellor, John Dewar—someone who was a supporter of previous government reform initiatives in this agenda, so no friend of the Labor Party when it comes to this. Professor Dewar says,
We all recognise the powerful economic, intellectual and innovation benefits a university education delivers to everyone in the community.
It seems counterintuitive for the Federal Government to talk of boosting innovation and productivity, while also introducing financial hurdles to creating the very workforce that will deliver on that ambition.
For 50 years, La Trobe University has been undertaking world-class research and educating leaders and innovators from all walks of life. I am concerned that the measures could mean more students from regional Australia or low SES groups – already underrepresented in University lecture halls – being unable to attend university in the future.
This is a contribution that government members should have very serious regard to.
Look at the substantive measures in the bill: the massive cuts, the absurd fee increases, the extraordinary proposals to change the repayment threshold by reducing it to a level barely beyond minimum wage, the shabby treatment of New Zealand citizens and permanent residents, the trashing of enabling courses. There is nothing in this bill which evidences a vision for our university sector or a vision for young Australians being equipped for all the challenges of life in the 21st century, the Asian century.
I'm proud to be standing here with all of my Labor colleagues in clear, firm opposition to this legislation and in solidarity with all of our students and our future university students.
I'm pleased to speak to the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (A More Sustainable, Responsive and Transparent Higher Education System) Bill 2017. I believe that this bill does not adequately support regional universities and their students. I will not support the bill in its current format and will be proposing amendments in the consideration in detail stage.
In my speech I will address three points. Firstly, I will outline my amendments as practical solutions to ensure that regional universities and their students are not disadvantaged. Secondly, I will recognise the central role regional universities play in driving the economic, social and cultural value of our communities. And finally, I will acknowledge the role of my community and the role of regional universities. It's not only working actively to raise these issues but coming to the table to genuinely work with me and identify solutions.
My amendments will legislate for a national regional higher education strategy and provide some financial relief to students studying in regional Australia through a HELP debt repayment. The national regional higher education strategy will ensure regional higher education is prioritised and remains a focus of future governments. It will require the minister to table the strategy in parliament in early 2018 and review and update the strategy every four years. The introduction of a regional student HELP-debt-repayment-free period will create a HELP-debt-repayment-free period for students studying at regional universities. This will provide a financial incentive to students to study in regional communities. It will encourage regional students to remain in the regions, and potentially attract students from the major cities. The Parliamentary Budget Office has costed this proposal as having only a $21.6 million cost to the headline cash payment over the forward periods to 2020-21—let me stress: only $21.6 million. It is a very small investment with an enormous return on investment for regional communities and those who live there.
As you know, our regional universities do more than educate. They are one of the largest and most visible physical, intellectual, cultural and sporting assets in our regions and cities. They are a critical player in workforce planning. They are a driver of economic growth and development. They are key employers. They innovate and they inspire. They act as major attracters to young people, and they can make the difference between economic survival and going backwards.
All regional MPs in this House know the many advantages related to living in regional Australia's towns and cities, including affordability and livability. Small cities can have the benefits of big cities without the disadvantages. They can be both highly productive and great places to live. The government knows this, too. They tell us in Regions 2030: Unlocking Opportunity:
Regional Australia is not just important to those of us who live here. The Australian economy is largely driven by its regions. Australia’s agriculture, forestry, fishing and mining industries, predominantly located in regional Australia, made up 57 per cent of the value of Australia’s merchandise exports in 2016.
Fifty seven per cent! It says:
Forty five cents in every dollar spent in Australia by international or local visitors is spent in regional areas. Most of the gas and electricity which powers city households is produced in regional Australia.
It is only logical that we should invest in Australia’s regions because Australia’s regions power Australia’s economy.
So says the government report. It continues:
Investing in our regions pays massive dividends for our nation—strong regions are the foundation of a strong Australia.
That's from the government's own propaganda. Let me say that again: it's only logical that we should invest in Australia's regions because Australia's regions power Australia's economy.
My community knows the value of regional universities. They know that regional universities enable the best use of human capital and resources and contribute to educational opportunities, economic prospects, innovation and community capacity. The universities' teaching and learning activities, research and innovation, and services functions contribute to human capital development, regional governance and planning, community development, health and ageing care, arts, culture, sport, environmental sustainability and industry and business development. Our unis provide leadership in stimulating positive change and staff and students play active and visible roles in the community. For many regional centres, a strong university presence is intrinsic to a strong regional presence.
Large regional centres, such as Albury-Wodonga, have surely benefited from the presence of Charles Sturt and La Trobe universities. In the border's case, there is the added advantage of two university colleges. I would particularly like to acknowledge the role of Wodonga TAFE. Charles Sturt University, Australia's largest regional university, is the result of the formation of the Bathurst experimental farm and the Wagga Wagga experimental farm in the 1890s. In one form or another, research, innovation and education have been integral to the university's character and mission for more than a century.
My communities recognise the values of access to education, specifically tertiary education. They have consistently raised this as a priority. In the postbudget survey that my staff and I carried out in May of more than 1,000 people across the electorate, 92 per cent of respondents identified education as their top priority. They made the following points: forcing graduates to repay loans at a lower income threshold will just create a new category of poor—it's better to leave them enough money to spend, to live, to invest, to pay for housing and to have their families. So, clearly, regional universities and the ability to have money and live in your community are really important.
Marilyn Bakker told me: 'Something needs to be done to support kids for their tertiary education when they can't live at home.' Ian Jarvie said, 'Education and equitable access to all ensures diversity, access to information, better decisions and innovation.' Support for regional kids to attend universities includes regional subsidies, better and more relevant transport and more connectivity within the regional centres. Adrian Twitt tells me: 'Country students are handicapped in accessing tertiary education. There needs to be more support for such students.' So today I'm standing up for those in my electorate who have asked me to do so, to stand up for accessibility and for positive discrimination for rural and regional people, and universities.
La Trobe and Charles Sturt universities and the Regional University Network told the Senate inquiry into education and employment that the net effect of this complex package can be summarised as government reducing the level of public investment in higher education while increasing the amount of student contributions. Students are asked to pay more for a university education that is funded less, and country students have to pay even more. The evidence provided that the bill runs counter to the importance of the sector to Australia and our regional economies. It sidesteps the critical issues of support for regionally delivered higher education, and creates disincentives for improving the participation and retention of under-represented student cohorts.
They went on to say that the proposed bill in its current form would destabilise the foundation of Australia's world-class university system, and Australia cannot afford to risk our economic future and jeopardise the potential of our students by undermining the capacity of our higher education sector. I believe this legislation will do that. We know that regional students remain underrepresented in higher education institutions, and data shows that regional and remote students make up just 18.8 per cent of domestic undergraduate students at universities, compared to 26.4 per cent for the population as a whole.
We know the real threat to rural communities is the declining population, particularly of our young people. The trend is to lose young people to the cities, as they leave their country homes for opportunities related to employment, education and training, and leisure in urban centres and overseas. Statistics show that they are unlikely to return in a hurry. The Regional Universities Network reports that people who study in regions largely stay in the regions. A study undertaken by the Regional Universities Network demonstrates that between 60 per cent and 80 per cent of the employed recent graduates of those universities were employed in regional Australia. If they study locally, they stay locally. And herein lies the problem.
The government's proposed package will disproportionately affect low-income households. For students who are studying and working part-time, financial pressure has been shown to be a major contributor to a student's decision to drop out of or not take up higher education. Far away from family and community support, this captures regional students who go to metro areas at a disproportionate rate. And, while the independent review considers students who will look to travel to metropolitan universities, it does not support the students who elect to continue their education at a regional university. These very issues are, at best, barely adequately addressed and, at worst, ignored completely.
In closing today, I want to reflect on the words from this week's editorial in TheBorder Mail, my local paper. It supports my call for a national regional higher education strategy:
For several decades now though some of the larger regional centres, such as Albury-Wodonga, have benefited from a university presence. In the Border’s case, it has had the added plus of go-ahead TAFE colleges – especially in Wodonga.
Charles Sturt University has certainly long championed the enormous value for regional economies that comes from developing and providing courses that turn out graduates with a commitment to rural Australia, as well as having a significant commitment to research.
La Trobe University, which of course also has long had a Border presence, has a similar commitment.
And that is why all must be done to ensure there is no attempt to water-down these universities at a time when their commitment is to expand in order to even better serve regional areas.
In closing, I'm speaking against this legislation. I ask my colleagues opposite to stand up for rural and regional Australia—to actually do what needs to be done and support my amendments when I bring them on, to show their dedicated commitment for what we know to be true: without support, our rural universities, which underpin our whole economic development in our regions, will be at stake. It is too important to let go on a whim—as to which, let me say: the National Party opposite and the Liberal Party vote because they're told to vote. So, in closing, colleagues, can I say: will you please stand up for rural and regional Australia. Will you please do the right thing. Will you please—please—convince the government that we've got to do better by our regions.
I wish to join with my Labor colleagues on this side of the House in condemning this bill before the House tonight, the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (A More Sustainable, Responsive and Transparent Higher Education System) Bill 2017. This bill purports to be about 'higher education support', but that, in fact, is one of the great misnomers.
Large parts of this legislation are simply wrong. If passed, this legislation would see massive cuts to universities and increased fees and debts for students, whilst also shifting the burden back onto students—who would have, as I said, bigger debts to repay much sooner. More critically, this bill will close the door of opportunity to many, many potential students. And it will disproportionately hurt regional universities like the University of Newcastle in my electorate.
Australia already has the second-lowest level of public investment in universities in the OECD, and our students are already paying the sixth-highest fees. This package will only make that bad record even worse. That's why we see near-universal opposition to this legislation from the higher education sector. The peak body for the universities, Universities Australia, has said:
An overwhelming majority of Vice-Chancellors … could not recommend that the Senate crossbench pass the legislative package.
And the NTEU, the sector's union, has also opposed the bill, because of the impact of the cuts and fee hikes to students. This opposition is because these people in the sector know that this legislation is not reform. Indeed, this legislation fails to make any inroads into the really serious challenges that we face in higher education in Australia.
Instead of carving out a vision for the nation and a pathway to get there, all the government have got on offer are cuts: cuts to funding, cuts to services, cuts to infrastructure and cuts to programs. Make no mistake: if the Prime Minister persists with this plan, our universities will suffer. The quality of university education in Australia will be compromised, and students will be expected to pay more and more and more. At a time when Australia should be investing in our tertiary education sector, this bill enshrines $3.8 billion of cuts, while also increasing the debt for students, and locking tens of thousands of potential students out of higher education altogether.
In New South Wales alone, this would result in $617.8 million of cuts into vital university services. In my electorate of Newcastle, the Turnbull Liberal government's plan for higher education, if it proceeds, means that our local university, the University of Newcastle, will have its funding slashed by a staggering $63.2 million over the next four years alone, and that blows out to more than $100 million over the decade.
There can be no doubt that student learning and outcomes, university programs and university infrastructure will all suffer as a result of these savage cuts. This legislation means that Australian students will end up paying more and getting less.
Whilst cutting university funding, the Prime Minister is hitting students with higher fees and asking them to pay off those larger debts at a much quicker rate. Under this legislation, students will have to start paying back their HECS loans when they start earning just $42,000, a threshold which is only around $6,000 more than the minimum wage, instead of the current $54,869. Graduates caught between these policies will experience considerable financial stress, making opportunities for home ownership and financial security less likely. This locks in financial insecurity for young Australians at a time when they should, in fact, be setting themselves up.
There can be no doubt that this legislation hits universities based in regional and rural settings the hardest. Regional Universities Network summed it up in their submission to the Senate inquiry on this legislation when they warned that:
… serious perverse consequences for RUN universities are likely to be associated with such measures. These include: further lowering the participation rate of regional students in higher education; and detrimental economic and social impact in regional Australia.
At a time when regional students are already under-represented in our universities, these outcomes are utterly unacceptable.
While there are many measures in this legislation that are wrongheaded, I particularly want to focus on just one of those measures in the time that I have left in this debate, and that is the damage being done by these proposals to the delivery of enabling education programs in Australia. The Liberal government's ill-thought-out proposal to introduce fees for enabling programs, to cap student numbers and, indeed, to look at outsourcing or privatising enabling education in Australia is a dangerous slippery slope for enabling education.
These programs are university preparation courses. These enabling programs give people who have sometimes not had opportunities to finish high school, who have had their education and life interrupted by all sorts of issues and complications along the way, an important pathway to participate in tertiary education. Indeed, they ensure that regions like the Newcastle and Hunter region have a local skill base that can capitalise on opportunities in the 21st century economy.
These courses are particularly successful in helping students from overwhelmingly disadvantaged and under-represented backgrounds to get a university education. As I said, they provide the very skills that you would want every young person in our community to have, but this legislation before us tonight puts all of that under threat. This has particular significance for the University of Newcastle, because the University of Newcastle is the oldest and largest provider of enabling education in this country.
We do enabling education very well; we're very experienced at it. It is no coincidence, for example, that there are more than 1,000 Indigenous students enrolled at the University of Newcastle. It is no coincidence that we train more than half of this nation's Indigenous doctors. And that's because the University of Newcastle, for more than 30 years now, has invested heavily in enabling programs that specifically target Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. We have the Yapug program, which has opened up so many opportunities for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men and women of Australia.
I was really very fortunate to be at a scholarship presentation ceremony at the university recently. I met this amazing woman, Michaela, who was in her second year of medicine at The University of Newcastle. She had completed the enabling program. She was a young woman whose experience of secondary education had given her very little hope or confidence that she could attend university. She was introduced to the enabling program, and is now a scholarship recipient in her second year of university. She introduced me to the other 19 Aboriginal men and women undertaking second-year medicine at the University of Newcastle. All but one of these students came through an enabling program—the very programs this legislation seeks to destroy. 'Destroy' might seem a very loaded word to some people opposite, but I warn them that putting a price barrier in front of kids who already face multiple obstacles getting their foot in the door of higher education is all it takes to stop them from making that step.
I was very fortunate last July to have the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and shadow minister for higher education, Tanya Plibersek, visit the University of Newcastle. She spent time with students and the providers of these enabling programs. We met so many terrific students that day. One who particularly comes to mind is a young man who is now doing his master's degree, who was so ill during his high school education that he barely got beyond year 9. Nobody had any hopes for him, yet he managed to find his way to the University of Newcastle. His mother encouraged him to take part in an Open Foundation course—the very course that the government is seeking to price these kids out of, to outsource to the private sector and then cap the number of students allowed to enter. He is now enrolled in a master's program and is flying high. He is now excelling, but he is just one of—you are lucky you are seated, Mr Deputy Speaker Irons—42,000 students that the University of Newcastle have put through enabling programs in order for them to access and complete their higher education.
Any given day you step on the campus at the University of Newcastle, one in five students in the current cohort will be from an enabling program—one in five. My colleague the member for Dobell, who spoke earlier, has campuses of the University of Newcastle at Ourimbah. One in four of the students there come through enabling programs. That is because these are programs that provide access for a lot of kids who are the first in their family to ever go to university; women who have faced multiple obstacles; a lot of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander kids who otherwise would be locked out; and kids who come from low-socioeconomic backgrounds. These are the very people that you would want to support in every way you could to get a quality higher education, and yet these are the people that this government seeks to block out. It is shameful.
I ask: where are all the members of the National Party right now to speak up for their constituencies? Where is the member for Cowper, who has two campuses—in Port Macquarie and in Coffs Harbour—of the University of Newcastle? Where is the member for Calare, who has a campus and the Centre for Rural and Remote Mental Health in Orange, run by the University of Newcastle? Where is the member for New England, the Leader of the Nationals and Deputy Prime Minister? Where is he? He has two campuses: in Tamworth and Armidale. Where is the member for Lyne, who has a campus in Taree? Where is the member for Parkes, who has a campus in Moree? Why are they not here in this chamber, standing up to defend the universities that are going to educate their young men and women to help build and strengthen their regions? I am just astonished that they could not even put their name on a speaking list to justify why it is that they will come in here to vote in support of legislation that does nothing but damage to regional communities across Australia. I want to thank my colleague the member for Dobell, who, in stark contrast, stood up here defending the university and her constituents who attend the University of Newcastle's Ourimbah campus. It's a shame that the member for Robertson is not here doing likewise. She has a lot of her constituents attending the Ourimbah campus. It would be timely for these men and women, the so-called champions of regional Australia, to show their faces right now and actually be here for this debate instead of shunning it. They will be turning up when the bells ring for a division, any time soon, and they'll sit over on those benches supporting these cuts, supporting cuts to these universities that provide important catalysts in each of their regional communities.
There is no way that we can develop a quality 21st century higher education sector if all you have on the table is cuts to funding, cuts to services, cuts to infrastructure and cuts to vital programs like the enabling programs that I've spoken about tonight; programs that prepare young men and women who would otherwise have been locked out of university for the future economy and instead give them every opportunity that they rightly deserve to have quality education in Australia. (Time expired)
When considering the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (A More Sustainable, Responsive and Transparent Higher Education System) Bill 2017, we should reflect on a statement made by Prime Minister Turnbull when he assumed office as Prime Minister in September 2015. The Prime Minister said:
The Australia of the future has to be a nation that is agile, that is innovative, that is creative. We can't be defensive, we can't future-proof ourselves.
This is a national goal that I share with the Prime Minister. As technology evolves faster than it ever has before, we rely on an educated society to drive the innovation that will keep Australia placed as one of the best countries in the world to work and live in.
Universities are the cornerstone of innovation. Over the last century, Australian universities have been the catalyst for some truly remarkable inventions, creations and research that have dramatically shaped the world we live in. This includes the bionic ear, invented at the University of Melbourne, which has benefited close to 200,000 people worldwide and has led to the employment of over 2,200 people; solar conversion technology developed by the University of New South Wales; CPAP technology to treat sleep apnoea, developed by the University of Sydney, which built the company ResMed, which has over 4,000 employees and annual revenues of $1.6 billion; a cervical cancer vaccine invented by the University of Queensland which saves over 250,000 lives each year; and so many more. Indeed, I don't think we give enough recognition to the university sector for research and innovation that is changing lives and creating jobs and investment in Australia.
I realise that funding has increased considerably since the uncapping of places. The sector has experienced unprecedented growth, and this has created unintended consequences and affected other sectors such as apprenticeships. While there has been unprecedented growth in student numbers, over the last five years universities have experienced significant budget cuts. Let's examine some of those cuts. In 2010, the then Labor government cut $298 million by abolishing the Capital Development Pool. In 2013, the MYEFO cut $113 million in ARC funding. In 2015, changes to start-up scholarships, cuts to the Sustainable Research Excellence initiative, closure of the OLT and closure of the Structural Adjustment Fund saw further cuts of over $2 billion. In total, over $3.4 billion of funding has been removed from the university sector in recent years. It is worth remembering that, while many of the funding cuts have occurred since the Abbott government, the Labor budget in March 2013 made cuts of $2.37 billion in higher education through the introduction of a so-called efficiency dividend.
The Nick Xenophon Team is not convinced that this bill as it currently stands will assist the sector to reform. We agree that reform is needed but cannot accept that this is the reform that is indeed needed. With the greatest of respect, this bill is tinkering around the edges with some small good measures and a blunt and deep cut that will mean job losses to the sector and higher education costs for students.
What we need is a comprehensive review of higher education that involves federal and state governments, universities and the vocational education apprenticeships sector around the table. We need a comprehensive review, akin to the Gonski-led review of education. We must look at how we prepare the next generation for the world of work to ensure young people successfully transition to sustainable employment. Right now we have university educated young people stacking shelves at supermarkets because there are few graduate jobs. These young people are in debt for thousands of dollars and their degrees are essentially redundant if they are not able to find employment in their chosen field of study in the years immediately following graduation. Unfortunately, I see too many of those young people in my electorate. At the same time, apprenticeships and traineeship numbers have significantly declined. According to the National Centre for Vocational Education and Research, in 2012 there were 470,000 apprentices and trainees. By March this year that number had declined to just 275,000 apprentices and trainees, a loss of nearly 200,000 places, yet we're not adequately addressing this crisis.
As recently highlighted by my colleague Senator Nick Xenophon, the government is yet to act on Senate inquiry recommendations that addressed skills shortages that were raised two years ago. The report Directions in Australia’s automotive industry: an industry report 2017 detailed 27,000 jobs waiting to be filled. The automotive industry is just one industry where there are skills shortages; residential construction trades is another area. This will be exacerbated as older tradesmen, highly skilled craftsmen—carpenters, stone masons and electricians—retire. If you think it's difficult to get a plumber now, wait five years!
One of the reasons for the skills shortage is that, in our culture, trades are considered an inferior career and universities the only pathway to success. In the article 'What now for the demand driven system?' Mark Burford, the former education advisor during the Rudd-Gillard government, held concerns that were raised in the 2008 Bradley review of higher education. It stated:
… moving to a demand-based approach to funding higher education cannot be done in isolation from VET. Changing higher education funding but leaving VET funding untouched would compound existing distortions.
A decade on, we can see that these concerns were well founded. We have a more educated population but job outcomes for graduates are getting worse. High-school students receive little pathway planning to determine their strengths. Trades are not seen as a valuable career. I believe they should be. By the same token, the university sector has encouraged an increase in enrolments that has led to a drop in entry standards and teaching quality. In 2016, figures released by the Department of Education and Training show that over 1,000 students were admitted to the Bachelor of Teaching with an ATAR score of less than 50. How are these students expected to teach the Australian curriculum to others when they are unable to pass it themselves? I want to make it clear that I'm not advocating for the removal of the demand driven system and a return to capped places, but we urgently need to examine the impacts of the demand driven system and examine admissions standards for students looking to enter university.
There are a number of measures that have merit in this bill. I'll detail some of those measures. I support enshrining the Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program in legislation. This program helps to ensure that Australians from low-SES backgrounds have the opportunity to attend university. I support the $24 million allocated to work-integrated learning opportunities. A graduate leaving university with experience in their chosen field and with contacts in the industry is invaluable for their future job prospects. I support the $15 million investment in regional higher education through the establishment of eight community hubs across Australia, although I do feel that $15 million is woefully inadequate for regional Australia. I support the transparency measures and the principle of performance-contingent funding. However, I believe that what is proposed has the potential to lead to perverse outcomes. In reality, the proposed contingent funding will mean that universities will need to reduce their expenditure by 7.5 per cent each year and hold on to those funds on the likelihood that such funds may be clawed back by government in the following year should they not meet expected performance targets. This measure does not have savings in the budget, but it will pit university against university for the share of the losers' funds. It will, if you like, be a Hunger Gamesstyle policy, where smaller universities and, in particular, regional universities will be at a disadvantage when entering the game. This approach will create winners and losers rather than lifting the performance benchmarks overall.
I'm also concerned about exactly what those measures will be. If it is determined that performance-funding measures will be based on such things as retention rates or collective GPAs, will universities cherrypick students that they know will need the least support?
Does this mean a single parent or a student with a disability or a first-in-family student will be less likely to receive a place?
I accept that the new measures need to be paid for but I can't justify new measures worth $158 million coming at a cost of $3.8 billion. I cannot support increasing the student contribution. Australia currently has the fifth-highest tuition fees in the OECD countries, behind the United States, Japan, Korea and Canada. The government is asking Australian students to shoulder even more of the burden. Nearly 80 per cent of students enrolled in a bachelor degree are young people. We are asking them to pay more to get less. It is not lost on young people that many of the decision-makers in this place had the great benefit of a free university education and are now legislating for them to pay more.
Young people have borne the brunt of budget cuts for years. In the 2014 budget, we had a proposal for 'six months on, six months off' youth allowance for young jobseekers—as if young people could magically live on fresh air for six months at a time. In the same budget, National Youth Week was stripped of funding, and the Australian Youth Affairs Coalition, also known as AYAC, was defunded, ensuring young people are denied a national advocate.
Last year the government sought a five-week waiting period for young people applying for Centrelink assistance. From the 1970s through to 2013, successive governments in this place have recognised that young people deserve representation through a minister for youth. One Australian in five is aged 12 to 25, yet both major parties rejected a motion asking the Prime Minister to appoint a minister for young people, also known as a minister for youth. How can we expect young people to ever reach prosperity, or start a family if they desire, if at every turn we want to charge them more and take more from them.
The lowering of the HELP repayment threshold is an issue that has caused angst amongst young people. The HELP system is one of the most generous higher education loan systems in the world, and the current threshold for repayment is $54,869. That is significantly more than comparable countries. New Zealand has a threshold of $18,000 and the UK has a threshold of $36,000. The HELP system means no Australian student faces the barriers of up-front costs for their university education. This, I believe, above all else is the biggest contributor to encouraging students from disadvantaged backgrounds to enter university. It is, in my opinion, one of the best facets of our higher education system and we must do all we can to protect it.
The HELP loan is designed to be repaid gradually once a student has derived a benefit from it and is contributing to society. Under the proposed legislation, the repayment threshold would be lowered to $42,000 at a rate of one per cent. The question must be asked: has a person who is earning $42,000 per year derived a benefit from their university studies? The average income for a working Australian is $61,000, and that is $19,000 more than the proposed threshold. I don't believe students who are earning just $6,000 above the minimum wage are yet deriving a significant benefit from their studies. I do concede the repayment is low at that level, but I do think we need to look at this very carefully. I'm not yet convinced the $42,000 threshold is the right approach. I will be open to discussing that further with the government, as will my Senate colleagues.
The proposed changes for residents, and particularly for New Zealand students, will mean many students will no longer be able to afford to study in Australia. Remember, New Zealand is facing an election at the moment. Should the New Zealand Labour Party win—and it will be on a platform of free university study—we will find that very few students from New Zealand will be interested in migrating to Australia.
In South Australia, we have three excellent universities: the University of South Australia, the University of Adelaide and Flinders University, of which I have very fond memories. Collectively they employ 10,000 people and contribute significantly to South Australia's economy. The measures put forward in this legislation could result in up to 770 job losses across those three universities. South Australia cannot afford to lose those jobs. We cannot afford to implement legislation that will not reform the sector but will be a blunt instrument that results in job losses and higher student debt.
The Nick Xenophon Team believes we need a comprehensive review of the whole post-secondary education space in both metropolitan and regional areas. We need to consider our future workforce and how best to shape the university and vocational and education sectors together to build our nation's capacity. We need sensible university reform that does not punish students. In order to do this we must do our homework first, bringing together government and all the relevant stakeholders to design reform and then to legislate and implement same.
There are a number of measures in the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (A More Sustainable, Responsive and Transparent Higher Education System) Bill 2017 that there's no possible way the Labor Party can support. And there are certainly a number of measures in this bill that the university sector itself does not support.
This bill will cut university funding by $4 billion and hit students with higher fees. I personally know what it's like to be paying back a non-government-supported HELP debt. It is not nice. Particularly when you're older, it's a lot harder to stomach. It will saddle students with bigger debts that they'll have to pay back at the same time as they are trying to buy a house or start a family. If you're a young Australian and you aspire to go to university, aspire to earn a decent wage and aspire to have a house, under this government you cannot actually aspire to have all of those things. This government is making people choose. These were things that many, many years ago we took for granted. This bill compromises the teaching and learning and undermines research at our universities, which is absolutely gut wrenching considering how well our universities do on the global stage. And it slashes investment in universities at a time when the government should be investing in both universities and TAFEs in order to guarantee a strong, productive economy.
This government talks about the economy all the time, yet what this bill is actually doing is going to be extremely detrimental to our economy, because higher education is an investment in our people; it's an investment in our economy. This legislation will seek to make it harder for regional students, those who are from a disadvantaged background and those from lower socio-economic backgrounds to access a higher education. It also goes against the grain of what the other OECD countries are calling for. The legislation is not supported by Australia's Group of Eight universities, and the legislation is obviously of great concern to Universities Australia.
There was one person I heard yesterday in the MPI debate, and that was the member for Hughes, who seems to be the chief cheerleader for this government. He's somewhat in denial. He claimed yesterday that Labor needed to get some maths education and we needed to do our research. He claimed that this government is not making a cut to higher education. Well, I say this to the member for Hughes and everyone else on the other side who says this is not a cut. I don't know; I think most people on this side would agree that at universities they have professors of economics and professors of mathematics. You've got Universities Australia saying, 'Science would be hardest hit by proposed university cuts,' 'Rankings highlight risk of uni funding cuts,' and, 'Government out of step with community opposition to uni cuts: only one in 10 SA voters support,' about the government's cuts. You've got them saying that all the leaders of Australian universities are 'unanimous' in their 'opposition to the proposals to cut university funding and lift student fees'. You've got the Innovative Research Universities saying:
The package cuts university funding and increases the student charge.
A cut's a cut. If the universities are saying it, they're the experts. They're probably more expert in economics than many in this place. It is a cut.
This is exactly what we're facing under this legislation, and it's certainly not something that we can support. Universities Australia—and this is the chief executive, Belinda Robinson—had this to say about the Prime Minister's cuts:
As our economy changes and old industries face new threats, Australia needs to keep—not cut—our investment in universities to create new jobs, new industries and new sources of income for Australia.
Ms Robinson's message is particularly relevant to the regions where local economies are in transition. I would have thought the government would recognise that that's the fact, but, if they're not in touch with regional Australia, then surely they mustn't know.
The Group of Eight universities are calling on the Senate to block the changes. What they're saying is that this legislation puts at risk the capacity building in universities. I quote from the Group of Eight in the submission that they've made to the Senate:
… cuts to university funding will force universities to make difficult choices about the allocation of resources across teaching, student support, and research with serious impacts on access, choice, quality, and, most importantly, equity.
And I don't think those on the other side really understand what equity means, particularly in regional Australia. They also state:
Regional Australia makes an enormous contribution to Australia's progress across multiple sectors and industries. Its success depends in part on university graduates being able to apply their knowledge and capabilities to drive economic progress and create healthy communities.
I would have thought everyone in this place would agree with that statement. But this legislation goes against that. How on earth those sitting opposite who are from regional communities and claim they represent regional communities can support this legislation is beyond me, because this will make it harder for regional students.
The OECD last night released some documentation around where we're at in Australia, and it was quite telling indeed. They were basically saying that Australia's higher education has amongst the lowest levels of public investment within the OECD. Australian public investment in tertiary education institutions is 0.7 per cent of GDP, 40 per cent below the OECD average of 1.1 per cent. In contrast, however, Australia's level of private investment in tertiary education is at 1.1 per cent of GDP, more than twice the OECD average of 0.5 per cent. I think we have to have some recognition—certainly on this side of the House—that the primary benefit of a university student's education is a public benefit. These figures don't really reflect that at all. The government is investing less in higher education as we move forward.
The OECD report also says the high private contribution Australian students make to the cost of their tertiary education is reflected in the high level of tuition fees our students are required to pay. Again, the report shows these to be amongst the highest in the OECD. And this government is expecting students to pay more. Let's say you're from a regional community in the north-west of Tasmania, where we have a regional campus of the University of Tasmania. You know that the job prospects in your region are not going to give you high wages. That's the reality of living in regional Australia. The average wage is a lot less, particularly in Tasmania. You then have to have this massive HELP debt at the end of your university career to get into a job that is paying you less than the national average for that occupation. You have to question why you'd want to do that in the first place. This government is setting up regional students and regional Australia to fail.
So what does this legislation mean for my local university, the Cradle Coast campus of the University of Tasmania? Universities Australia have established that these cuts will see the University of Tasmania worse off by $51.3 million. My electorate, like many regional areas in Australia, has a disproportionate number of people not engaged in higher education. Torrens University Australia's social health atlases state that Braddon's school leaver participation in higher education, at an average of 18.58 per cent, is lower than the Tasmanian average and the national average. Respected economist and University of Tasmania Vice-Chancellor's Fellow Saul Eslake has previously said:
Higher levels of educational participation and attainment won't solve all of Tasmania’s economic and social challenges—but they will make them less difficult to solve, not least by sustainably increasing the resources which can be used to solve them.
This legislation is going against what someone like Saul Eslake is saying. Former UTas vice-chancellor Peter Rathjen has been on the public record that cuts to the University of Tasmania could threaten the future of regional campuses. You have to understand the Cradle Coast campus is subsidised by the main campus in Hobart. It operates at a huge loss, and I take my hat off to the University of Tasmania for wanting to maintain the Cradle Coast campus, because it has made a huge difference to the lives of the people in the north-west and on the west coast of Tasmania and their ability to access education.
When I first went to the University of Tasmania in Launceston, it was 100 kilometres from where I lived. I had to move home. Thankfully, my single mother could subsidise my rent, and I had to pay for my schoolbooks. When you're living off two-minute noodles you can just about do that, but I understand what it's like to be an undergraduate, leaving home and living on barely anything, just to get a university education. The Cradle Coast campus allows accessible courses for people in my region. The message is very clear that the Group of Eight and our local universities will have to make very, very hard decisions if this legislation is passed.
The Cradle Coast campus offers a number of degrees and research based postgraduate study which directly relate to the industries in my electorate, particularly in agriculture and advanced manufacturing. What's really hard to stomach is this government's decision to put an up-front cost on enabling courses. Enabling courses don't actually give anyone a qualification at the end, but they help people who may be very hesitant about entering higher education. There are a number of those people in my electorate who will have to come up with $3,200, or at least defer the cost through HELP. The Cradle Coast campus offers a number of enabling courses. University preparation programs are offered to kids who are 16 and 17. It's ludicrous that you would saddle a 16- or 17-year-old with a debt just to decide whether they're going to continue with their education. Other programs are UniStart, Students in Schools, the VET to higher education achievers program and the University Connections Program for year 11 and 12 students. These courses help potential students develop the skills required for independent learning and success: critical thinking—which, I have to say, is a bit lacking on the other side—critical reading and academic writing.
The other area that's of concern to me as someone who has studied a couple of postgraduate degrees is the changes made to placements for postgraduate positions within universities, those that are not Commonwealth supported places and those that are. This government is reducing the number of government supported places. I graduated last year from Monash University in a non-government supported place by studying 10 units, which is the first step to become a registered psychologist, and I ended up with a HELP debt of $28,000 after 10 units. The next stage is to do an advanced or honours equivalent course. Monash were offering that and it is all done online, which is very accessible to students and a great way of studying for postgraduate students, but that second course, which you had to do to just become provisionally registered as a psychologist, was going to cost another $28,000. I know that people in my course, when they were contemplating at that time what to do next, found that a huge barrier to them undertaking further education just to become provisionally qualified as a psychologist. These were older people in their 40s and 50s wanting a career change, and this government is going to stop even more of them from going into advanced education for higher degrees.
It is not only that; in some cases, you have to be offered a position to study in a higher degree. What this government is saying is that it may be introducing a system where you take a voucher to a university. So, if you're offered a place, do you then go and say: 'I've got to apply for a voucher. I'm not sure if I'll get it. It's sort of like a scholarship. Can you hold off on that placement until I can confirm with the government whether it will support me to go on and get a higher degree?' We don't know. This legislation is so scant on details. This is really unsettling for university students right now who are looking at whether they should go and get a higher degree and those, particularly from regional communities, thinking about going into university and wondering what on earth this government is doing, why it is creating all these barriers to higher education and why it is stopping people in regional Australia from improving their lives and being in a position to earn a good income, to pay more tax and to make a contribution to our society. This is a real shame of this government—an absolute shame—and I hope that those in the Senate and on the crossbench do not support this bill.
The Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (A More Sustainable, Responsive and Transparent Higher Education System) Bill 2017 is bad public policy. I am very disappointed. I am sure I speak for a great many people in the electorate of Denison and throughout Tasmania when I say this is bad policy and it should not be pursued. It is very disappointing that the government is so determined to try and ram these sort of reforms through the parliament.
Why on earth would we be asking university students to pay more and asking university graduates to start paying back their debt sooner? Why on earth would we be cutting university funding even more when they are already chronically underfunded, even though we live in one of the richest, most clever and most fortunate countries in the world? This country, more than any other country, can afford to properly resource our universities, yet here we are again in this place, debating more cuts to university funding.
This is going to hurt the University of Tasmania greatly, and I associate myself with the comments from the member for Braddon, who has covered some of this ground quite effectively. By one estimate, the University of Tasmania will see its funding cut by over $11 million annually by 2021 if these so-called reforms come to pass. Tasmania is a small state with a relatively small university that is cross-subsidising two campuses outside of Hobart and, in fact, is cross-subsidising the campus at Burnie to a very great extent. This is one university that simply cannot afford to lose $11.2 million annually. It is not just the university that will be worse off; the students will be worse off. In fact, students will be paying something like $11.3 million extra in fees in Tasmania by 2021 if these so-called reforms go through. This will hurt the University of Tasmania. This will hurt students at the University of Tasmania. This will especially hurt the campus at Burnie and the students of that smaller campus. I associate myself in full with the very wise comments from the member for Braddon about the Burnie campus.
It is also a direct attack on disadvantaged people and women throughout Tasmania and throughout this country. When the government is demanding that ex-students on incomes as low as $42,000 a year—barely above the minimum wage—start paying back their debts, that is unacceptable. It will disproportionately hurt disadvantaged people, people on low incomes and people who are, for good reason, in and out of the workforce and have a lower average income. For example, women might be in and out of the workforce as they start a family and raise a family. Also, I would hope, there are men who are in and out of the workforce to care for their young children and to allow their partner to be in the workforce full time.
This is very ill-considered policy. This is policy that is coming on top of all of the other cuts to the tertiary sector over recent years. For example, between 2010 and 2013, the Gillard Labor government cut $2.3 billion from universities. Cuts have been so severe that universities throughout the country are now effectively underfunded by about $1 billion a year. I make the point again that this is one of the richest countries in the world—a country with a federal budget which forecasts expenditure of some $456,000 million this financial year. With all of that money sloshing around, and with all that we know about the value of education and the richness it brings both to our community and to the members of our community, the government would go ahead with a reform that is going to cost the University of Tasmania alone over $11 million a year by 2021 and hurt campuses like the Burnie campus. The reform is going to cost the students at our university over $11 million a year by 2021. This is not good enough.
Don't just take my word for it. If you don't believe me then believe the OECD, because they have just released a report, Education at a glance 2017. They have put Australian public investment in tertiary education institutions now at 0.7 per cent of our GDP, some 40 per cent below the OECD average of 1.1 per cent of GDP. Do you know where that puts us? Thirtieth out of 34 countries when it comes to public funding for our universities. How naive and short-sighted are we when this is all that we know about the value of education? How are we going to compete with the 29 countries ahead of us in the OECD when we're dumbing down our education and we're restricting education to the rich or the kids of the rich or the kids in the big cities? How are we going to compete with the other 29 countries? Well, we won't. It's as simple as that.
One of the problems here is this obsession over many years—and I'll probably trace it back to the Howard government, but it has continued to this day—with commercialisation, privatisation and user pays. We now have a two-class society in this country, and it's going to get a whole lot worse if this bill goes through: the haves and the have-nots, the rich and the disadvantaged, and the people who can afford user pays and the people who can't afford user pays. We have a two-class society, with the rich and the poor. The rich are doing okay. They'll go to the best private schools, they'll go to the best universities and they'll go to the best hospitals. They'll do well and they'll keep doing well. It will snowball, and they'll do better and better and better, and their families will do better and better and better. What about the rest of the community, the people who can't afford user pays, who are going to have to put up with underfunded universities, low-price courses, underfunded hospitals, underfunded high schools and underfunded primary schools? 'Safety nets' is how John Howard referred to the public education system—a safety net. It is a bizarre comment but a comment which is being echoed by the current conservative government, who have an obsession with privatisation and commercialisation: 'Don't worry about the members of the community; just make them pay more for their course and make them start paying it back sooner.' There is a reliance on foreign students and a reliance on commercial sponsorship of research. It is all about user pays and someone else paying for it other than the government.
I saw in the paper this morning a report that the accumulated student debt in this country has now reached approximately $50 billion, but the tone of the article in the paper was that this is a problem, it's too much money and the government has to claw it back. But you know what? The government's missing the point, because that's $50 billion that the government should have paid for. It shouldn't be $50 billion of student debt that we're now going after, because governments over many years have shifted $50 billion of the government's financial responsibility to students themselves. Much of that outstanding debt is being carried by lower income people, lower income families and disadvantaged people. They're carrying that debt, but the government's still going after them. That's not good enough. That's cost-shifting. So how dare the government tell the media today, seemingly as though it's an explanation for this bill, that all of these people owe all of this money, and that's bad, and they want it back. Well, the government should never have had them rack up the bill in the first place.
In fact, I'll go so far as to say that the last good university policy we had in this country was between 1972 and 1975, when there was fee-free undergraduate study for Australian students. That's where we should be going. That's where we should be trending, not to more and more user pays and complaining because students are racking up debt and not paying it back quickly enough.
We are rich enough to return to the days of the early seventies. We are rich enough to do what Gough Whitlam did and say we do not tolerate but celebrate education. We understand the inherent value of education. We understand that, the more learned our community is, the happier they are, the more prosperous they are, the healthier they are and the better this country can compete with the 29 countries in the OECD who fund their universities better than we do. How on earth do we compete with countries like Singapore, Thailand, China, Korea and Taiwan—countries that celebrate learning and invest so much more money into the community? No wonder they're doing so well. No wonder we're struggling against these countries when it comes to trade and other matters. We are just missing the point here. We are completely and utterly missing the point.
There is a $456,000 million forecast expenditure in Australia in this financial year, but you know what? We've still got to go after uni students. We've still got to cut funding for universities. We've still got to complain that university students owe too much. We are missing the point. I would make that point again. In fact, I'm going to labour this point because I don't think it's ventilated enough in this place. We can actually afford and, I think, should aspire—and maybe a future government will come along with the foresight and the fortitude to return us—to the early seventies, when we saw the value in free or fee-free undergraduate university places. That is exactly what we need to do. That's where we should be heading, and there's no reason why we shouldn't be doing that or at least trending towards it, because we can definitely afford it.
It's all about priorities. Everything in this place comes back to priorities. I know money can't solve all problems, but I tell you what: it can go a long way to solving many problems. With the amount of money that's sloshing around in this place, you've really got to wonder why we have so many problems—why we have underfunded universities to the tune of $1 billion a year, underfunded hospitals with ridiculous waiting lists, underfunded high schools, underfunded primary schools, homeless living on the street and people who can't afford their power bills—in a country as rich as ours. It's because too few people in this place have the vision or priorities in the right order to fix them.
The government thinks it is okay—in fact, the government is boasting—to trend towards two per cent spending on defence. They're going to double the submarine fleet even though we can't find the crews for the existing six, but don't worry about that. Don't worry that we can't find the crews for our six subs. Let's buy 12! How ridiculous all of this chest-beating is. Why don't we get our priorities in order? Yes, we need a Defence Force. Yes, we need to replace the submarines. But let's get our priorities in order.
We are spending an outrageous amount of money on the Joint Strike Fighter when there were always other cheaper alternatives. Why aren't we raising more revenue? Why don't we have a superprofits tax on any sector of the economy that achieves a disproportionate return on its investment? Why don't we get a bit more tax back from the banks that made $30 billion of profit last year? They can afford to pay a bit more. High wage earners like us—parliamentarians—can afford to pay a bit more. There are so many ways that we can save money in the budget sensibly, so many ways that we can raise extra revenue in this country sensibly, so many things we could be doing and talking about in this place, but what are we talking about tonight? We're talking about attacking the tertiary sector, which is already underfunded by $1 billion a year, and we're debating whether or not we should go after it for more.
I bring my little talk back to Tasmania. Tasmania: a small state, a small uni, a lot of disadvantaged people. This government thinks it is okay to cut the University of Tasmania's funding by more than $11 million a year. This government thinks it is okay to charge Tasmanian students at the University of Tasmania more than $11 million extra in fees each year, and, in doing so, to jeopardise some of the most disadvantaged people in the state and in this country, and very important campuses like Burnie.
I don't support this bill. I am pleased the opposition won't support this bill. It's bad public policy. (Time expired)
I move:
That the question be now put.
The question is that the motion be put.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has moved as an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. So, the immediate question now is that the amendment be agreed to.
: The question is that this bill now be read a second time.
I move amendment (2) circulated in my name:
(2) Schedule 3, page 40 (after line 7), after item 35, insert:
35A At the end of section 154 -15
Add:
(3) In working out a person's repayable debt for an *income year for the purposes of section 154-20, ignore any part of the person's *accumulated HELP debt referred to in paragraph 154-1(1)(b) in relation to that income year that relates to a unit of study undertaken on a regional campus, unless the person's *repayment income for the income year is $56,205 or more.
(4) A unit of study is undertaken on a regional campus by a person if:
(a) the person is enrolled at a particular campus to undertake the unit of study; and
(b) either:
(i) during the year in which the unit of study is undertaken, a regional loading was payable to the higher education provider in respect of the campus; or
(ii) the Minister determines, under subsection (5), that this subparagraph applies to the campus for the year in which the unit of study is undertaken.
(5) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine that subparagraph (4)(b)(ii) applies to a campus for a year if the Minister is satisfied that, during that year, the campus has an above average number of students whose permanent home (as defined in section 19A of the Social Security Act 1991) is in a regional area.
This amendment is designed to create a financial incentive for students to study at regional universities by creating a HELP-debt-repayment-free period for students studying at regional campuses. Under the amendment, regional students would have a HELP-debt-repayment-free period on the units completed at a regional campus until they reach the $56,205 threshold under the government's proposed legislation. Repayments would then continue as per the government's proposed legislation. The HELP-debt-repayment-free period would apply to students attending a campus that receives a Commonwealth Grant Scheme regional loading or that the minister has identified as having an above-average number of students whose home address is at a regional location.
The Parliamentary Budget Office has costed this proposal as having a $21.6 million cost. I repeat: $21.6 million—nothing in the scheme of things, considering the investment that it would give to regional Australia. This investment will make a significant difference in increasing higher education participation by regional and low-SES students and by reducing the financial burden.
Colleagues, and particularly colleagues from regional Australia: I call on you to consider this recommendation, because this amendment will encourage regional students to remain in our regions and potentially attract regional students from the cities, providing a financial incentive to students to study in regional areas and addressing one of the biggest threats to sustainability of rural communities. The package before us has not adequately considered the impact on regional students, and my proposed amendments will go some way to ensure more students study in regional Australia. I commend this amendment to the House.
We won't be supporting this amendment. While we support the member for Indi in her intention and we very much agree with the intention, we think that differential HECS repayments are not the best way to support regional students, to support regional universities and to increase numbers of regional students at regional universities. We do agree with the intention of the member for Indi. We know how important it is to have vibrant universities supporting regional communities, we know how important it is to have regional students going to university and we know that these universities are very important in supporting regional jobs, but we do think that there are better ways of meeting these same objectives.
In rising to support this amendment, which makes a bad bill just a little bit better, I want to note the government's utter contempt for democracy that they would gag this very important debate and prevent the Greens and other members from the opposition from speaking, because they are trying to hide the fact that they are ripping billions of dollars out of our university system. Government, you might not like what the Greens have to say in standing up for students in universities, but at least give us a chance to say it. What have you got to hide that you want to gag this debate? What you're trying to hide is the fact that universities in this country are underfunded and are in need of support, and students are struggling under enormous debt. What this government is trying to do, so that it can fund a corporate tax cut to the big end of town, is to put students into even more debt and place the burden on universities.
And where's the money going to come from out of universities' pockets? We know, because just recently one university, the university that I went to, decided to cut the wages of all its staff by terminating their enterprise agreement, and then the minister got up and said he encouraged every other university in the country to do exactly the same. So this government wants to get some of its $3.8 billion of savings from the pockets of students and the rest of it from the pockets of staff members, putting an already stretched system under even further stress.
What we know is that universities in this country have been underfunded for a long time. We saw that with the Bradley review, which said we need a 10 per cent increase in base funding. Then what happens every time the budget comes around is that we see governments dipping into universities and students to try to balance it. A number of us were here and remember when in the last Labor government, to try to fund the Gonski reforms, the Labor Party cut $2.3 billion out of universities. We saw it with the Abbott government in their first budget here, and now we're seeing a sneaky second attempt to get it back. No wonder this government is trying to hide what it is doing by gagging debate and stopping proper scrutiny from being brought to bear on it. We should not be supporting bills that are being gagged through this place. The Greens will continue to stand up for students and universities.
There are much better ways of balancing the budget than taking the axe to students and taking the axe to universities. If the government wants to look for a place to start balancing the budget, perhaps it shouldn't give $50 billion in tax cuts to the big end of town. When you give $7 billion of tax cuts to the big banks, they're not going to use it to create more jobs; that is going straight to their bottom line, straight into profits. If this government seriously thinks that universities and students should find themselves almost $4 billion worse off to help with a $7 billion tax cut to the big banks then it is no wonder that they are falling behind in the polls.
The sooner that we can kick this rotten government out, the sooner many students will breathe a sigh of relief and the sooner we can get on to holding the next government to account and make sure we properly fund universities and students, so that students can study properly, without having to put themselves into further debt.
I thank the member for Indi for her remarks in support of better opportunities for rural and regional Australian students. Whilst we won't be supporting the amendments, I can inform the House that the minister for education has written to Emeritus Professor John Halsey and asked him to meet with the member as part of the current review into regional, rural and remote education, which will be completed by the end of the year.
That question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Question negatived.
I seek leave to move amendments (1) and (3) as circulated in my name together.
Leave granted.
I move:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 9), insert:
(3) Page 54 (after line 5), after Schedule 4, insert:
Schedule 4A—National regional higher education strategy
Higher Education Support Act 2003
1 After section 238 -7
Insert:
238 -7A National regional higher education strategy
(1) The Minister must cause to be prepared a strategy to be known as the national regional higher education strategy.
(2) The strategy must cover, but is not limited to, the following matters:
(a) strategies to support the provision of higher education in regional areas, including a review of regional loading;
(b) strategies to increase the representation of regional students in higher education;
(c) strategies to address the sustainability of rural communities and the declining population of young people in regional centres;
(d) strategies to provide greater support for those transitioning between secondary and higher education, including support to stay in a regional area or to relocate from a regional area to an urban area;
(e) strategies to ensure there is recognition of the workforce and economic development requirements of the community in developing higher education policy.
(f) strategies to support the role of regionally based higher education providers in creating diverse and resilient regional economies, taking into consideration other relevant policies and programs.
(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the strategy to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after 1 January 2018.
(4) The Minister must cause the strategy prepared under subsection (1), or that strategy as previously revised under this subsection, to be revised every 4 years.
(5) The Minister must cause a copy of a revised strategy under subsection (4) to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 4 years after the previous strategy or revised strategy was tabled under this section.
This will require the minister to present the parliament with a national regional higher education strategy within 15 sitting days after 1 January 2018. The minister will be required to table an updated strategy every four years. To my colleagues on the other side who represent regional Australia: can I ask you to pay particular attention to this amendment and choose carefully how you will vote.
I move this motion from a sense of absolute frustration. The government says it supports regional development. The government says it supports decentralisation. The government says it supports economic growth and development. How are we going to do it if our universities can't provide us with the skilled people in the areas that we need over the longer period? So I say to my colleagues: please pay serious consideration to this particular bit of legislation and to this particular amendment because, in voting against it, you vote against the future of our regional universities.
Labor supports this amendment to legislate for a national regional higher education strategy. We know that the cuts in this bill would disproportionately impact regional universities that rely on CGS funding more than their city counterparts. Every Australian, no matter where they live, deserves to get a great education. From early childhood education, through schooling, TAFE and to university, we know that kids who are growing up in regional areas are often missing out. We've seen $17 billion of cuts to schools, more than $2.8 billion of cuts to vocational education and training and an extra $600 million cut in this year's budget. We've seen a loss of about 148,000 apprenticeships and traineeships. This bill will cut almost $4 billion from universities; and that's before you get to the cuts from the Education Investments Fund, which is close to another $4 billion, so it is almost $8 billion in cuts in total from universities. That will have a lasting effect on regional universities, whether they're in Newcastle or Launceston. Plans will be delayed or cancelled because the universities won't have the ability to pay for them.
It is absolutely time that those in this government, particularly those from the National Party, who say they stand up for regional education, actually do it. Labor has a very strong record of supporting regional students. We made landmark changes to student income support when we were last in government. We opened the doors to universities through the demand driven system and through HEPPP. Under Labor, we saw a 30 per cent increase in regional students in our universities. All of this is at risk because of the cuts that the government is persisting with. We are absolutely delighted to support the member for Indi and the other crossbenchers in the development of a regional higher education strategy.
The question is that the amendments 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 rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2) Bill 2017. This is another key plank of this government's plan for more jobs and greater economic growth. It sits very comfortably side by side with our multinational tax avoidance laws, which sadly those opposite opposed but which nonetheless have clawed back almost $3 billion and counting so far in tax from multinationals. Our reforms so far and our economic plan are paying dividends, as seen in the recent economic data. In the first half of this year, we've had some of the fastest jobs growth in decades, and over the past 12 months we have seen almost a quarter of a million new jobs created, four out of five of which have been full-time jobs. That is the type of economic response that we hoped to achieve from our economic plan and from the first phase of our enterprise tax plan, so it is pleasing to see those early economic results. We hope to see more good economic news and better days ahead as we continue to pursue our economic plan.
I stand here in this parliament of and from Australia's small-business middle class. That is significantly as a result of the economic plan that we took to the last election, at which I was elected to ensure this government could pursue that economic plan and our election commitments. Our plan stands in stark contrast to the lack of a plan on the other side of this House. Our plan is cognisant of the ever-changing nature of the global economy. We're talking about big trends here—globalisation, digitalisation—trends and forces which Australia cannot, and probably should not, even attempt to hold back.
This is about updating our tax environment so that our local businesses can be as competitive and as flexible as they need to be in this new world. We know that at the most basic level Australia is relatively uncompetitive, compared to other Western nations and other nations around the world, when it comes to our corporate tax rates. The UK-based Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation found that Australia's corporate tax competitiveness on headline and effective tax rates was ranked the sixth worst out of 33 OECD countries, and the seventh worst on effective marginal tax rates.
The US administration have obviously outlined their corporate tax plan to bring their headline rates down to 15 per cent, but they're not the only ones. The UK is now sitting at 19 per cent, and has declared that it's heading to 17 per cent. Singapore is already at 17 per cent, and rates are also lower across most of Europe. Even the French President, Emmanuel Macron, has announced he intends to extend the planned French tax cuts, which reduces their corporate tax rates first to 28 per cent and then down to 25 per cent—very similar numbers to those that we are talking about here.
Without our ability to match international tax rates, Australia is unable to attract as many new businesses, to attract as much investment, to attract as many new jobs. If we're not competitive, international investment and companies will look past our advanced manufacturing industries, our highly-specialised services industries, our world-class education system and our productive and highly-skilled workforce. I will talk a little bit more on the importance of competitiveness later.
Regardless of the boost to competition, a tax cut is also fundamentally a boost to the economy. We know, through history, that every time Australia's had a corporate tax rate cut, our economy has grown. Higher-paying wages and more jobs for future generations should be the main objectives of every government, but we can't do that unless we have a company tax rate that allows us to compete globally and allows our businesses to reinvest and hire more employees.
This bill obviously follows the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan) Bill that we delivered earlier in this term of the government. This is about the remainder of the government's plan to cut the company tax rate over many years to come. This government successfully passed those previous cuts to the company tax rate for small and medium businesses with an aggregated turnover of up to $50 million earlier this year, just after the budget. That's a good start. It impacts around 3.2 million businesses around Australia who employ over 6.5 million workers, but we can't afford to stop there. Under this bill, the turnover threshold to qualify for a lower tax rate will be progressively raised to cover all companies by 2024-25 before the company tax rate is reduced to 25 per cent for all companies by 2026-27.
The enterprise tax plan is a long-term vision for tax reform. It's a 10-year staggered approach. Therefore, it provides certainty to business, especially those looking to invest over a longer planning horizon. The government will lower the corporate tax rate to 25 per cent by 2026-27 for all companies. That will be, when it's achieved, the lowest corporate tax rate in Australia since the mid-1960s.
Australia has gone, over the space of many years, from having the ninth-lowest corporate tax rate amongst the advanced economies down to the equal fifth-highest, currently. While there's those who believe that Australia can't afford to make our business taxes competitive, the obvious point looking forward over the long term is how we can possibly afford not to be competitive and viable. That's why this government works so hard to get the first stage of this enterprise tax plan passed, and that's why we believe that the full enterprise tax plan should be implemented.
The lower corporate tax rate will improve the competitiveness of Australian businesses and generate more business investment. Economic modelling in Australia has fairly consistently found that the current tax system is a negative drag on the economy. Doing nothing is not an option if a more efficient tax system will help to grow the economy. Higher levels of business investment boost the productivity of Australian workers, reflecting improved output from using new tools, business systems and other capital. This improvement in productivity will drive increases in real wages. That's why it is so important. In the short term, the government's package of reforms across company tax and small business will support the transition to a more diversified economy and the creation of new and better jobs, especially in the non-mining sectors of the economy.
At the same time as reducing the corporate tax rate, the government is ensuring that businesses pay their fair share of tax by introducing tougher rules targeting multinationals, which I mentioned at the beginning of this speech. But where does the other side of the House stand on this? I suppose one has to be thankful that Labor's hypocrisy on these matters is readily observable, languishing as it does on bookshelves and in discount bins across Australia and acting as a constant reminder of their hollowed-out principles. If we cast our minds back to the shadow Treasurer's paperweight, he said:
But 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 competitive.
For a very long time this used to have bipartisan support in this parliament. We all aspired to cut Australia's corporate tax rate. For example:
Any student of Australian business and economic history since the mid-eighties knows that part of Australia's success was derived through the reduction in the company tax rate.
That is a direct quote. That is what the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, said in March 2012 when he was in government. Here is another quote:
Cutting the company income tax rate increases domestic productivity and domestic investment. More capital means higher productivity and economic growth and leads to more jobs and higher wages.
I could keep throwing quotes out there. Rudd, Gillard, Rudd, Latham, Crean, Beazley, Keating, Hawke—the list goes on. They all agreed. Even the member for Lilley promised to cut the corporate tax rate. Admittedly, he did promise that at a time when he also promised the country four economic surpluses that never quite eventuated either. The point is that some of the most eloquent arguments that have been made in this place for cutting taxes were made consistently over all of those years by the Labor Party. But they have now walked away from that consistent legacy spanning decades.
I think it is really important for us to reflect not only on the motives of an opposition leader who would say one thing when he was a minister with real responsibility and another thing when in opposition and, presumably, digging for populist votes. I think it is important for us to reflect on the significance of what it really means when one of Australia's major political parties just decides to crab walk away from what has been a longstanding bipartisan principle of Australia's economic approach. They are walking away from what has always been a key plank of Australia's economic plan—a bipartisan plank, as I said. They are walking towards populism and the politics of envy, which were supposed to have been eradicated when the Labor Party reformed itself back in the 1980s to make itself fit for office again. What we have is a Leader of the Opposition—possibly, in his mind, a younger Bernie Sanders or a jogging Jeremy Corbyn—who is all rhetoric, all envy, but no real solutions. In my view, the Leader of the Opposition is like an economic witchdoctor: his cures are worse than his fictional illnesses. He will smash small business, he will smash small business trusts, he will tax hardworking Australians, he will tax everyone hoping to use the property market to set themselves up for the future and he will ensure that the most militant unions in this country can disrupt our worksites once again.
Labor, in this debate, is on the side of the politics of envy. The government is on the side of aspiration and economic opportunity. The tax debate thus far gives the game away for the opposition. They have consistently used the catchcry '$60 billion in handouts to big business and multinationals'. I am happy once again to use my speech in this place to try to bust some of those sensationalist lines that they have been using with respect to tax reform. If we break that silly phrase down word by word, we can expose the mistruths behind it. For starters, there is 'handouts'. As I said, I come from a small business family and a small business background. Tax cuts for businesses aren't handouts. It's not a handout to let some hardworking business owners out there keep more of the money that they've earned through selling their customers their own products. It's their own money, fundamentally.
In relation to that $60 billion tag, that is, of course, a figure obtained by using the 10 years over the forward estimates and beyond of budgetary impacts. We can talk, I suppose, about what that really means in practice. What we've legislated in this parliament so far and what we intend to legislate through this bill is for small businesses and medium businesses only, at this stage, to get the benefit of the tax cuts over the short term, and then for that to roll out over a long-term plan to larger businesses. What we have legislated for in this parliament is for small and medium businesses only to keep about $1.6 billion of their own money. That would grow to about $2.3 billion of their own hard-earned money in this financial year, rising to $2½ billion the year after that, $2.8 billion in 2019-20 and so on. As I mentioned, the tax cuts that this government has managed to achieve so far aren't going to big businesses or multinationals at all. They are going to those small and medium businesses. I'm proud to say that, given my small-business background.
The bill before us is about a longer term plan that will let the entire economy benefit from better competitiveness. There will be multiple elections between now and when any tax cuts would apply to big businesses where, if the Labor Party want to, they can test their preference for higher business taxes. We can see whether Australians, fundamentally, at those future elections, want higher or lower taxes. Over time, this government very much wants all remaining businesses, medium and then large businesses, to benefit from increased competitiveness. That's the point of this bill. After all, that used to be the bipartisan aspiration of this place. I can certainly tell you that the people in Brisbane who work or want to work in larger medium or even big businesses deserve more hours, more jobs, more opportunities and more chances of promotion into the future. So, if the Labor Party at some stage between now and two elections time, when these tax cuts would take place, want to draw themselves up a hit list of businesses or industries which they think are bad and therefore deserve higher taxes, they can do that at some stage over the coming years. But, until then, they should back off the politics of envy. They should back this bill like this government is backing businesses and hardworking Australians.
Both sides of politics used to say that there needed to be a long-term plan to reduce corporate taxes in this country, for the sake of all Australians. The Labor side of politics is now trying to walk both sides of the street on that. The long-term plan that everyone talks about and has always talked about is this bill. This bill deserves support. Hardworking Australians and hardworking businesses in Australia deserve this boost. I support this bill.
The people of my electorate of Burt sent me to this place to represent their best interests, and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2) Bill 2017 has nothing to do with the best interests of my electors, let alone the nation, whatsoever. This corporate tax cut is not a plan for jobs and growth, as the government has continually tried to allege, in any way whatsoever. In fact, it's almost the opposite, and now it has this great new phrase about how 'better days are ahead'. Well, the only better days ahead that will confront this nation will be when we have the election of a Labor government. Jobs and growth are not what will be created here at all. The whole premise of what the government is trying to create here at this time is based on what we know as trickle-down economics—something that has been fundamentally shown to not work at all, in any way, by economists around the globe. Maybe it's not that surprising that a conservative government is relying on an economic strategy from decades and decades ago that has since been shown to not work in any way whatsoever and will have no positive impact on what we need to have happening in our economy right now.
The thing that we need to look at when it comes to these policy ideas and when it comes to the approach of the government is: what are we also giving up? What are the priorities that the government are setting out by establishing this tax agenda? It's interesting to see what approach this sits next to. In addition to deciding that they want to reduce the amount of tax that is going to be charged to corporate Australia—to large taxpayers—they've also decided that it would be a neat thing to not help those people who rely on Sunday penalty rates and to not oppose cuts to those rates. Instead they thought: 'That's okay, we'll let that go through. We'll let the lowest-paid Australians cop it in the neck and be paid even less, and while we are at it, we'll increase the amount of tax that they have to pay as well by increasing the Medicare levy at the same time for all people.' Instead of looking at those who are most able to afford to pay, they decided to attack those who are already being attacked when it comes to penalty rates. For those trying to make sure that they can get ahead further by getting a higher education, they will charge them even more to go to university, making it even harder for people to get ahead and to provide for their families.
It is an interesting contrast, when you think about it. They want to give a tax cut to big business that is going to cost the budget bottom line over the next decade over $36 billion. That's $600 million in just the next four years. I haven't done the proper maths, but that's about four or five surveys that you could conduct for that in the next four years. I'm worried what the government might do with that. But let's think about this. The government has come out and said: 'We are doing this to create economic growth. We are going to create jobs by having this tax cut.' Yet, there is absolutely no evidence to back that claim up. In fact, the Australia Institute is saying there's no evidence to suggest that lower rates will increase economic growth. The Grattan Institute has released a report that shows that this will have no positive effect on the Australian economy. The government is committing to a tax cut that's going to cost over $36 billion over the next 10 years when they are yet to deliver or explain any plan about how they are going to get the budget towards a trajectory of getting into the black. All this government has done, now in its fifth year of government, is preside over budgets that are making debt higher and our deficits worse. And their plan is to give a massive tax cut to make the budget situation even worse, when there is no evidence to suggest that this will actually help economic growth. At the same time, they are making the lives of ordinary Australians even harder by increasing the amount of tax they have to pay. For those that are relying on penalty rates, they are not helping or supporting them either.
One of the other arguments that the government likes to talk about is this notion of international competitiveness. They say that we need to cut the corporate tax rate for large businesses to ensure that we are an internationally competitive economy. I don't know if they've looked at any of the statistics, but there's clearly no problem in attracting international investment into Australia right now.
As we've seen, the Tax Foundation looked at this. They looked at our tax competitiveness and where Australia ranks in the OECD. When you take this into account, as this government clearly fails to understand when it comes to international competitiveness for investment, the headline tax rate is not the issue in question. You would think that, of all people, this Prime Minister, a former investment banker, would understand that the headline corporate tax rate is not, on its own, the issue that needs to be looked at when it comes to foreign investment. There are so many other rates of tax, costs and other factors that need to be considered—exchange rates even—by a foreign investor when it comes to working out if they want to make an investment in this nation. The headline tax rate is not the issue. Look at our competitiveness around the world, as the Tax Foundation did. When you take all of this into consideration Australia is ranked seventh among the 34 OECD member countries. We're not down in the thirties, we're not in some uncompetitive doldrums; when it comes to international competitiveness for foreign investment, we are at the top—as is plainly evident in any of the statistics that are published about how we manage to finance our growing economy in this nation.
That really highlights the problem and it shows how this government is really only driven by ideology and trying to pander to their on pre-selectors and supporters when it comes to the agenda that they're driving on taxation. The other thing that's clearly been ignored by this government when it comes to decreasing the rate of company tax is the impact on Australian shareholders and Australian investors. One of the things you need to think about is: who does this fundamentally benefit in any event?
Normally you might expect that companies pay company tax and that dividends, if they pay them, would be taxed in the hands of the recipient at the recipient's tax rate. However, in Australia we have this uniquely great thing called the dividend imputation system, which gives shareholders a credit for the company tax deemed to have been paid on that individual shareholder's behalf. What does that actually mean? For an Australian investor, this simply means that the amount of tax that is withheld on behalf of dividend recipients is reduced. So come 30 June—tax time—those shareholders only have to top up the tax liability based on their own income assessment. However, foreign shareholders stand to benefit from this great proposed tax cut for corporations because they will see the full benefit passed through to them.
There is no actual benefit for the local shareholder; it is all for the foreign shareholder. And, as I have just outlined, we don't have a problem with foreign tax competitiveness. Given the situation we are facing with unemployment rates around the country, especially in my home state of Western Australia where we have seen the mining construction boom come off the boil, we are trying to make sure that we are getting more and more people into employment. When you look behind the employment figure, you see that participation rates are a problem. We have people who want more work. But who's the government trying to support? Foreign shareholders. 'That's great, government. Thank you so much so much,' says the ordinary man on the street in the federal electorate of Burt, let me tell you.
When it comes down to these tax cuts, when they are properly assessed and considered, they are not helping people here in Australia at all. They are not going to make a difference to our economy. They are not going to create jobs. They are not going to help the people who need it most. It stands in contrast to the way that this government has approached pretty much everything it has done. It just goes to show—and it should be a reminder to everyone when they are thinking about these corporate tax cuts that the government is putting forward—that this government prioritises giving a tax cut to big business. This is a tax cut for big business. It is not a small business tax cut. This is a big business tax cut!
The government wants to give big business, foreign shareholders, a tax cut. At the other end, it wants to take away people's penalty rates, cut funding to schools and make it harder to go to university. It wants to increase the rate of taxation on ordinary working Australians and, to top it all off—and I'm sure the member for Fremantle, who is behind me, will agree with this point—it is doing nothing whatsoever to fix the GST situation for Western Australia. All it is doing is cutting taxes for foreign investors and big business. It is doing nothing for ordinary Australians. That highlights the wrong priorities of this government. It shows that they are doing nothing to support the people who need it most in this country.
What is the purpose of government? What are they doing? Why are they here? You really can't work it out, other than to say it is to help their big business mates. They are a shemozzle. As astounding as all of this is, it is not that surprising. That is why we cannot support this legislation.
I am pleased to be speaking this evening on our enterprise tax plan that will boost the Australian economy and create prosperity and jobs for hardworking Australians and the business owners who employ hardworking Australians. The tax plan is about encouraging employers to invest and grow their businesses. We know that employers are the backbone of our economy. They generate income for our fabulous nation and ensure job security for employees. With more employment and high wages growth, we will see more people achieving the safety and security in their employment that they need for themselves, their families and our community.
By dropping the company tax rate, our government will give business the certainty that it needs to plan for long-term growth in Australia. This will unlock so much untapped potential for private sector investment and it will allow us to better compete for investment globally. The idea is simple. With businesses handing over less of their revenue to the government, they will have more money to invest in themselves and their staff, and capital for purchasing machinery and equipment. By doing this, they will increase their output, which means more jobs and more hours of work for Australian workers.
A high corporate tax rate ultimately hurts hardworking Australians, with the company tax burden falling on employees through lower real wages growth. With a tough global economic environment, the task falls to us, the Liberal-National coalition government, to implement our ambitious policies to boost our nation's economy.
Debate interrupted.
We are living in the era of the fourth industrial revolution, and we will absorb the changes that come with robotics, quantum computing, nanotechnology, artificial intelligence and the internet of things. As a result, jobs will change. Some occupations will reduce in number or cease to exist. New and different jobs will be created. It's topical at the moment to produce commentary around the scope of that impact in terms of which sectors will be affected and how many jobs might disappear. When you consider the change we've adapted to in the last 100 years, there's no particular reason to take an apocalyptic view of this further transformation. At the same time, there's no natural law that says everything has to work out in the end. There's no equilibrium that guarantees there will be a new job created for every job made obsolete. On the available evidence it's entirely reasonable to expect that in many areas the need for human labour will decline. Indeed, it's hard not to feel those changes have already begun.
Right now we are experiencing comparatively high unemployment, record underemployment and falling real wages. The wage share of the Australian economy is at an all-time low. Since 2013, when our employment rate put us seventh in the OECD, we have fallen to 16th, and that's another all-time low. The old assumptions about the relationship between investment and jobs or company profit and jobs simply no longer apply. Here in Australia, there's no doubt that booming profits are not leading to more jobs, nor are they being shared through higher wages. And there's no prospect of this changing courtesy of a one-track neoliberal agenda that's decorated with all the old economic policy chestnuts of deregulation, privatisation, big business tax cuts, unfettered labour market flexibility and unending and relentless attacks on Australian unions.
By this government's own PR, the Australian people were promised jobs and growth, yet Australia has experienced a steady deterioration of employment conditions since 2013. As Alan Austin noted last month in his article, 'Remember 'Jobs and Growth'? Neither does our workforce', when you examine the 10 principle measures of employment in a developed economy:
… eight have deteriorated in Australia since the 2013 election. Five have collapsed quite disastrously. Two have barely moved.
Some of the most salient measures include the total number of people who are unemployed, which was 689,000 in 2013, but is now 730,000; and the number of people who are underemployed, which, four years ago was 911,000, but is now 1,129,000, an increase of 24 per cent. Within this overall picture of weak and declining employment conditions there are some particularly bleak details. There has been, for example, a 21 per cent increase in people suffering long-term unemployment. We've seen an 18 per cent increase in the number of jobless young people, and the workforce participation of Indigenous Australians is well off our closing-the-gap target, and that gap is widening.
There is no great mystery as to how we got here. Contrary to the repeated slogan or promise, the Abbott-Turnbull government has followed a program that is utterly unsuited to creating jobs, both in its action and inaction. The government hangs its hat on settling preferential trade agreements, with no acknowledgment that such agreements don't tend to produce jobs in a developed country like Australia. Work done by Tufts University shows the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement would have had a net loss of 39,000 jobs within the first decade. Yet this government continues to remove labour market testing for overseas contractual service providers in all new trade agreements.
This government's sins of omission include a failure to invest in productive infrastructure and a failure to invest in education. The highest year of infrastructure spending by this government sits underneath the lowest year of the former Labor government. This week the government introduced its higher education changes which cut funding to universities, increased fees for students, lowered the student debt repayment thresholds and defunded the enabling courses that are critical if people facing disadvantage are to have the opportunity to attend university. In all these areas the failure of the government to bear down on the deep and wide malaise of unemployment has wider ramifications for Australian households and for our economy. It feeds into lower wages. It feeds into a lack of consumer confidence and spending.
I want to finish by recognising the members on this side who are engaging on the question of jobs and our work future, not least the shadow minister for finance, whose new book is titled Changing Jobs: The Fair Go in the New Machine Age. Navigating the fourth industrial revolution in a way that delivers fairness and reduces inequality will need thoughtful, active and creative government.
For most netball teams across our region the season is coming to an end, but not for Casino's 15s. This hardworking team of Mikayla Coe, Grace Frasier, Casey Turner, Shakira Wilson, Georgie Shafer, Amber Curtis, Shaniya Smith, Brittney Walsh and Lexie Taylor will be travelling to Singapore to play in the international youth netball championship between 24 November and 1 December. They're going to be accompanied by Coach Deidre Coe and officials Rowan Coe, Dianne Allen, Leah Bennett and Courtney Connell.
The team were invited by Netball NSW to play in the International Youth Championships in Singapore. They were the only team from our region to be invited and they'll play against teams from New Zealand, South Africa, Malaysia and Singapore. For many of these girls it will be the first trip they've had overseas, and I'm told they are very excited to take part in this great opportunity. I'm sure they will do our community proud.
This weekend the Nimbin Roots Festival is on again. The Nimbin Roots Festival is a great event that provides original, raw, underground roots music typical of the Nimbin lifestyle. Even better: it is an affordable and sustainable festival for the community. The festival encompasses genres such as the old blues, Americana, bluegrass, folk, folk rock, Australiana and world music. The event organisers, Lou and Phil Bradley, have created an event that the whole community gets involved with. The event starts on Friday afternoon with the local Bunjalung dancers and finishes on Sunday evening with the presentation of the Australian Roots Music Awards. There will be a dedicated Nimbin community market area hosting 30 stalls and the Aquarius stage, a dedicated Nimbin locals music stage to promote unique, diverse and local music talent. With over 60 of the finest roots music acts from all over Australia and the world taking part, I strongly encourage everyone to get involved.
This week marked another important milestone in Lismore's recovery since the 31 March flood with the reopening of the St Vinnies op shop. Vinnies, like Lismore's other op shops Lifeline, the Salvos and the Westpac Rescue Helicopter Service, along with every other business in the CBD and north and south Lismore, was inundated on that early Friday morning. All the op shops agreed that Vinnies would open temporarily as soon as possible to allow the others to do the repair work before Vinnies would then close down to do their refit. By the Wednesday following the flood, Vinnies was opened thanks in large part to the wonderful work of the volunteer shop manager, Marie Ganter, along with a team of about 30 volunteer and paid staff, including Vinnies CEO Michael Timbrell. Although Marie hates attention, I wanted to acknowledge her because she's spent all day every day since 1 April preparing for this week's permanent reopening.
In the days and weeks immediately after the flood, Vinnies, Lifeline, the Salvos and Westpac Rescue Helicopter Service all worked together to set up a pavilion at the Lismore Showgrounds for people to donate much-needed household items, furniture and clothing that community members could pick up. I would like to thank Sharon Sawyer and Heidi Green from Lifeline, who were in charge of this emergency pavilion; the Lismore Showground trust; and the Lismore City Council. During the five weeks the pavilion was operating after the flood, Sharon and Heidi kept a wish list so they could match the needs of community members with donated items once they came in.
When the pavilion closed, there were 240 people who still desperately needed basic household items like fridges and washing machines. The list was handed back to Vinnies to fill. I'd like to thank the Lions Club of Lismore city, which donated to cash to purchase between 20 and 30 fridges and other household items. I'd also like to thank Brad Goulding from Chandlers Betta Home Living Lismore, who not only helped Vinnies get a good price for their purchases but also arranged delivery.
Natural disasters can make or break communities. Cyclone Debbie and its aftermath hurt our community, but St Vinnies reopening this week is a physical and symbolic demonstration that we are getting back on our feet. I'd like to thank all the volunteers from all of Lismore's op shops for working together for our community.
'Are you okay?' is a simple question that could change your life. Tomorrow is RU OK? Day, a national day founded in 2009 by Gavin Larkin, dedicated to reminding people to ask their family, friends and colleagues the question: 'Are you okay?' As Gavin has said, getting connected and staying connected is the best thing anyone can do for themselves and for those who may be at risk. Tomorrow, and every day, we need to encourage people to take four simple steps that could change a life: ask; listen; encourage action; and check in.
Suicide is a global crisis. Every year more than 800,000 people die by suicide. Suicide is a national crisis—the leading cause of death for Australians aged 15 to 44. Seven Australians, on average, take their life every day. Suicide is a local crisis. Suicide rates in my community of the Central Coast of New South Wales remain above the state and national average.
In the last year and a half, four people I know died by suicide. Michael Marmot sagely notes:
… suicide is an individual act, but the suicide rate is a property of the community.
The Tree of Dreams in Budgewoi began as a tribute by Kylie to her friend who died by suicide. The old fig tree held hundreds of heartfelt handwritten messages, lit up by fairy lights. As Bev, who founded the Iris Foundation after her granddaughter's death by suicide, says, 'People who have been affected by suicide may not have the courage to express how they are feeling. The Tree of Dreams gives them a chance to write a message of hope and to feel that they are connected, that somebody cares and that somebody understands.' This year the Iris Foundation joined Kylie, and a Tree of Dreams was held at the Milk Factory in Wyong from 18 August to 10 September, World Suicide Prevention Day.
I wrote four messages for the Tree of Dreams: for Ramy, who made me smile every time I walked onto the medical assessment unit; for Ric, 'Our Eels have had a great season'; for Graham, who was burdened by the tragic loss of his sister, my friend Melissa; and for Sean, who loved drawing, playing his guitar and his dog. I spoke to Di, Graham's mum, tonight, and this is what she wanted me to share with you: 'Graham had a brilliant career. I never thought that this would happen. As a parent, I don't know that we ask enough questions—even of ourselves. And I don't think enough is being done.' I would like to acknowledge and thank Dawn, Sue and Bev for their work on this special project and their tireless efforts in our community towards suicide prevention.
Earlier this year, doctors at Wyong hospital held a loud shirt and fairy floss day to promote awareness of the increasing rates of mental health issues and suicide among the medical profession. As someone who worked at Wyong hospital in mental health for almost a decade, I know that mental illness does not discriminate, and I remember my former colleague Dr Ramy. I acknowledge the efforts of Dr Michael and Dr Benji to promote mental health awareness at Wyong hospital.
Mental health is a workplace issue. Jobs with high demand and low control carry a special risk.
This week I received a letter from Cassandra, a veteran of the Royal Australian Navy and a constituent in my electorate. Cassandra wrote to me deeply concerned about the wellbeing of veterans and, in particular, the rising rate of suicide. I was saddened to learn from Cassandra that, so far this year, we have lost 42 veterans to suicide. The known under-reporting of suicide could make this figure even higher.
I also met with Bob, who—apart from being well known as a member of The Entrance Men's Shed—is a volunteer for Overwatch Australia, a not-for-profit group supporting ADF members at risk or in crisis. Bob served in the Defence Force for 20 years and is currently the national coordinator for the Royal Australian Engineers for Overwatch. He volunteers to provide support for service men and women struggling with mental illness, creating a network of serving personnel and veterans who can help each other in times of need.
We can make a difference. And you don't need to be an expert—just a great mate and a good listener. So, if you notice someone who might be struggling, start a conversation. Ask them: 'Are you okay?'
I thank the member for Dobell for that heartfelt contribution.
It's wonderful to represent the people of Petrie in this place. One of the things that I love to do is to get out and talk to people about the issues that are important to them. On Facebook over the last few days I've been looking at some of the important issues, and people have raised many issues with me. Some of the big issues were energy costs; private health costs; mental health issues, as the member for Dobell just spoke about; Aboriginal issues; and child protection issues, just to name a few.
In relation to lower energy costs, there were some 20 people that contacted me today on Facebook in relation to lower energy costs: Heather Jane, Jill Milton, Susan Harding-Smith, Allan Bell and Monica Martin were some of them. What they were concerned about, obviously, was the rising cost of energy. How is the federal government acting in relation to this? We have taken action in a number of areas. One is to ensure that consumers are given a better deal by retailers. So when your contract runs out after 12 months, rather than just rolling it over they must now inform you.
Gas supplies are also short in this country due to a lot of exports and to some states not mining. But what we're doing from January 2018 is making sure that Australia is supplied first, to make sure that the gas is certainly there. The other big issue around energy as well is to ensure that the states are responsible for what they do. In Queensland, of course, 70 per cent of the generation is state owned. Remember that when Campbell Newman was Premier, the state government had an $80 billion debt and that when the Palaszczuk Labor government came in they moved some $25 billion of that debt onto water and energy suppliers. Is it any wonder why people at home, who are paying energy bills, now have higher costs with the increasing debt that the state Labor government has loaded on to them? But energy costs are certainly an issue, and we're acting on that. We must make sure with renewable energy that there's storage, and we must also make sure there's new base load built.
Private health costs are also important. They can often go up through higher wages for doctors and increased costs for hospitals. There's a whole range of reasons why they can go up. But, believe it or not, we've just delivered at a federal level the lowest increase in 10 years in relation to private health insurance. It's still too high, though, and I have raised this with the health minister, the Hon. Greg Hunt. He's looking very closely at how to lower this.
Mental health issues are big issues in this country as well. In the last three months alone the federal government has announced 10 new headspace clinics throughout the country, which brings to a total of 110 the number of headspace clinics, including one in Redcliffe. There are 12 suicide-prevention trial sites delivered by the primary health networks, and Brisbane North has one. We're working with the community to include state services and using the latest evidence base for approaches to prevent suicide. Mental health funding this year alone totals $4.2 billion, and since the election there's been an increase of some $360 million in new money.
The latest figures for suicide in this country—and I know the member for Dobell just spoke about this—are that 3,027 people died from suicide in 2015. That rate, believe it or not, is lower than back in the 1970s, but it has been increasing lately. I'd say to men, who make up 75 per cent of that number, that you're not alone. Life is about relationships, and there are people, family and friends who love you. If you're contemplating something like that, please know that there are people to talk to and that there is lots of support. I've got a black belt in judo; I train hard, but I'm not afraid to cry. It's all right for men to show emotion and to talk to their friends if they're having an issue. I just say to those people who are in that space that there are people who love you, and that we are there for you.
In relation to Aboriginal issues, we want to make sure that Indigenous Australians are well looked after. I recently met with Adrian Carson, the CEO of the Institute for Urban Indigenous Health. He's doing a great job in Deception Bay—a really good job. The results that they're getting out there at the Institute for Urban Indigenous Health are well above average.
In relation to child protection: we've got to make sure—and the state government is mainly responsible for this—that we protect children. A lot of that is that we have to make sure that we have magistrates who put away people who do the wrong thing. The federal government is also acting, through a bill we introduced today, to make sure that paedophiles don't abuse children overseas.
Tonight I want to recognise the great work of the Queensland Country Women's Association in the Ipswich and West Moreton region. It was a pleasure to be able to attend the annual general meeting of the West Moreton division of the CWA hosted at the Silkstone-Booval branch hall. The West Moreton division comprises branches in Boonah, Esk, Glenore Grove, Glamorgan Vale, Harrisville, Ipswich, Lowood, Rosewood and Walloon. Now in its 95th year, the CWA has long served as a helping hand and binding voice within these communities and far beyond. The commitment, selflessness and achievements of the women of the CWA are truly amazing. These humble hardworking members go about their deeds, largely without recognition or accolade. It's a great pleasure to be able to spend time with them each year and hear their stories about how the CWA has changed their lives—that is, to empower them to assist others.
I want to thank West Moreton division president, Annette Pickering, for welcoming me to the AGM and for her ongoing work. I wish to acknowledge the numerous branch and division office holders and members who were in attendance, many of whom have been long-term servants giving their all in the service of others. I want to make particular mention of Helen Johnston, who this week concludes her role of 12 years, no less, as the division secretary for the West Moreton division of the QCWA. It is an outstanding achievement, and one clearly appreciated by all in attendance, judging by the affection and well wishes she received. I can say that all the women, without exception, were so generous with their time in sharing their stories with me over a cuppa and a piece of cake. Every year I go and say, half in jest, that I only go for the food—there is a bit of truth in that. Their cooking classes, community meal assistances and the countless efforts they make in craft and arts programs for members and others throughout their branches in my electorate are a testimony to their enduring ability to unite, empower and connect people.
There is, however, so much more to the activities of the CWA. A quick chat with any member of their branch will reveal the scope and reach of their activities. For example, the local CWA, in partnership with Rotary International, provides birthing kits to women in the Pacific Islands. These birthing kits are put together by branch members, prepared for shipping by the state office and then sent with the assistance of Rotary via a shipping container. Members have told me these kits, which contain vital supplies for the safety and hygiene of birthing, regularly make their ways to remote and isolated PNG. Make no mistake, these kits save lives by providing basic materials that otherwise would not be available for impoverished women and babies. Likewise, Kits for Kids utilises the same partnership with Rotary International, providing essential classroom materials like pencils, books and other stationery to kids in Papua New Guinea, Fiji and the Solomon Islands. Both of these projects strike at the heart of poverty and disadvantage in our region—access to basic health care and education. Back home in Ipswich and West Moreton, emergency kits are a fabulous idea which operates in conjunction with Ipswich Hospital, providing simple kits to assist people who find themselves in need of emergency care, without basic toiletries and other simple, yet necessary, supplies.
In partnership with DVConnect, the local CWA branches also provide the preparation and supply of care packs for victims fleeing domestic violence. These packs contain basic items for the period immediately following a victim's unforeseen and traumatic escape from violence. It's deeply disturbing for many of these women and far too common that they and their children escape with only the clothes they're wearing. The West Moreton division also operates a low-cost independent living centre in Ipswich for women, a girls' hostel and many other assets. They manage to ensure the great work they do continues. There is really strong and sound financial management, another testimony to the great skill and care that they bring to the organisation. It speaks volumes for their willingness, resourcefulness and the support they inspire in the community.
I'm sure there are many community organisations that could take a leaf out of the impressive yet unheralded way in which the members of the local CWA go about their task in supporting others. I thank them for the charitable support they give. I would encourage more people to join the CWA. I thank the local branch members and the wonderful women for the work they do.
I rise this evening to update the House on a very exciting project in my electorate of Swan. I have spoken about this before, but I thought I'd update the House. The Lathlain Precinct redevelopment of Lathlain Park is a $65 million project which will provide state-of-the-art training facilities and administration for the West Coast Eagles. The Eagles will be landing at Lathlain in my electorate.
The project is a major economic development in the electorate and will provide world-class facilities to our local community and also to the great state of WA. The upgrades include the construction of an interactive sport and cultural centre, two multi-use public ovals, barbecues and a playground and will also be the brand-new home of the Wirrpanda Foundation. I'm very proud to be part of a coalition government that invested $10 million into this redevelopment and committed a further $3 million to help relocate the Wirrpanda Foundation.
Just before we returned to Canberra for the parliamentary sitting a fortnight ago, the Assistant Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science joined me at the West Coast Eagles sod-turning event, a major milestone for this development. It was great to see the assistant minister don an Eagles scarf and get a few snaps with some of our legendary footballers like Nic Naitanui and Shannon Hurn, despite being GWS's No. 1 fan. I know the Eagles are up against the Giants in the finals this weekend, so it will be great to see the assistant minister daring to put the Eagles scarf back on when the Eagles pull off another great win against his team on Saturday night. Regardless of the result, it was great for him to see the community spirit in the club and, more broadly, how this development will positively impact our Swan community.
The federal government's contribution to the construction costs of the new Wirrpanda Foundation headquarters and the West Coast Eagles training, administration and community centre has enabled forward works to be completed and construction to commence. In January this year, the design development was completed, and oval 1 was ready for use by the Perth Demons football club for all of their home games in the 2017 season. I understand the club is now also training on oval 2, and I must mention that both ovals are at AFL standard. I know that the member for the Tigers is here, and he'd be interested to know that one is exactly the same size as the new stadium and the other one is the exact size of the MCG, so they're thinking ahead.
The completion of the entire project remains on schedule and on budget. I'd like to highlight the importance of infrastructure projects such as this, not only in creating jobs and growing our economy but in giving back to our local communities. The federal government's contribution to the project is enabling the West Coast Eagles, the Town of Victoria Park, the Wirrpanda Foundation and the Perth Football Club to come together and partner and engage with the community, government and the private sector to help address a range of social issues.
The Wirrpanda Foundation and the West Coast Eagles have been very active in engaging community through the forward works and preconstruction process. We've already seen this collaborative approach result in highly positive initiatives being undertaken to benefit the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community. This is an excellent result, and the Wirrpanda Foundation have been cited by all involved as a very professional organisation who are adding real benefits to the process of personal engagement.
The tender process for the main contract required applicants to detail their level of engagement with the Wirrpanda Foundation and their Indigenous commitment. Many of these companies prior to this process acknowledged that they could be doing more and, despite not being appointed as the main contractor, have continued to engage with the foundation. A few examples include the successful contractor, Perkins, which is now developing a reconciliation action plan. Another tenderer is investigating broader engagement with the foundation, while it is considering Wirrpanda Foundation in a larger scope of works. In addition to this, the Town of Victoria Park has employed an Indigenous person to the position of youth development trainee officer and is in the process of amending its tender process to include an engagement section.
Another key part of this project is the inclusion of the SAS Resources Trust. The West Coast Eagles have had a long and close relationship with the SAS Resources Trust, which I know the Minister for Veterans' Affairs would be interested in, so the club have committed to making state-of-the-art recovery and rehabilitation facilities available to them in the new complex. This is a great example of corporate social responsibility and what can be achieved when communities, clubs and government work together.
Mr Speaker, I'm sure you can tell that I'm very excited for the completion of this project and look forward to working closely with the West Coast Eagles, the Wirrpanda Foundation and the Town of Victoria Park throughout the remainder of the works on the Lathlain Precinct redevelopment. As I said before, the West Coast Eagles are playing GWS this weekend in Sydney. We're looking forward to a positive result for the West Coast, and I know that all my Western Australian colleagues will be supporting West Coast strongly. I know that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs is the strongest Tigers supporter in this place, and I'm sure he'll be looking for other victories from the Tigers as well, but hopefully we might meet in the grand final.
House adjourned at 20:00
Today I'd like to speak about an extraordinary birthday party I attended recently, made more extraordinary because it was in honour of a friend of mine who turned 107 years of age. That makes Ted Wale now the third-oldest living person in our country and, I've got to say very proudly, the oldest living member of the Australian Labor Party. Ted has been a constituent of mine ever since I transferred to the seat of Fowler, and he's been living in Cabramatta. He has only recently moved into aged care at the Whiddon Easton Park residential care facility in Glenfield. By the way, I closed my office and took all my staff to this party, because it's very unusual to meet a person of this age who's so articulate.
The extraordinary part about this party is that Ted shared many memorable experiences of growing up in the First World War and living through the Second World War. He talked about his role in working for the government's small arms factory in Lithgow, and he talked about being an instrument fitter for the Commonwealth aircraft facility in the Second World War, but he also talked about things such as growing up as a boy, migrating to this country from England, and his parents building a house. He didn't have electricity or running water. As the son, he would be dispatched to go and get the pails of water for the baths, and I think all the young women who were working for me were aghast at the fact that the family only had one bath a week, and they shared the same bath. He would fill the bath with water, they would boil it, and the girls would go first, followed by the mother, followed by him and then followed by his father. I think that really put in place how things that we take for granted have changed. Within the scope of this one man's lifetime, these things were all happening.
Despite aspects of his past, even now he is still a practising artist. Ted has made a lifetime contribution to the local art societies. In particular, he's a foundation member of the Fairfield City Art Society. He was instructing in art until two years ago, giving art classes. That earnt him the award for Fairfield Citizen of the Year last year. He is just such an inspiration and a joy to be around. I have a multicultural electorate and multicultural people on my staff. For the Chinese speaker on my staff he counted from one to 10 in Mandarin, and he welcomed the Arabic speaker on my staff in Arabic. Here's a man who still possesses all those faculties. He was just a joy to be around. It was a true honour.
On 31 August I had the pleasure of facilitating a Hasluck growers meeting between grapegrowers in the Swan Valley and orchardists in the Perth Hills. I invited them to meet a representative from the health and wellness industry to discuss opportunities to supply the therapeutic bioactive extractive raw ingredients that could be sourced from the agricultural waste streams. Sandalford Winery in Caverham hosted the roundtable. My thanks and appreciation go to Grant Brinklow, CEO at Sandalford Winery, for providing the venue and the generous hospitality given to all participants. What an excellent venue it is to have in my electorate of Hasluck.
Also in my electorate, two other premier Caversham vineyards were represented at the roundtable. Thanks to Travers O'Rafferty from Mandoon Estate and Daniel Pinelli from Pinelli Estate Wines in the Swan Valley. There was a great mix of growers from wineries and long-time successful orchardists: Anthony Vincenti from Weemala Orchard, Barry and Michael Padula from Padula's Orchards, Eric and Reno Leotta, and Fred and Mark Wilkinson from Sunpick Orchards. I thank them all for showing an interest in developing initiatives for their businesses.
The roundtable discussion was about looking for opportunities for growers to value-add to their total production and look at options available to the agriculture sector to market more of their produce with the extraction of beneficial products from waste that occurs in the vegetable and fruit sector. While the food bowl in Australia is primarily focused on fresh foods that we take for granted in this country, there are many waste products that can be utilised in the health sector—produce that might otherwise have been thrown out or ploughed back into the land or left rotting on the trees after a bad season. The growers' roundtable gave local growers an insight into supplying their produce to expanding global markets in the health and wellness sector.
Australian produce has a great reputation for being high quality, clean and green. It is logical to source homegrown products in Australia as a possible supply chain. The bioextraction of such produce may lead to a future niche industry in Australia to supply the health and wellness market. Grapeseed extracts spring to mind, as well as extracts from avocados and tomatoes, the waste from broccoli and the oil extracted from fresh orange skins. These are just some examples. As manufacturing operations decline in Australia, we need to look for ever-evolving innovative markets to supply with our products to enable our economy to continue to grow.
I believe strong connections were established between roundtable participants who may be able to add value to their operations by supplying such agricultural extracts. It will be an exciting and rewarding time if we can forge local linkages between producers within my electorate through the extraction process with the purchasing arms of global companies that provide the products that many Australians now use. The morning was highly successful, with great opportunities, and I see the value extending to other Australian producers and growers—and the opportunities will continue to evolve.
In the greater electorate of Isaacs, 5,551 residents do not speak English well or at all, according to the data from the 2016 census. Many of these residents are Australian citizens making ongoing contributions to our community. Residents with limited English are everywhere. They might sell you vegetables at the local shop. They might manufacture the metal sheeting that you use to build a garage. Until recently, they might have been in the assembly line, building cars in one of the great manufacturing hubs of Melbourne. Or they might work in migrant services, helping others to settle in Australia and build a life in this country of opportunity.
This government does not want these members of our community to be Australian citizens. It wants to introduce a university-level English language test for people to be accepted as Australian citizens. For Australia's entire history post white settlement, we have welcomed migrants with no or poor levels of English. Great diasporas of people fled Europe for Australia after World War II. In the 1960s and 1970s, more fled Vietnam, Cambodia and other places of conflict, and started the thriving and successful and vibrant communities that south-east Melbourne is known for. More recently, great communities of people from India and China, to name just two places, have sought the work and educational opportunities of Australia and in my electorate of Isaacs. I say to these new communities of Australians: welcome. Australia is a country of opportunity. We offer and have always offered a place for people to learn and contribute back to the great multicultural fabric that makes this country. Entire communities in Australia were born from people with poor or no English, and these communities are now thriving, vibrant parts of Australian society.
The Australian citizenship test is already in English, and conversation-level English has served our country for many years. I ask members of the government benches to think of the great Australians who would have missed out on contributing to our country if they were subject to a university-level English language test when they became citizens.
Late in July, I was joined by my parliamentary colleagues Clare O'Neil and Julian Hill at a community forum in Springvale about the government's proposed changes. Around 400 locals turned up to share their concerns about the government's proposals, and I thank everyone who spoke out in opposition to these proposed changes: Greater Dandenong mayor Jim Memeti; former Manningham mayor Jennifer Yang; Thong Nguyen of Vietnamese Community in Australia, Dr Dalal Smiley of Wellsprings for Women in Dandenong; former people's ambassador Chap Chow; councillors Youhorn Chea and Meng Tak of Greater Dandenong Council; and the Cambodian Association of Australia. These proposed changes are wrong.
The soil is fertile up Wollondilly Shire way in my electorate. At Tahmoor and Buxton, the community gardens are flourishing. There are armies of volunteer green thumbs. Kids, families, retirees and people with disabilities tend to edible patches of wholesome goodness. At Buxton, it's a place to learn, inspire and have fun, while creating a financial way to support the garden as well as the community hall. At Tahmoor Uniting Community Garden, it is about the fresh air, having a laugh and getting your hands dirty. Both rely on volunteers—people like Sarhn McArthur-Gumbley, Max O'Connor, Terry Scanlon and Kerry Hawkins—to grow and harvest great produce for their local communities. There are many others. In fact, last year's census showed that more than 22,600 people in Hume did voluntary work through an organisation or a group in the 12 months through to census night. Almost 14,600 people provided unpaid assistance to a person with a disability. Hume is full of caring communities, and it is something that I'm fiercely proud of.
Camden Meals on Wheels, for example, has 73 volunteers and will need 95 or more by the end of the year to cater for the growing demand. I want to tip my hat to people like 80-year-old Ellie Cunningham, who has volunteered for 44 years for Meals on Wheels; 81-year-old Barbara Brown, a volunteer for 18 years; and Robert McCaughan, who is 86 and has volunteered for nine years. They help to deliver more than 600 meals a week—absolutely extraordinary!
Like Camden Meals on Wheels, the coalition keeps on delivering for my electorate. In the next few weeks, NBN fixed wireless towers will be switched on at Mount Hunter, Werombi and Werombi East, bringing fast broadband to another 570 homes and businesses. Another 400 premises will access the signal from towers which have just come online at Balmoral West, Bargo North and Hill Top South. We know that having access to reliable communications is critical, especially in regional areas, and we are delivering in these areas.
I was buoyed to learn during a recent visit to the rural villages of Tuena, Bigga and Binda in the west of my electorate that the local experience with the NBN Sky Muster satellite has been overwhelmingly positive. One couple from Bigga explained to me that they were making voice-over-IP calls to relatives over the satellite. Another couple were using Skype to talk to their kids, many, many miles away—fantastic feedback. And it will only get better, because from next month NBN will be doubling the Sky Muster monthly data limits. A majority of consumers and businesses on the service are expected to receive larger peak and off-peak plans—great news for the more than 2,000 customers.
Speaking as a former mines and energy minister in Queensland, I know that when the government fell we had the cheapest electricity in the world. Why did we? Because we simply passed the cost of running the electricity industry onto the consumer. It was just the cost of running the whole thing. We didn't charge them for power stations, because we had already paid off the power stations. We didn't charge them for the transmission lines and reticulation, because we had already paid that off. So we had the cheapest electricity in the world. The absolute proof of that was that we got the huge aluminium industry, which was going to Canada but re-sited itself to Queensland. The second element to that is that we had a reserve policy. Almost all of our electricity was coming from Gladstone and it was running on zero-priced coal. We had a reserve resource policy.
The great Dick Honan—and I am very, very proud to be a strong supporter of Manildra—has a quote in the United States of $4 for electricity, a quote in Australia of $18 and another quote of $19. Even worse than that is the situation out in my area. Mount Isa Mines employs about 10,000 people, directly and indirectly, and there are 5,000 in the fertiliser plant. They are all dependent on gas, which they now can't buy for under $16, and their competitors are buying it for $4.
I want to switch off that completely. The Liberal Party continuously asserts in this place that it is the greenies who have put the price up. I would like to join the Liberal Party in saying that, but it's just simply not true. The price element taken by the greenies is 20 per cent. It's about 5c on a price of 27c. It's 25 per cent. So it's not coming from the greenies. The price went up—and this is fascinating—by 18 per cent from 1984 to 1997. So, over a period of 17 years, the price went up 18 per cent. In other words, it hardly went up at all. It went up one per cent a year. And then suddenly it went through the roof. In the next nine years it went up five per cent. Let me quote you the figures. In 1993, it was $643. In the year 2000, it was $643. So it didn't move at all. What happened after that? It then leapt from $643 to $2,010. So what's going on here? (Time expired)
Today I want to focus on young high achievers I have met recently from my electorate of Bonner. I recently had the pleasure of presenting young sports stars in my electorate with their Local Sporting Champions awards. The Local Sporting Champions program is an Australian government initiative that provides $500 grants to young sportsmen and sportswomen aged 12 to 18 to help cover the cost of attending state, national and international sports championships.
There were 35 successful applications from Bonner for the latest Local Sporting Championships round. Five of these sports stars attended my presentation ceremony last week. There was Ella O'Grady from Wynnum North, representing Metropolitan East School Sport at the state football championships. Ella hopes one day to play for the Matildas. There was Luisa Gauci from Chandler representing Queensland at the Youth Women's national baseball championships. Luisa is the first Brisbane girl to compete in the national Kookaburras team and was recently in Korea representing Australia.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 10:17 to 10 : 31
I will continue. Mitchell Torrens from Manly West is participating in BMX Queensland's Queensland State Championships at the junior elite level. Ethan Bennetts from Carindale is representing Queensland Athletics at the Australian Athletics Championships. Ethan is a gold medallist in the hammer throw event and intends to represent Australia at the Olympics one day. And Erin Hopgood from Wynnum West is representing Redland City GymSports at the TRP State Age Championships.
The government is proud to support our talented young sports stars and to help them achieve their sporting dreams. Good luck to our local sporting champions at their upcoming championships. I encourage other eligible sportsmen and sportswomen in Bonner to apply online.
Recently, I also got to meet some outstanding language students from Mansfield State High School. Eight of these students have received scholarships to travel to Kobe in Japan this month. I also wish bon voyage to French language students heading off to Rouen on exchange. Congratulations to these excellent students; I was happy to present them with Australian flags and other items to take on their trip.
Life isn't easy for young people in Australia today. The deck is stacked in many ways that previous generations simply didn't have to face. Young Australians bear more of the cost of their own further education than any previous generation. They enter a workforce where youth unemployment is at almost 13 per cent and where insecure work predominates; they confront a housing market where affordability is at a crisis level and the tax system is designed to advantage investors buying a second, third or fourth investment property over people trying to buy their first home; and, sadly, they confront a coalition government that is completely indifferent to their fate.
The PaTH internships program epitomises this neglect and disinterest. The program gives businesses $1,000 to take on a so-called intern for four to 12 weeks. The young people taking on these internships receive $200 for 30 to 50 hours of work, significantly below the minimum wage of between $600 and $1,000 for a fortnight. When the program was announced, Labor made our concerns clear about the potential for this program both to displace existing part-time and casual workers and to exploit young people forced into these positions.
Already we're seeing disturbing reports about this program's operation. There were reports this month that a person worked up to 58 hours in a week during his placement in a Melbourne cafe, despite the government's promises that young people would not be required to work more than 50 hours in a fortnight. There were reports of an intern who had worked for two days at a company with no signed agreement outlining their entitlements or workplace protections. Five months into the program, just 413 young Australians had secured a job after completing the program. In contrast, 1,300 young people have had their welfare payments suspended in relation to the PaTH program. The maths are clear: this government has cut more young Australians' welfare payments than it has found jobs for them under this program. More people have been punished than have been helped. It is, sadly, typical behaviour from this government, and young Australians are sick of it.
Labor has a better way forward for young Australians, focusing on pathways to better training and skills development; mandating that one in 10 jobs in government infrastructure programs are apprenticeships; focusing on restoring our TAFEs and properly funding our universities to ensure that every young Australian has every opportunity to reach their full potential; ensuring that university fees are not a disincentive for first-generation members of families going to university; stopping cuts to penalty rates; and tackling the legal loopholes that encourage employers to create insecure jobs in Australian workplaces. Labor understand that it's tough to be a young Australian today. A Shorten Labor government will ensure that they get a fair go.
As everyone in this room knows, Australia is a trading nation. We sell what we grow, make and produce to the world. Last year Australian exports grew by 7.9 per cent, three times faster than the remainder of the Australian economy. Our success is underpinned by competitive export industries tapping into huge export markets, particularly across the Asia-Pacific region.
Queensland, my home state and yours, Mr Deputy Speaker Buchholtz, is a trading state. Exports were worth some $70 billion to the Queensland economy in 2016, and trade supports nearly 500,000 jobs in the sunshine state. More than 70 per cent of Queensland exports in 2016 were to countries with which Australia holds a free trade agreement. The macadamia industry, for example, at Bundaberg, in my electorate of Hinkler, is the largest macadamia growing region in Australia now—it has just taken over from northern New South Wales. The Australian macadamia industry is worth more than $200 million annually, and 70 per cent of macadamias are exported to more than 40 countries. On 1 January this year the tariff for shelled macadamias was cut to six per cent under the KAFTA—the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement—and almost $10 million worth of macs were exported to Korea between January and September 2016. This is just one example of the benefits of trade, yet this industry and many others are at risk because the Queensland Premier and her Minister for Housing and Public Works are saying that the free trade agreements that Australia worked hard to secure are not worth the paper they are written on. The Premier said:
In an Australian first, cabinet has agreed the state government will no longer be constrained or bound by free trade agreements.
That is an outrageous statement. Another minister said:
We're breaking the government's trade agreements—and they aren’t happy. But I couldn't give a toss.
I'd like to see him say that to the hardworking exporters throughout Queensland, particularly in regional Queensland. I don't think that's an appropriate opinion for a government minister to hold at all.
Every commitment on government procurement Australia has ever made in free trade agreements involving Queensland has been made with the written support of the Queensland government, but it does seem there are some differing views within the Queensland Labor government, with the Treasurer stating just the other week:
There’s a suggestion that we are breaching our free trade agreements and that’s not the case.
Which one do we believe? Do we believe the Premier or the Queensland Treasurer? If we renege our on our side of these deals, why should others not renege on theirs? Some $70 billion worth of exports out of Queensland are at risk. That is jobs in regional Australia and jobs in my electorate, particularly in Hinkler. What do we say to those nations? Is Queensland going to hold their end up or not? We need to ensure that we meet the agreements we have signed. What happens to the agricultural worker, the locomotive driver, the person who works at BP, who is on the road where the drive in/drive out operators continue to go, who feeds many shifts of workers, whether they're in mining, resources or air-conditioning? Their jobs rely on trade. The Queensland Premier should absolutely make her position better known. We need to support the agreements we've signed.
Last Saturday I attended a rally in Melbourne in support of the Rohingya Muslim people, calling on the international community and Australia to act in bringing an end to the persecution, attacks and killings of the Rohingya by the Myanmar security forces. The rally was supported by the Islamic Council of Victoria and was attended by all the Rohingya refugees living in Melbourne and, of course, members of the broader community.
In the last two weeks we have seen a catastrophe unfold in Myanmar, in the northern Rakhine state, where the Myanmar military have waged an assault on the Rohingya Muslims, with reports suggesting that an estimated 3,000 Rohingyas have already been killed. Brutal killings of women and children have taken place. There has been burning of villages. This is a humanitarian disaster, with reports of starvation as the distribution of aid has been blocked by Myanmar security forces. Since the most recent outbreak of violence against the Rohingya people on 25 August 2017, the United Nations has estimated that over 300,000 Rohingyas have been forced to flee to Bangladesh, with at least another 20,000 detained at the border. According to Human Rights Watch, multiple Rohingya villages have been burnt and destroyed. There are currently 1.1 million Rohingya living in Myanmar's northern Rakhine state. They have been there for hundreds of years, yet the Rohingya Muslims are not formally recognised as an ethnic group in Myanmar. They are a stateless people, deemed to be illegal immigrants, who have been denied citizenship and most government services.
Australia is one of the four major donors of economic development aid to Myanmar. We have a historically good relationship with Aung San Suu Kyi and thus have the capacity to call on her to speak out against these crimes, which are being referred to by many as ethnic cleansing. I support calls by Human Rights Watch Australia and others in urging the Australian government's Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Defence and Australia's Defence Force chief to call Aung San Suu Kyi and the Myanmar armed forces and press for an immediate end to these atrocities. Further, they should press for unfettered access to Rakhine state for humanitarian agencies, as well as access for independent international monitors, including the fact-finding mission established by the UN Human Rights Council, which is currently blocked from entering Myanmar.
This recent large influx of Rohingya to the refugees camps in Bangladesh has caused significant strain on the country's resources. There is no shelter, clean water or proper sanitation, and people are starving. The conditions are squalid and crowded and Bangladesh is struggling to cope. Its Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina, has urged Myanmar to take back some of the 370,000 refugees, stating that no words were enough to express her condemnation of Myanmar, while top UN human rights official Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein says this looks like 'a textbook example of ethnic cleansing'.
I am proud to be the patron of the Maryborough Bears AFL football club. I'm even prouder to say that since I accepted their invitation to become their club patron the Bears have risen to the top of the AFL ladder. They won the grand final, played against Across the Waves, by 28 points, having won all but two of their games in 2017. This is the first premiership the Maryborough Bears have won since 2000. It is a remarkable and commendable effort by the club. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to be at the grand final on the weekend, as I had other commitments, but I was pleased to attend a game a few weeks ago to see the talent and commitment of the players. I know that the season has been hard fought. The games have been played fairly and with passion, and now the club's players, friends and supporters have been rewarded with a well-deserved premiership.
The club's coach, Russell Green, who's a great mate of mine, is passionate about AFL football. He's from Victoria and now lives in Maryborough, and he knows his AFL well. He's played AFL in three states and has a lifelong commitment to the sport. Russell has a secret training trick, which he shared with his players to help them secure the historic premiership. I'm sure many of his team wondered what was going on when they turned up to practice to see tennis balls, instead of the regular footballs, on the field. When Russell played footy in Victoria, the pre-season training was done with tennis balls to sharpen and fine-tune players' skills. Russell decided to dust off his training trick and introduce it to the Maryborough Bears. Players had to bounce and kick the tennis balls to coordinate their movement. Focusing on the balls helped them improve their skills. The tennis ball training over five weeks paid off. Their skills improved, and the results speak for themselves. I admit I was a bit concerned when I heard Russell share his secret, but he tells me he's not finished. He has another secret training weapon in mind for next year's competition. Apparently, they'll be using golf balls!
To the team: well done on a great season and good luck for the next season! I congratulate Russell Green and the Maryborough Bears team on their effort and their well-deserved premiership win.
Developers need to understand that the key to successful urban redevelopment is bringing the local community with them. Their projects need to complement the suburban landscape, not dominate it. I certainly believe in higher densities close to public transport corridors, but what we're seeing with the arrogant state government in New South Wales is an attempt to change the landscape of the city in a way that will destroy the vibrancy of communities. Along the Sydenham to Bankstown line is the industrial area of Marrickville. It currently plays an important role. Companies like Erth Visual & Physical and Empress Stilt Dance produce things like a 2.7-metre-high T. rex walk-in puppet for creative use. There are IT companies in that industrial area of Marrickville that are creative, are creating jobs and are boosting our national economy as well as the vibrancy of the local community.
Yet the government wants to rezone this area with a proposal that shocked me when I met with Mirvac a couple of weeks ago. Mirvac developed the former Harold Park site with increased density. They're developing the Marrickville Hospital site on Marrickville Road. Both of those projects have aspects of open space. They're vibrant communities. They're not significant overdevelopments. But what they propose in Carrington Road in south Marrickville, in the industrial area, where there are single-storey and two-storey houses, are 28-storey developments. In an area that doesn't have great road access to it and has congestion right now, 28-storeys is a massive overdevelopment. It is greed gone mad, and I told Mirvac that. I will campaign with the community against such an overdevelopment proposal. Marrickville has a character to it, and the idea that you can go into an area of Marrickville that has one- and two-storey heritage houses, which families live in, and just change that to 28 storeys is, quite frankly, absurd. I say too, as I said to the Property Council last week: developers have an important role to play, but they will face the anger and fury of local communities if they put greed above the interests of those local communities.
Before I call the next member, if no member present objects, three-minute constituency statements may continue for a total of 60 minutes.
I rise today to mention to the House the sad passing of Rod Wilson of Calliope Station, Calliope. I noticed your presence, Mr Deputy Speaker Buchholz, at Rod's funeral. He was very well known across Central Queensland and indeed Queensland. Rod was not the sort of man well captured by a 90-second speech, but one who would want less fuss. Rod was an engineer and inventor, not by paper but by action—a generational grazier with everlasting passions for his land, his family and his country. His passion for technology is legendary, always looking for a better, easier and more scientific method for living life and to make life and work better for others around him—particularly his own staff. Rod's political nous and knowledge was unbeatable and led to a very successful career as the undefeated campaign director for former member for Hinkler Paul Neville. He kept in touch with people from all over and knew exactly what they wanted. Life membership to the Nationals was fittingly bestowed on Rod just before the merger of the National Party and the Liberal Party in 2008. Rod is survived by his loving wife, Sylvia; their children, Zoe, Eliza and Will; and their grandchildren. Rod, you are always in our thoughts. Rest in peace.
Secondly, I'd like to announce that Flynn will benefit sooner rather than later, with the NDIS provider announcements this week. Carers Queensland and BUSHkids will share in $23 million funding: BUSHkids $6.2 million; Carers Queensland $17.2 million. These two organisations will partner with the NDIA. Carers Queensland have already advertised in Gladstone, Emerald and Rocky for local staff. This will deliver many new jobs for Flynn. Access to the NDIS has been brought forward for those already on a disability scheme. These vital programs will having lasting benefits for families and carers in my region of Flynn.
I thank the honourable member for his contribution. Can I just add my condolences to the Wilson family on the passing of Rod Wilson.
On Wednesday, 10 May this year, 5c pieces glittered in the autumn sun in Canberra as 25,000 Canberrans gathered to toss 5c pieces into a huge heart of coins on one of the netball courts. As Megan Doherty put it:
By nightfall, the heart had become a big silver lake of hope and generosity.
In addition to the $300,000 raised in coins, there was an additional nearly $2 million raised for the purpose of 'cancer vanquishment'.
The woman who organised this was Connie Johnson. She had contracted cancer in 2009 and spent nearly 10 of her 40 years battling cancer. She launched the charity organisation Love Your Sister in 2012 to raise money for breast cancer research through the Garvan Institute of Medical Research. She worked with her brother, Logie-winning actor Samuel Johnson, who rode on a unicycle around Australia to raise money for cancer research. The heart on the Lyneham netball court was Connie Johnson's attempt to top her brother's extraordinary fundraising effort.
The coins were thrown in the air alongside Connie; Samuel; her sons, Willoughby and Hamilton; and her 'partner in life', Mike Johnson. Connie did a coin angel on the Lyneham netball courts. She was a former disability support worker and manager. She was somebody who organised the Big Heart Project around her kitchen table in her Kaleen home. She packed the merchandise from there and organised the phone calls and the emails from that modest house in the Canberra suburbs.
Connie not only noted, occasionally, the unfairness of having to fight cancer but also was extraordinarily philosophical about it. She told Megan Doherty:
In a way we're all terminal and we're all going to die. We have the now and we have to do something with it.
She also said:
I would like to say that I've never been as proud to be a Canberran as I am now. You guys, whether you helped out on the day, whether you helped leading up, whether you were on the committee or a sponsor, every single thing you did … came together in that massive 80-metre heart …
Connie died last Friday and was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia at a hospice bed in Clare Holland House by the Governor-General, Sir Peter Cosgrove. She said in her final days, 'If you haven't got a selfie yet, I'd suggest tonight might be the last chance to do it.' Vale Connie Johnson, whose extraordinary efforts and sense of humour made us all better.
On 21 August, I attended the South West Bankstown Chamber of Commerce's Women in Leadership function at the Bankstown Sports Club. It was a great evening which brought together many local small business operators. There were a couple of hundred people in attendance, and it was a great testament to the efforts of Wally Mehanna, the CEO of the South West Bankstown Chamber of Commerce. I'd like in particular to note the contribution of the keynote speaker, Ms Lee de Winton, who is the new CEO of Bankstown Airport. Bankstown Airport is, in fact, the second busiest airport in Australia, with a large number of flight schools and smaller aircrafts making use of that facility, which, of course, dates back to the Second World War. Congratulations to Wally for organising the event and Ms de Winton for her very thoughtful reflections on her career in the military and in the private sector. I look forward to continuing to work with the South West Bankstown Chamber of Commerce in the future.
The VIEW Clubs of Australia are a great institution which do tremendous work in our community. On 21 August, I attended the Lugarno Evening VIEW Club's 45th anniversary celebration. The strong Lugarno Evening VIEW Club in my electorate and, also, the East Hills VIEW Club do great work and fundraising, particularly to help students with their educational costs. The VIEW Club has been around for 45 years in Lugarno and does a wonderful job. I would also like to acknowledge the efforts of Sheryl Sharkie, the guest entertainer on the night, who did lots of great numbers for the crowd. Thanks to Jenny Smith and Adele Persi for their efforts in organising the celebrations, and also to Ellen Grey, with whom I recently met to discuss the upcoming biannual VIEW Clubs national conference and some policy motions that may come from that event.
On 22 August, I met with the St George Zone of Playgroups to discuss the needs of the playgroup community in the Banks electorate. The playgroups are very important organisations where families with young kids come together to play, as the name suggests. They also provide social support for parents. The groups meet in community spaces in Oatley, Blakehurst, Penshurst, Carss Park and a range of other places around the St George region. They also operate a toy library at Oatley, which has been in operation for some time and helps to provide toys to kids without the financial burden for parents of needing to buy those toys. I encourage Georges River Council to support the playgroup in all their efforts. Thank you to Annette Ruhotas Morgan, the coordinator, and everyone else involved.
It will be absolutely no surprise to Blue Mountains residents that an independent assessment shows the government's community consultation for Badgerys Creek Airport is flawed. It confirms that what the government did has led to disempowerment, frustration and potential health impacts. This joint study by the Western Sydney Community Forum and the University of New South Wales Centre for Health Equity Training, Research and Evaluation looked at the positive, negative and unintended impacts of the government's processes. The study warns that unless the government changes its approach there will be ongoing negative impacts on the health and wellbeing of my community, including increased stress, anxiety and psychological distress. It says the government should immediately change the way it does things, should value community knowledge and opinions and should be willing to make changes in response to community input.
The failure of this government to be able to do that is highlighted in their latest report on community attitudes, which they claim shows that support for the airport is at an all-time high. They tell us that 91 percent of people are aware of the plans for the airport, but what the data actually shows is that less than half the surveyed group feel they know 'a great deal' or 'quite a lot'. That means more than half know a 'small amount', 'hardly anything' or 'nothing at all' or 'can't remember'. Yet this same group of people are being asked their views on a range of things, and this is taken to be representative of the west.
Another element of this research which might be news to inner-city residents is that Marrickville is now included in Western Sydney. In fact, the government has divided Western Sydney into four areas, one of which includes Burwood, Leichhardt, Ashfield and Marrickville. If you live in Point Piper that is west, but these non Western Sydney residents are being given an equal say on what they think about the impacts of Western Sydney Airport, even though they are completely outside the area that the government thinks will be impacted by 24/7 flights. It would make more sense to include Hornsby and Wahroonga and the upper North Shore, because they are more likely to be in the firing line, according to the available flight plans.
The other completely disingenuous part of this survey is a question asking, 'Are you concerned that if the airport operates 24 hours a day there might be noise late at night and early in the morning?' It says 'if', but, in fact, this government says the plan 'is' to have aircraft flying right through the night, without a curfew, all night, every night. It's no wonder my community has no trust in this government. The Turnbull government is sticking to the motto of: 'Don't ask the questions you don't want the answers to, and don't ask the people who really should be answering the questions.' This means communities in the west are being told: sit down, be quiet and take what you're given. That is never, ever what we need. (Time expired)
I rise today to speak about Orrong Road, a main road in my electorate of Swan and a road notorious for delays. As is it stands, Orrong Road is currently the third most delayed road across the city of Perth. The traffic is delayed by 32.3 per cent and road users are travelling at an average speed of 40.6 kilometres per hour, despite it being a 70 kilometres per hour road. In short, Orrong Road is the sixth slowest road in the metropolitan area of Perth. In April this year I sent out a survey to approximately 13,000 people in my electorate of Swan, in the suburbs of Kewdale, Rivervale, Lathlain, Carlisle, Queens Park, East Cannington and Welshpool. I received almost 1,500 surveys back, and I'm sure the member for Ballarat would say that that's a pretty good response. Over 1,150 said that they supported the road being widened, and the rest supported upgrades to intersections. I see the member for Perth has just arrived, which is great timing because I've got him in my speech!
In 2010-11, Main Roads Western Australia wrote a report about the ways various intersections on Orrong Road could be upgraded as well as how these upgrades would be affected by future widening. Until earlier this year when the Orrong Road intersection with Archer Street in Carlisle and the intersection with Alexander Road in Rivervale received a $1.8 million upgrade through the Turnbull government's Black Spot Program, there had been no work done to remedy the traffic issues—lots of promise, but no work. Prior to these upgrades, there had been a combined total of 202 crashes from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2015 at these two intersections, which are within 200 metres of each other. This was despite the Gillard government promising to upgrade the road when I faced the now member for Perth in an election back in 2010—another broken promise by the Gillard government. Look at the cute, young face—
Order! The member for Swan will not use props.
Look what it says here, that they will 'provide 80 per cent of the funding to upgrade major roads in our community like upgrading Orrong Road.' They never did; they never provided the funding for Orrong Road.
The next round of the Black Spot Program, announced at the Orrong Road and Roberts Road intersection, will see $220,000 worth of upgrades. The next intersection I would like to see upgraded—and I'm sure I'll get support from the member for Perth—is the Orrong Road intersection with Oats Street. It's currently causing huge delays and is unsafe not only for my constituents but also for road users across Perth who frequent this stretch of road. Widening will need to be looked at as Orrong Road is the main road to the city from growing parts of my electorate, such as East Cannington, and also areas such as Kewdale and Rivervale which have increasing amounts of in-fill housing.
I look forward to working with the community and Main Roads Western Australia to ensure that the best outcome is achieved at this intersection in my electorate of Swan, and I look forward to support from member for Perth.
With my dad born in Richmond, I grew up with stories of the toughness of his life there and spent every winter Saturday at Essex Heights Football Club, and with two brothers, Michael and Marty, recruited to the Richmond squad, there was never any doubt that I was going to be Richmond through and through. At the age of 16, in 1982, I was at my first ever grand final, and I cried all the way home from Richmond to Syndal station. This is a club that has broken our hearts more often than not, but, oh, how we love them.
Last Friday night, the Richmond Tigers shrugged off history to beat Geelong. It's been 16 years since they were last in a final. Coming into Friday night's game, Richmond had lost the past 13 times to Geelong. They had not beaten them at the MCG this millennium. The last time they won against Geelong, in 1999, the now CEO Brendon Gale was the centre half-forward. Geelong supporters thought that they had our measure and that they had it in the bag. It was unthinkable that we would win, but win we did. Damian Hardwick, and captain Trent Cotchin, who've been under enormous pressure from commentators and supporters for the last few years, have shown wonderful leadership, just as the club overall has under the stewardship of the league's first female president, Peggy O'Neil.
For the team itself, as TheAge football writer Michael Gleeson accounted:
Richmond was never going to do a final easy. The game on Friday night was as tortured as Richmond's path to it.
Well, for three quarters it was. In the last quarter, in a manner befitting the fretful apprehension they, or rather their fans, carried into another finals appearance, once the realisation dawned that they were home the relief was like an outpouring. They kicked six goals for three quarters and seven in the last. Cotchin's goal in the last quarter was typical of Richmond in 2017: fearless, ferocious and fantastic.
One of my staff has been trying to get me to do the Kath & Kim version of the Tigers' theme song. I will resist, but I highly recommend people googling it. It says everything and more about us as Tigers supporters. I might even put it up on my Facebook page alongside this speech. As the theme song says: 'Like the Tiger of old, we're strong and we're bold.' This is a Richmond team embracing Richmond values and sharing the journey with its fans. We have a bye this week. We want the boys to rest up well, regroup and be ready for the next game. We, your fans, will be with you all the way. Go, Tiges!
Sometimes the most compelling thing that we can do in this parliament is to faithfully recount the stories of everyday Australians. I want to tell the story today of a postwar immigrant from the Netherlands, Carolina Augustina Knappstein, who passed away on 30 July, aged 90. Although she didn't talk about her past much, she called herself a survivor. In the first year of World War II her father disappeared, presumed taken in the Nazi occupation of Holland. He was never heard from again. Carolina's mother then had a nervous breakdown, so Carolina, the oldest daughter of 10 children, one just a newborn, was left to raise her brothers and sisters throughout the war. She was only 13. The next year, in the middle of that Nazi occupation of Holland, it was one of near starvation and freezing cold. There was no electricity, no running water, no social welfare. Food rations were a quarter of a loaf of bread per person per week. By all huddling together, the family survived that winter. Many others did not.
In the decade after the war, Carolina and most of her siblings moved away from Holland to the other side of the world. They left everything behind them, the good and the bad, and they made Australia their new home. Later on and married, Carolina suffered no fewer than 10 miscarriages and stillbirths. She said that going through a full-term labour knowing that the baby was already dead was one of the hardest things she ever went through. She was probably right to believe that her problems having children and many of her later health problems stemmed from that year of malnutrition as a child facing the horrors of war.
Despite all those challenges she'd faced she had great optimism and a zest for life. She ran small businesses here in Australia, she helped establish a Rotary branch, she gave back to her community and she always believed that setbacks were temporary. Her catchphrase, repeated thousands of times, was, 'Make the best of what you've got.' As a result, she was one the most contented people you could ever meet. She was proud of her Dutch heritage and, equally, a proud Australian. Like millions of others in that era, she made that big decision to migrate to Australia on the other side of the world.
Those decisions, the hard work and the sacrifices made by so many postwar migrants have made Australia what it is today. Their legacy is that their children and future generations have some of the best opportunities and brightest futures of almost anyone, anywhere, in the world. Today I pay tribute to the memory of a great woman. She overcame obstacles. She found love and hope in this world. She built a brighter future for herself and those around her. Rest in peace, my grandmother.
Madam Deputy Speaker Wicks, as I am sure you and those in this place will agree, in this day and age, the sound and fury and clash of various partisan positions dominates much of the debate we see week in and week out, but one of the areas in which I am supremely confident there will be no such partisanship—and, if anything, a remarkable spirit of camaraderie and collegiality—relates to the support of Men's Sheds. Men's Sheds all around the country are where wonderful things occur with blokes who are usually of post-retirement age coming together not only to make terrific pieces of woodwork and other important structures for our community but also to bond, to share stories, to have a laugh, to have a cuppa.
In my electorate alone, in the federal seat of Perth, I've visited a great number of Men's Sheds and have been overcome about the wonderful work being done—by the Men's Shed in Vincent and the Men's Shed in Bayswater. But what I would like to focus on today is the wonderful people, men and women, who run the Men's Shed in Bassendean. This Men's Shed deserves particular praise for a number of reasons. Firstly, despite the fact they are still struggling for a new home—they have recently moved out of their location in Eden Hill and, hopefully, with a bit of goodwill and heavy lifting by all levels of government, we can find a home for them in Bassendean so they can continue their good work.
Despite those challenges, they maintain a great sense of collegiality. Despite not having a permanent location, they continue to meet and plan events that make a wonderful contribution to the community. They are ably led by President Robert Oakes, supported by Secretary Clive Brown. I would like to pay tribute to Clive Brown, who is here in the chamber today. Clive is not only a wonderful community contributor these days, but, as I'm sure those back home in the great state of Western Australia will know, Clive was also one of the most hardworking members of parliament we have seen for over two decades. He was first elected as the member for Morley, in 1993, then, soon after that, became the member for Bassendean, where he served all the way through until his retirement, in 2005. During that time, as the Minister for State Development he played an enormous role in relation to the shape of the state's future. You would be forgiven for thinking you could have some rest time after that kind of history and being a hardworking member, but no such thing for Clive. Together with his wife, Sally, they continue to be tireless advocates for their local Bassendean community. We are very lucky to have him with us and to have the contribution he has made. With his help the Men's Shed will thrive and prosper. Thank you, Clive.
This is an unscheduled constituency statement, but I was inspired by the member for Perth's speech. On this occasion he was inspirational—on other occasions not so much, but this one definitely. The Men's Shed movement—and I was privileged to be there the other night to see its launch—is truly one of those examples of what a free society can create. This is a group of people who come together, often in many different parts of Australia, and are not content just to, as the poem goes, go gently into the night. They have made a massive contribution to our society and to themselves, and they do a fantastic job.
But the one aspect that the member for Perth didn't hit on—he had only three minutes to speak, and I'm sure he would have hit on it if he had more time—is the mentorship that many of these Men's Sheds provide to many young kids coming through our society in our suburbs—certainly in the suburbs in my community—who are looking for something to do, looking for some direction, and who don't always get it at home, or at school, or from their friends or from being inspired by sporting heroes. The Men's Shed movement has done so much for so many people in my community by showing them that it is not necessarily enough to be the smartest or the best footy player, because you can also do things with your hands and make a contribution in different ways, and you can find your life's work in places other than just the law or medicine or other places.
The other observation I would make is that many of the kids I have seen who have ended up assisting at the Men's Shed or going down and having a chat with the guys there are often a lot happier. The member for Perth used to be a barrister, a very good one, by reputation, I'm told, but I know a lot of miserable barristers. I don't know many carpenters who are miserable or many plumbers who are miserable. They all seem to have so much fun doing what they want, and we are on this planet for such a short time. I really do believe that the Men's Shed movement's greatest contribution to our society and our community, to a free society, is the direction and help and inspiration they give to so many kids who so often in our community are told that their choices are limited. It's amazing: there is wisdom in some old blokes.
In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
It is probably a good thing the chamber is empty, because this won't be the most scintillating contribution to Hansard in this term—far from it! I was challenged by my friend the member for Oxley to insert the word 'unicorn' into my speech, so I thought I would meet that at the outset, hoping it may liven things up!
In thinking about this bill, we are going to hear at the outset about another mythical creature that tends to stalk the Notice Paper, and that is a 'zombie'. We've heard a lot about zombie bills and zombie budget measures that just do not die and keep coming back in different forms. Now we have before us a bill to kill three zombie acts and seven zombie bodies. It's a bill to kill, which is a nice change from 'kill Bill'—the government's latest campaign when they have nothing positive to say. This bill is again what largely seems to pass for action and reform under this government.
I say at the outset that Labor will not oppose this bill. We don't support the abolition of all of these bodies, but after they've been gutted by this government, by not appointing members, by removing funding and staff and not providing them with any work to do—left unloved to wither in the corner—they now exist, in effect, in name only. But it is important, I think, to make some remarks and not just let this stuff sail through, because these bodies did play an important role over their life, and so, if you like, this is a bit of a funeral oration, a last rites, for some of these bodies.
The bill repeals three acts and amends 10 acts to abolish seven bodies. The tradespersons' rights committee, rest in peace. The Oil Stewardship Advisory Council, rest in peace. The Product Stewardship Advisory Group, rest in peace. The advisory group of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority, rest in peace. The Plant Breeder's Rights Advisory Committee, rest in peace. The Development Allowance Authority, rest in peace. Perhaps most substantively from our point of view, the Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee, CAMAC, rest in peace. Some of them are redundant because other bodies have overtaken their roles, such as the tradespersons' rights committee, or the programs they administered have ceased, such as the Development Allowance Authority, and it is entirely appropriate that those bodies should be removed from the statute books. But it is important to note that not all were redundant in function, and so I want to provide a brief eulogy, if you like, for CAMAC, to illustrate the point.
The Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee was born in 1978, and through its life it had three incarnations. It started off as the Corporations and Securities Law Reform Council, and then in 1989 it was reborn as the Corporations and Securities Advisory Council. Around 2002, when the corporations powers were referred by the states to the Commonwealth, it was reborn as CAMAC, as it has been known until this bill passes. It was an expert advisory committee. I know experts and advice are out of fashion under this government, but it provided non-partisan advice, independent advice, to the government of the day. Indeed, oppositions throughout its time, have also drawn on its transparent, independent advice. It focused on corporations and financial markets, which are, of course, still important matters for governments to constantly pay attention to and, I believe, to receive transparent, expert advice on. In its life, it did play an important role. Some of its recommendations, even in more recent times, influenced governments in very important ways. For instance, there are the related party transactions and continuous disclosure rules—no small matters from a corporate governance point of view and in terms of ensuring as best as we possibly can as policymakers the integrity and efficient operation of the markets in this country. There are the reforms to takeover and insolvency laws, the establishment and operation of managed investment schemes, and the introduction of crowdsourced equity funding. Again, these are all important matters, which have been, I think, improved because of the independent advice from CAMAC.
Despite the importance, you would think, of these kinds of functions, the government decided early on in its term, when it was the Abbott government, before it became the Turnbull government—what is it at the moment? Abbott-Turnbull-Joyce-Chester government, depending on how things play out—
Honourable members interjecting—
We'll see—speculation. You heard it here—not first, actually; I think I've heard it in the other place. In 2014 there was a bill to abolish it; it was in an omnibus bill. Labor opposed that bill, as did the business community, academics and all of the experts in the country, saying: 'For goodness sake, government, this is critical. Politicians aren't always the best at knowing the detail and the ins and outs and, of course, the corporate world.' This is so even for people who come into this place, having had significant business experience. The corporate world changes fast and it's important we have expert advice. Sadly, the tin hat, Neanderthal, buffoon elements of the government seem to have won this debate and the government starved it to death. They gutted it, provided it with no funding and no people. It was unloved, left to die in the corner. It was then eaten by the Treasury when Joe Hockey was the Treasurer. He started chewing it, and here we are today.
There is benefit in independent advice, I believe, because transparency in advice, which does often have to be institutionalised, leads to better public policy in so many important areas. It's sadly a pattern of the Abbott-Turnbull-Joyce-Chester government that they ignore experts, even when they ask for advice. An example recently, to illustrate the point that I'm making, was the Finkel report. That was asked for. It provided what I think most people in the community would say is a pretty reasonable path through a very difficult maze also filled with zombies and monsters of the last decade. Trying to get a sensible bit of public policy that will last the distance in place, it proposed the clean energy target, which would lead to new investment and lower power prices. But, in response to that sort of independent advice, the government have escalated the war on evidence, reason, facts and independent, non-partisan advice. So now they're chewing off that report.
I'm not sure whether it's better or worse, though, if you ask for advice and then ignore it completely or do not even seek advice, as we've seen on other important matters just in recent weeks, like the proposal to drug-test welfare recipients. That was the subject of no independent advice and, indeed, every independent expert has spoken out on it. Or there are the citizenship changes, which were the subject of no advice from national security agencies. Indeed, 14,000 submissions received, including many from experts, said, 'That is a dumb idea,' and two said it was a good idea. Departments—and this is an important point that is relevant to the bill—are ultimately under the control of ministers. I've worked in many departments for both sides of politics. Ultimately departments are not independent bodies; they're not always best placed to provide the accurate, transparent advice on important matters like corporate market regulation that governments need. Most recently there was the fake crackdown on skilled migration by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, who didn't even seek the advice of his own advisory committee, MACSM. So, when you set this decision against the pattern, colour and record of the government, the death of CAMAC makes a certain kind of morbid sense. But I hope it finds a little peace, and I do, on behalf of our side, thank those people who put in their time and expertise to provide advice for governments of all persuasions over many years.
We're told that these independent transparent arrangements will be replaced by a variety of ad hoc or informal consultation arrangements—agile, innovative, not transparent and not independent. In some cases, of course, that's okay. But this is an important point. Where there is insufficient transparency, as we have here, as to what in each instance is replacing these bodies then it really is hard for the parliament to make an informed judgement. That is why, when these proposals were put forward in 2014 when there was still a little bit of life and a little bit of blood and money flowing through these bodies, the Senate committee said: 'No, you haven't given us enough of a case. It's fine to put forward a case, Government, saying you don't want this pair of socks, but what's going to replace them?' There's still no transparency. It's been buried and eaten up by government departments. Two examples of that in particular were talked about in the Bills DigestOSAC and PBRAC.
Of course there is a balance between flexibility and possibly lower costs. Yes, at times, if there is institutionalised advice with salaries for chairs and all that kind of stuff, that can have a marginally higher cost. But that does have to be weighed transparently against the quality of advice received by a government. If I were sitting there as a minister with these kinds of bodies, I would think it was good, long-term public policy architecture not to just get rid of them but to actually say: 'It's all right. I might not always want to hear the advice. I don't have to accept it.' Jokes aside, the government doesn't have to accept the independent advice it gets. It could choose to give up on renewable energy and go a different way to the rest of the world and burn coal forever. It could do that. We'll see, no doubt. The party room will be talking about lumps of coal for weeks to come.
But the point is that, at least when you have that kind of frank, fearless and transparent advice that can speak truth to power, the government and ministers of the day, whichever side they're from, are at least, I think, forced by the parliament to consider proper evidence and reason. Evidence and reason I know are sort of out of fashion at the moment, but I remain hopeful they will come back. So I think institutionalising this kind of advice is good public policy practice.
The final thing I would say—I couldn't find anything in the Bills Digest, but I will put it on the record—is that I have little bit of concern about some government legislation, and I want to build on some remarks that I made in probably an even less fascinating contribution to the Hansard in August in relation to the statute law update revision bill—catchy!
In that one we talked about the government's war on hyphens, the war on typos, the war on semicolons and curious spellings—'program' or 'programme'? These are big matters for the parliament to consider! And of course they could have just been dealt with under delegation by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, but, hey, you've got to pretend you've got an agenda by clogging up the Notice Paper with this kind of rubbish. But there was a concern I noted then that that sort of nonsense maybe substantially counted towards the government's deregulation targets.
You'd remember there was great fanfare in the first couple of years of the Abbott-Joyce-Turnbull-Chesters government about four repeal days—
Mr Snowdon interjecting—
The acronym is UNICORN, indeed! There were four repeal days, when ministers stood up and occupied whole days in the parliament and counted the deregulation benefits to the Australian economy, repealing all sorts of things—wonderful! Now, that was 2014 and 2015, and annual reports were published for those two years. Indeed, I think the 2015 report counted $50,000 of economic value to the nation from fixing some typos in legislation. So that's wonderful methodology! But there is no 2016 annual report. Maybe it'll come, but it seems they've lost focus; the website's gone dead. But I will be interested to see what the contribution this bill, if passed, is counted as making towards the nation's deregulation economic agenda. If you get $50,000 for some typos, this could be a million dollars of economic benefit to the country—a million dollars from killing some zombies!
The final point I'd make is that, whatever numbers the government claim as the deregulation benefits of this kind of stuff, there's still no basis for public confidence in those numbers—back to that point of transparency and confidence; who knew!—because the government did have this inconvenient truth: there was a little election commitment, saying, 'We'll conduct an independent'—independent; who knew!—'evaluation of the benefits of our deregulation agenda.' But the Auditor-General noted in his report looking at the deregulation agenda in 2016 that they hadn't done that and suggested, 'You probably should go and do that.'
I'm pleased to say that, finally, after we had a public inquiry by a government controlled committee in this parliament and poked the government—'You really should go and do that, it's been four years; you've got some numbers and we don't know what they mean. No-one knows what they mean. They're probably okay, but who knows, really? What have you got to hide? Why don't you just do that'—fairly recently an independent report was commissioned and handed to the assistant minister for deregulation. I tried to google who that was and I still couldn't find out, but apparently there is one, because we were told that in the public accounts committee. It's gone mysteriously quiet since the current Prime Minister took over. But, hopefully, that report will be released and there will be a greater basis for public confidence in the numbers that are bandied around.
I've made some points there; I think I've said enough. Rest in peace, CAMAC. Really, I do think that, in future, when we on either side of politics are putting forward proposals to get rid of independent advisory committees we should be a little bit more transparent about what is proposed to replace them, because in important areas of public policy, particularly corporates and markets, I think that is good practice. So, rest in peace.
The Statute Update (Smaller Government) Bill 2017 will enable the abolition of seven Commonwealth bodies: the Central Trades Committee; the Oil Stewardship Advisory Council; the Product Stewardship Advisory Group; the Advisory Group of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority; the Plant Breeder's Rights Advisory Committee; the Development Allowance Authority; and the Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee, the sad passing of which my colleague the member for Bruce has just lamented. This bill follows a series of government decisions relating to the abolition of a number of bodies announced in earlier tranches of the so-called smaller government agenda.
Labor is not opposing this bill, but that should not be taken as support. We do not support the abolition of these bodies, but the fact is they have been gutted by the government and exist in name only—as zombies, as my colleague just remarked—with members not appointed and staff and funding removed. Some of the bodies are redundant, with their work now done elsewhere, but others could have continued to play an important role. This government, however, continues to take an axe to services and bodies whose wise counsel might prove inconvenient to its extreme right-wing agenda.
Part of that agenda is an obsession with cutting government services and slashing what it likes to dismiss as red tape—those inconvenient things like regulations about health standards and environmental management. Smaller government is a right-wing idea that has been popular since Reagan and Thatcher. It's attractive to libertarians, economists and CEOs who prefer to see democratically elected governments get out of the way of corporations, which they believe should be as unfettered as possible to make as much money as they can, irrespective of the social consequences.
The notion of smaller government appeals instinctively to voters who choose to believe claims that it leads to more money in their pocket, despite all evidence to the contrary. We already have a small government in Australia. I know, it's mind-blowing. Cutting it more is no recipe for better days ahead. Smaller government is voodoo economics. More than 150,000 people are employed by the Australian Public Service, which, on average, is a little more than 1,000 per electorate. Of course, electorates like mine in regional Tasmania have far fewer, while electorates here in Canberra and the big capitals have far more; but on average it is about 1,000 per seat. Australia has about 24 million people, so on a population basis that is one Australian public sector employee per 160 people. Imagine the scene: there is your one Australian public sector employee behind a desk in a tiny town of 160 people and they all want advice, service and action on every federal issue such as defence, health, education, social security, pensions, AFP, immigration, aged care, parliamentary services and more. That person would get worked to the bone just fielding the calls and emails, let alone doing the work. No wonder public sector employees are regarded as amongst the most efficient and hardest working in the world.
Disappointingly, 18,000 of those 150,000 are contract workers. So, while those opposite might like to boast of how they're keeping public sector growth under control and how committed they are to smaller government, what they're often doing is simply outsourcing the work. It still needs to get done and be paid for. It just doesn't show up in the books as public sector wages. But, at the end of the day, voters don't save any money and they arguably get a poorer level of service when government services are outsourced and contracted out for profit motive.
Ian McAuley, a lecturer in public finance at the University of Canberra, questions an often uncritical support for the smaller government ideal. In an extended essay published by the Australian Collaboration, The Australian economy: will our prosperity be short-lived? he writes:
Contrary to some perceptions, Australia has a small public sector, and a low level of government debt. Successive governments have kept taxes and deficits down by keeping expenditures down. As a result Australia has one of the smallest public sectors of all developed countries.
Public spending is essentially divided between goods and services, including physical infrastructure such as roads, ports, schools, hospitals, health care, education services and consumer protection, and transfer payments, such as pensions, family allowances and industry subsidies. McCauley argues that Australians have yielded to pressure for ever-increasing spending on transfer payments, with the share of total federal spending on social security rising from 21 per cent in 1972 to 33 per cent today—and that doesn't count the ever-growing amount of revenue foregone in the form of tax concessions for superannuation, private health insurance, capital gains and much else.
Combine the growth in transfer outlays and foregone revenue and what is crudely termed middle-class welfare with the pressure to limit overall spending and not increase overall taxation, and what gets crowded out in the middle is investment in public goods and services—health, education, those sorts of things. So for years Australia has been squeezing investment in education, particularly tertiary education. We see this week a higher education bill before the parliament that seeks to make Australians pay more for their studies and cuts billions of dollars out of higher education from what was promised by the Liberals before the last election. At a federal level we have neglected investment in physical infrastructure and environmental protection at the national level. These are important investments if we're to continue to have a prosperous economy in a world where success rests on the best use of human and natural resources. The Australian public has become far too familiar with computer meltdowns, glitches and system errors from government agencies jeopardising quality of life and privacy. These problems are a direct result of ongoing assaults on public sector staffing levels. There are so many examples, but let's run with just a handful.
The ATO pay deadlock is simply the latest evidence of a broken public sector failing to fulfil its most basic duties to the nation, according to insiders in the ATO. Shrinking the ATO by an incredible 4,000 people has been inefficient and has led to information leaks, delays in processing, loss of morale and loss of key agency culture and corporate memory. These are irreplaceable. After the recent staff cuts of 4,000, 'unexpected delays in recruiting additional staff at reduced classification levels', according to the ATO, led to lower than expected employee expenses in 2015-16, but that didn't result in a saving. That was because the high number of contractors needed to implement critical IT projects and deliver services meant supplier expenses were higher than expected. Of course, then there's the Centrelink robo-debt shambles and, before that, the census debacle.
James Whelan, research director of the Centre for Policy Development's Public Service Research Program, says Australia underinvests in its Public Service compared with other OECD countries and shrinking the bureaucracy affects government services, program delivery, policy advice and financial management. He sees it as counterproductive, stemming from an ideological desire to scale back government, and says bureaucrats make an easy target because of the misconception that they really don't do much—they're just shiny bums sitting around. Whelan says:
We've probably become a little accustomed to Public Service bashing. It's like the public sector has few outspoken allies or advocates. To the extent that that's true, the public sector is vulnerable.
He's right. Public sector bashing is a national sport. It's not one I like to engage in. I think public sector employees do a great job. I'd like to give a shout-out to every public sector employ in this chamber!
Writer and entrepreneur Tim Dunlop argued, in a 2012 opinion piece called 'Small government can equal big problems':
For the longest time we have been told that getting the government out of government is liberating. We have been told that 'free markets' and 'free enterprise' makes us free. Indeed, this is exactly the sort of argument our newly installed 'Freedom Commissioner' takes as gospel, and that has long been argued by his former employer, the group-think tank, the IPA. It is the logic that has been used to justify the imposition of the 'Washington Consensus' in countries all around the world.
The newly installed 'Freedom Commissioner' Dunlop referred to, of course, now occupies a seat on the government benches. Indeed, the member for Goldstein is but one of a handful of IPA alumni infecting those opposite with their noxious neoliberalism and shrill demands to reanimate the rotting corpse of trickle-down economics. My colleague the member for Lilley, named finance minister of the year by Euromoney magazine in 2011, has said in this House—
A government member interjecting—
Well may you laugh, member. Facts speak for themselves. He said:
The politically inspired inequality of the Liberals is poisoning our society, and the power of big money is crowding out our democracy. Exhibit A of that is an unfunded $50 billion corporate tax cut, where the Treasury modelling shows it will not have the power and the influence over jobs and growth that the government claims it will.
We all know that 0.1 per cent growth to GDP in 10 years time will be the magnificent achievement of this $50 billion corporate tax handout. It beggars belief. How much more could be done with that money? I agree with the member for Lilley when he says Australians of the future will rue the day when the ultralow interest rates of this period were not used to invest in critical economic infrastructure across our regions and cities, and all because of an ideological obsession with avoiding debt. Imagine: we could even have invested in more base-load power stations.
The facts are that public investment in infrastructure in Australia has been substantially cut by the coalition, whether it is in the regions, the rural areas or our cities. Not one dollar was provided in the 2017 so-called 'infrastructure budget' for new infrastructure in Tasmania. The facts are these: in the 2015-16 financial year the Turnbull government cut infrastructure investment by nearly $3 billion—a 35 per cent drop from what it had promised in its 2014 budget. That is theft from the future prosperity of Australia. The private sector simply isn't doing that job, as we can see with power generation. Seven plants have closed since this government came to office. The private sector is not champing at the bit to build more. The public sector needs to step up. The public sector needs to invest in critical capital infrastructure, especially across our regions, in order to drive private sector growth. That's the route recommended by the IMF, which states that interest rates are so low that deficit reduction will actually occur faster due to the higher growth that infrastructure drives than it will through spending cuts of equivalent moneys.
One option could be to locate government agencies in regional areas, establishing well-paid, secure employment anchors in towns now suffering from a reliance on low-paid, insecure and seasonal work. Towns with council staff in them do better than those without them, as do towns with schools and medical centres. The benefits of well-paid, secure and permanent work are not only personal to the employees involved but also social. They provide a foundation for community growth and security.
What I'm proposing is a planned regional rollout of satellite offices in areas where placement fits the community and where public sector employees can settle, raise families and work directly with communities and where they join their local footy and bowls clubs, the CWA, ambos and firefighters without having to worry about where the next job's coming from. I'm focusing on the growth that this will bring to communities, with jobs created for services, retail and local government. As towns grow, more people will be needed—firefighters, police, council workers, support staff for people with disabilities, aged-care staff for people who are aging, childcare staff for the working parents and more teachers. Then, satellite university and TAFE sites may develop or grow. Then, doctors and specialists will need to be based in those areas, along with allied health professionals and community nurses. Where towns struggle with population, it is government that can give them a boost. This is a long-term plan, and it runs counter to the neoliberal economic agenda that has run rampant across Australia in recent years—an agenda that has seen our regional communities hollowed out and services shut down and moved to cities, sacrificed on the high altar of economic rationalism and efficiency.
We are a society, not an economy. Where market solutions fail, government must step in. Some say governments should be run like a business. I do not hold to that view. I say that governments should be run like a family. A family still needs to live within its means, but its motivations are very different to that of a business. In a family, we care for our grandmothers and grandfathers, despite the cost; we love our pets, even though they have no productive value; we take care of our homes and gardens, because we feel better when we live in pleasant surrounds; we go into debt to take on a mortgage; and we care for and love one another not because of profit but because we are human beings. I would much rather have a government that treats citizens like family instead of units of production.
Good governments not only invest in education, health, infrastructure and national security but also invest in the arts, libraries, national parks, the ABC and junior sports, none of which might get a look in on business grounds. Those arguing for smaller, leaner and meaner government see these things as burdens rather than assets, and they are forever arguing for them to be cut back to the point where they are already bleeding. The fantasy that has been woven around the supposed need for smaller government has allowed this government to treat people requiring income support as criminals and bludgers. It's allowed a culture to develop that it's somehow a shameful thing to accept government money, unless, of course, you're a billionaire or a corporation with your handout for a massive tax concession or business break. The ideology of smaller government is a myth that damages our society and our economy. It is a flawed, right-wing ideology that strips society of much-needed capital and human investment and that threatens to accelerate the hollowing out of our regional communities.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
I rise to speak on the Defence Legislation Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill. My electorate of Herbert is home to the largest ADF presence in the country, and I am incredibly proud and very honoured to represent the largest garrison city in Australia. The ADF community in Townsville makes up approximately 20 per cent of our overall population. This includes current and ex-serving personnel, veterans, peacekeepers and family members. Townsville's economy reaps significant benefits from this large and welcome ADF presence. In fact, the ADF contribution financially can never be understated. Our community's social capital is also greatly enhanced by the presence of the Defence Force, their families and our veterans.
In order to gain a sound understanding and to recognise the significant and important role that the defence community and their families play in our community, I established the first Townsville Defence Community Reference Group. The reference group was also established to provide vital feedback and input into policy development to ensure that ADF voices in my community are heard in Canberra. The reference group is made up of local leaders in the defence community, including serving members and community organisers—dedicated leaders who all work tirelessly in the interests of our serving and ex-serving personnel, veterans and their families. They are people like Floss Foster, from Veterans Off The Streets; Ray Martin, from ADSO; Nicky Rothwell, from Women Veterans Network; Phillip Thompson, from selectability; Lieutenant General John Caligari (Ret.); Peter Hindle, from Vietnam Veterans; Trevor Mullins, from TPI; Bill Whitburn, from the RSL; and Andrew Clinkaberry and Walter Davis, from Overwatch. The people all work tirelessly in the ESO community.
I work collaboratively with the reference group to ensure that our Townsville defence community has a strong voice and input into federal defence policy. The reference group has had many successes to date as a result of a strong and respectful collaboration with a range of stakeholders, including changes to the National Mental Health Commission review panel to include representation from the young veteran community and families and a community consultation in Townsville with the relevant ministers. In late 2016 Minister Ley, then the health minister, and Minister Tehan, in his role as Minister for Veterans' Affairs, hosted a forum in Townsville. The National Mental Health Commission review panel conducted a consultation with both the Townsville Defence Community Reference Group and the public in Townsville. The reference group has also been very active in working collaboratively with the Northern Queensland PHN in the implementation of the veteran suicide prevention trial in Townsville, with the following activities undertaken in January and February this year: drafted the terms of reference for the steering committee; nominated members from the group to participate in the initial steering committee; nominated the chair of the steering committee, who reports to the reference group on the trial's progress; drafted the suicide prevention trial project officer job description; and participated on the interview panel for the recruitment of the project officer, along with the PHN personnel.
The Townsville veteran suicide prevention trial is the most advanced in the country, and this is due to the grassroots collaboration and hard work that has been and continues to be done by the Townsville Defence Community Reference Group in collaboration with Northern Queensland PHN and other stakeholders. Supporting veterans, ex-serving personnel and their families should not be embroiled in politics, especially considering that we are talking about people who have given courageously and selflessly of their lives in order for Australian citizens to enjoy the freedoms that we do in this country on a daily basis. Defence families also deserve to be supported, as they too make sacrifices when their family members are deployed overseas. Our ADF members put their lives on hold to serve and protect our country, and they deserve nothing less than our unwavering support during and after their service.
This bill comprises four schedules which seek to smooth the processes around medications, increase protections for reservists, add contemporary definitions of children, and enable reclassification for those who leave Defence. The first schedule amends the Defence Act 1903 to enable the policy framework to broaden and expand the conditions under which a positive test result for prohibited substances must be disregarded, including in circumstances relating to appropriate usage of over-the-counter medication or substances administered by authorised persons. This is a practical amendment which will smooth processes in circumstances in which individuals test positive for over-the-counter or prescribed medications. As it stands, Defence members and Defence civilians who test positive for a prohibited substance solely because they took a prescribed or over-the-counter medication are currently required by the act to show cause as to why they should remain in the service or why the arrangement in which they were engaged as a Defence civilian should not be terminated. If the medication was administered, supplied or prescribed by a qualified medical practitioner, this is treated as though it was a negative result.
This amendment will insert a provision into the legislation whereby a member's test result will be treated as a negative result when a medication has been administered, supplied or prescribed by medical officers, nurse practitioners, dentists, pharmacists or other health professionals who hold such authorisations approved by their Australian national registration boards; administered, supplied or prescribed by Defence internally authorised health and allied health professionals or Defence trained health staff; or obtained as an over-the-counter medication as a pharmacy medicine, pharmacist-only medicine or a general-sales medicine.
Schedule 2 amends the Defence Reserve Service (Protection) Act 2001 to ensure all reservists are eligible for the full range of protections under the act, in respect of their employment and education. Reservists play an integral role in the defence of Australia, serving in an entirely voluntary capacity to provide support to the ADF, help rebuild lives and communities after floods, tsunamis and bushfires as well as delivering humanitarian support overseas. Reservists are fundamental to our Defence Force as they help to safeguard the security and national interests of this country. It is vital that Reservists be supported to take part in this program and not be disadvantaged by their desire to participate. The amendments are described by Defence as being needed to mitigate some of the disadvantages Reserve members may face when active in defence service, because of their absence from their workplace, their education provider and, in some cases, their country.
A review of the Defence Reserve Service (Protection) Act 2001 in 2008 concluded that the act was working well overall, but it made recommendations to improve the act's clarity and consistency and to address some gaps in available protections. The amendments will expand the scope of the employment, partnership and education protections to apply to all defence service by Reserve members; expand the scope of the financial liability and bankruptcy protections to apply to all operational service by Reserve members; clarify the employment protections to give greater certainty about Reserve members' rights when they are absent from their employment to render defence service; enhance the education protections to create an obligation on education providers to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate Reserve members' defence service; introduce anti-victimisation and anti-harassment provisions to improve the experience of Reserve members in their civilian workplaces; and introduce a civil penalty regime as a complement to the existing criminal offences throughout the act, recognising that Reservists are a part of the broader defence capability. These changes will improve the protections for Reservists and encourage greater retention and capability in the Reserve forces.
Schedule 3 will transfer the hydrographic, meteorological and oceanographic functions from the Royal Australian Navy to the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation. This move is in accordance with a recommendation from the first principles review of Defence. The transfer is expected to realise synergies in the exploitation of imagery and other data to produce intelligence and non-intelligence geospatial related information in support of Australia's defence interests and other national objectives. It is a minor change in the act; however, as a recommendation of the first principles review, of which Labor was broadly supportive, we are pleased to see this enacted in this piece of legislation.
Schedule 4 will align a small number of provisions in the Australian Defence Force Cover Act 2015 with other military superannuation schemes and provide clarity on the definition of an eligible child of a member or invalid. These amendments will ensure that members who resign from the ADF and later find they could have been medically discharged will be able to apply to the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation to have their mode of discharge circumstances reassessed. This is consistent with other military superannuation schemes and I am supportive of these changes, particularly in relation to those suffering from undiagnosed mental health conditions. There are many circumstances in which ADF personnel may leave the forces as a result of an unknown medical condition, whether this is a physical or mental illness. I believe it is appropriate that those men or women who leave under these circumstances have the ability to have this issue reassessed.
This schedule also seeks to make amendments which will create a more contemporary definition of an eligible child. This will allow a child to become eligible at a later date, where the child is found ineligible at the time of the member's death. The government has provided the following example: where the child of a member is over 18 and ceases full-time study to care for the member or to undertake a gap year prior to the member's death, subsequently resuming full-time activities after the member's death while still under the age of 25. This amendment will allow a child to become eligible for a benefit in additional circumstances. In addition, these amendments will remove the requirement for a child of a deceased member to be wholly or substantially dependent on the deceased invalid or member or an eligible spouse. This will ensure that all eligible children of a deceased member are recognised, regardless of where they reside, and it does not unintentionally exclude children who would otherwise be found eligible if there was no eligible spouse.
Labor will always support changes which improve processes and protections for members of the Defence forces, employees of the defence industry and their families. By smoothing the processes around medication, increasing protections for reservists, adding contemporary definitions of children and enabling reclassification of those who leave Defence, this bill seeks to improve their conditions. This bill will assist those in the Townsville Defence community by providing a smoother process and increased protections for those men and women who serve our country. Any legislation that improves the processes, quality, transparency and generally the lives of our current serving and ex-serving personal, veterans and families will have my strongest support. I am proud to serve the Herbert electorate, which the largest presence of ADF veterans, ex-service personnel and their families call home, because their contribution to our community cannot be overstated. The ADF makes a significant and valued contribution to our community, and I am very proud to support these changes.
I rise to speak on the Defence Legislation Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill 2017. I want to commend the member for Herbert for her commendation and acknowledgement of the significant contribution that the Australian Defence Force makes to our community in securing our nation—and also their families: the significant contribution that the families who support the Australian Defence Force make. They're often left on their own for very long periods of time. It's very stressful, because the ADF members are going into conflict zones or areas that are very, very dangerous. Can you imagine the stress and strain that puts on a family member, not just the partners of those members, but particularly the children? We cannot forget the contribution of the children.
The member for Herbert does a brilliant job of representing her community, particularly the significant ADF community that she has in Townsville—20 per cent. It's a community that's very engaged in the broader Townsville community, that's very much integrated into the broader community and that makes a significant contribution socially and economically to the Townsville community. I know that the member for Herbert, even before she became the member for Herbert, was actively engaged with the ADF members at Lavarack Barracks and elsewhere and their families, in terms of understanding the issues and concerns they had. She was very actively involved particularly with ADSO on the methaqualone issue and the challenges that was creating for her community in terms of the trauma resulting from the methaqualone issue and the unresolved issues and challenges we had with that. As I said, before she was the member for Herbert she was very actively involved in that. When I was up there during the last election campaign we spent a lot of time talking to the people who had experienced those dreadful side effects of methaqualone. Some were suicidal as a result. We were speaking to the families about their trauma in witnessing their loved ones going through these very, very difficult emotional and physical times—watching them go into significant depression and become completely different individuals from those who were deployed or those they had partnered with or married years before. I know the member for Herbert has been very actively engaged with ADSO and also the methaqualone community, for want of a better word. I have campaigned with her on the issue. Townsville and the electorate of Herbert could not have a better member in terms of advocating for her community and particularly for Australian Defence Force members and their families. So, again, I commend and echo the words of the member for Herbert in acknowledging the significant contribution the ADF makes to securing our nation and ensuring that Australians are kept safe. That is vitally important. It's not just about our nation being kept safe but also about our region and our world being kept safe.
I am very proud to have worked in the Department of Defence for 10 years before going into politics. Someone who has just entered the chamber was a former workmate of mine and is a very close friend, and it is lovely to see her here. She works on a range of legislation in the legal area of the Department of Defence and, like so many public servants in Canberra, is deeply committed to ensuring that the Australian Defence Force is supported and has the legislation and the processes in place to ensure that they can do their jobs in defending our nation as best they can and ensuring that we have a safe nation. She does great work in that area. It is terrific to see her here—and it is a bit of a surprise, actually.
As we've heard today, this bill has four main schedules, and today I want to focus on schedule 2, which amends the Defence Reserve Service (Protection) Act 2001, to ensure that all Reservists would be eligible for the full range of protections under the act in respect of their employment and education. The amendments are described by Defence as needed in order to mitigate some of the disadvantages that Reserve members may face when rendering Defence service because of their absence from the workplace, from their education provider and, in some cases, from Australia. A 2008 review of the Defence Reserve Service (Protection) Act 2001concluded that the act was working well overall, but it made recommendations to improve its clarity and consistency and to address some gaps in available protections. The amendments will expand the scope of the employment, partnership and education protections to apply to all defence service by Reserve members; expand the scope of the financial liability and bankruptcy protections to apply to all operational service by Reserve members; clarify the employment protections to give greater certainty about Reserve members' rights when they are absent from their employment to render defence service; enhance the education protections to create an obligation on education providers to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate Reserve members' defence service; introduce anti-victimisation and anti-harassment provisions to improve the experience of Reserve members in their civilian workplaces; and introduce a civil penalty regime throughout the act.
As with the full-time ADF, our Reserve forces play a significant role in securing and defending our nation. The work that we did on the Solomon Islands, particularly towards the end of the mission, was largely done by Reserve forces. The Regional Force Surveillance Unit up in Cairns is largely a Reserve force. They are drawn from all over the country, and what they do is vitally important to securing our borders. The unit has a very large Indigenous contingent, because of their expertise in surveilling the environment, particularly the maritime environment up there—the mangroves and the waters up around Cairns, which can be infiltrated by drug smugglers, by people wanting to work around our import laws and by people wanting to break our customs laws. The borders are potentially porous; we've got a lot of country to cover and a lot of maritime border to cover. The RFSU does an extraordinary job in protecting that part of Australia that really requires an intelligence that is gained not just from looking at communication units and technology but an innate intelligence that you have from being so closely attached to the land for thousands of years. The RFSU are largely a Reserve unit, with a very large Indigenous community that has an extraordinary intuitive intelligence from being so closely connected to country for hundreds and thousands of years. They are playing a vitally important role with technology that, from what I saw when I went and spent some time with that unit, could be improved. Some of it was pretty basic. We're not talking really expensive technology. I think that some of their technology could be improved to enhance that intelligence and knowledge of the land and of the water that is the result of hundreds and thousands of years of knowledge and connection to country.
The amendments in this bill are long overdue. Some of them have been mooted since 2008, so we are talking nearly 10 years that some of these amendments have been in the making. Having worked in the Australian Defence Force Cadets area for a number of years, I know that sometimes changes in Defence legislation can go at a glacial pace. We introduced a range of protections, particularly after the Eleanore Tibble incident, when that young woman tragically committed suicide as a result of what happened in her cadet unit with her supervisor. I know that the consultation process on the legislation to change those regulations took time. The Australian Defence Force Cadets unit introduced a range of measures, in response to Eleanore Tibble and a number of other incidents, which took quite some time to finally reach that stage. It would be wonderful if this could happen at a faster space. We are talking potentially 10 years now since some of these amendments were first suggested, but at least we are debating them now, and I hope we will see some change, particularly with schedule 2.
As I mentioned, we had a significant contingent of Reservists involved in the Solomon Islands, particularly towards the end of that operation. We have a significant contingent of Reservists working with the RFSU up north. We also have a significant number of Reservists who serve as doctors in Navy. Navy can't get those specialist skills internally, particularly in the medical profession, so a lot of the doctors in Navy are in the Reserve forces. That's the beauty of the Reservists. They provide those specialist skills—like the Indigenous Reservists doing that surveillance work up north, those deployed to the Solomon Islands, and the doctors working in Navy today—that are difficult for the Australian Defence Force generally, Navy, Army and Air Force, to get on a full-time basis. That's the beauty of the Reserve system—it gives our ADF access to specialist skills. That's why we need to provide them with as much support as possible, which is what these amendments aim to do, and also as much flexibility as possible.
Just last week I met with a woman who is in the Reservists. She's having a real challenge in getting promoted; in fact, she has been at the same rank for her entire Reservist career, which, from memory, goes back about 15 years. Because of the way that the system is set up, the work that she has done isn't actually recognised in the way that the system recognises service, therefore she's not in that particular stream, so to speak. The work that she is doing is in a particular stream and, therefore, it is kind of invisible. Yes, it is Reserve work. Yes, she is doing work to serve and advance our nation from a national security perspective, yet she is in this stream that isn't recognised by the system. She is a single mother, so it makes it very challenging for her to be able to do the Tuesday night training and then do the weekend training. It makes it very difficult.
So, these amendments are welcome, but we still need to constantly ensure that the Reserve system acknowledges and supports those who want to serve their nation in a Reserve capacity but can't do so because, as single mothers, it's very challenging to take the weekend off every now and then to go and do Reserve work. So we need to explore other ways for Reserve service to be recognised that isn't just part of this particular stream.
Also, it's not just the recognition of service; service allows for promotions. Because this poor woman is in this system, she is, as I said, kind of invisible. Here she is at the same level, even though she has been highly commended in all the work that she has done, particularly in the women, peace and security space, yet she can't get promoted. She is at the same level that she was in the early days of her Reservist career.
These amendments are welcome. These amendments provide greater support to Reservists, but there is still more work to be done, particularly in creating a flexible environment for people's work as Reservists to be recognised, and, particularly, in creating a more flexible environment that provides opportunities for women to make a meaningful and recognised contribution in the Reserve system that will ensure that they can be promoted.
I rise today, as some of my colleagues have, to support the Defence Legislation Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill 2017. It is a bill of four schedules that seeks to smooth the process for our Defence Force personnel and increase protections for those thousands of Reservists who live in our community raising families, working with local employers and participating in some of our great sporting clubs and arts and cultural clubs. The bill increases protections for those amazing Reservists. It is sensible legislation and it is practical legislation. I'm very pleased to not just support it; it is legislation that I feel quite honoured to speak about, as a member of parliament and as representative of my own community.
I speak in support of this bill for our Defence Force past, present and future—a Defence Force community that is growing in areas like Narangba in my electorate. I have to say that while Labor will always oppose regressive policies like attacks on workers or cuts to vital funding streams, we will always support positive legislation that helps take steps forward. Australia is a great country. There is no need to make it great again, because it is great—we all know that. It always has been, and we have to thank our Defence Force for supporting Australia in becoming that great country that it is today and has always been.
When we look in the rear vision mirror at the past—from our youthful days in Gallipoli to the work that is being done all around the world in places like Afghanistan, Syria and the South Pacific—the Australian Defence Force has always been there to support us. So we must always do whatever we can to support our Defence Force personnel and Reservists. There is always more that we can do, of course, but sometimes it is as simple as passing legislation such as this. Any practical measures that we can pass which will assist our Defence Force personnel or our veterans or our Reservists must always be considered. Labor will always support sensible legislation that supports the ADF. Labor always has and Labor always will. We understand just how important the ADF and its personnel are.
The first schedule of this bill amends the Defence Act of 1903 to expand the conditions under which a positive test result for a prohibited substance must be disregarded. Essentially, this will smooth the process and circumstances where individuals test positive for an over-the-counter or prescribed medication. The existing legislation requires Defence Force members and civilians who test positive for a prohibited substance to show cause as to why they should remain in the service or why the arrangement in which they are engaged as a defence civilian should not be terminated, even if the positive result was due to a prescribed over-the-counter medication. Effectively, this policy has been punishing people for getting sick. If a Defence Force member has a cold and subsequently takes some particularly strong over-the-counter medication, the policy forces them to jump through a whole range of hoops to prove that they are still fit to serve. But with the new provisions that are due to be implemented in the legislation through the passage of this bill, a member's test result will be treated as a negative result when a medication has been administered, supplied or prescribed by an authorised medical officer, a nurse, a dentist, a pharmacist or another health professional approved by the Australian national registration board. Really, this just makes sense. It really does. I trust the Australian health care system—thanks to Medicare, we've got one of the very, very best in the world—to safely and accurately prescribe medication to patients.
The test results will also be treated as negative when a medication has been administered, supplied or prescribed by defence internally authorised health and allied health professionals or defence trained staff. To be quite honest, I find it alarming that this isn't already the case. Flawed policy such as this just shows how necessary it is that we have practical amendments like the ones this bill can produce for us.
The third reason for test results to be treated as negative is if the drug was obtained as an over-the-counter medication as a pharmacist-only medicine or a general-sales medicine. This helps to prevent the vilification of a member of the Defence Force who needed relief from sickness like a cold or the flu. We've just come out of the cold and flu season. I'm sure many of us have headed to the pharmacist in the last few months, seeking relief from a cold or the flu. I never thought I would see it: sensible drug testing from this government. After the horrible, horrible social reform that we've seen this week, it seems strange that the government are seeking to pass positive reform in the same sitting week. But, regardless, I will never get in the way of positive reforms. So I'm happy to support this sensible amendment to drug testing in the ADF.
I would now like to move to schedule 4 of this bill. It stands out to me as a really strong and really positive step forward. Schedule 4 will align a small number of provisions in the Australian Defence Force Cover Act of 2015 with other military superannuation schemes. Notably, it will provide clarity on the definition of an eligible child of a member or an invalid. Labor and I are supportive of these changes. They provide protections for members of the ADF who resign from the force and later find out that they would have been eligible to be medically discharged. There are a number of circumstances which may cause a member of the Defence Force to resign as a result of an unknown medical condition. For some, this may be an undiagnosed physical condition. For others, this actually might be a mental illness. Having found that they could have been medically discharged, this schedule will allow for the former member to apply to the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation to have their mode of discharge circumstances reassessed.
It is entirely appropriate that any man or any woman who leaves the Defence Force under these circumstances be granted the ability to have this reassessed. It is fair and right, particularly in the case of an undiagnosed mental illness. For many, mental illness can go undiagnosed for extended and very, very long periods of time. It would not be fair for people who resign due to stresses that were placed upon them by a mental illness to lose out in their superannuation because they weren't formally discharged. Sometimes people themselves just aren't even conscious of an ailment, but they still suffer from it and they just aren't sure why. These people shouldn't be punished. We should be supporting these people whenever we can. So I'm very pleased to stand here and support schedule 4 of this bill, in particular today, just before R U OK? Day, which falls tomorrow. I think it's particularly important that we acknowledge that really important day, so I'm very pleased to stand here to support schedule 4.
R U OK? Day reminds us to ask a friend, a colleague or a family member, 'Are you doing okay today?' It is a simple question that could truly help someone who is struggling with a mental illness. For our returned service men and women, it can make a world of difference just to be asked that question: 'Are you okay?'
I also strongly support schedule 2 of this bill, which provides protections for another area of the Defence Force that can be overlooked, despite the important role they play. I'm talking about the brave men and women who are employed as Defence Force reservists. These are wonderful people living and working in our community—we play touch football beside them, we volunteer at our local Lions Club with a lot of these people, and we join them down at the surf life-saving club over at Bribie Island. These are amazing brave men and women. Schedule 2 of the bill supports reservists in a number of ways, particularly helping to manage their civilian lives. For example, anti-victimisation, anti-harassment provisions, will be introduced to improve the experience of Reserve members in their civilian places. There will also be protections to give greater certainty about Reserve members' rights when they are absent from their employment to render defence service. There are also protections to create an obligation on education providers to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate Reserve members' defence service. These protections are, of course, very welcome. Reserve members have to give so much of their time to the Defence Force, but we can't let it consume all of their lives, of course. Protections like these allow members of the Army Reserve to live, to work and to learn. It allows them to approach their service to the Reserves as exactly what it should be, which is as a part-time job—a service to their community and their country, but not as an all-consuming aspect of their lives. By recognising it as such and putting proper protections and safeguards in place, I really do believe that we will see greater retention and capability within our Reserve forces. I'm really confident these protections will result in a much stronger Reserve force. I have to note that these amendments were initially proposed some years ago as recommendations from a review of the Defence Reserve Service (Protection) Act 2001, and it is good to see them finally being implemented.
Labor has always said that if there are more ways in which we can support our Defence Force personnel—anything at all—we should be doing them. We believe that in supporting this bill we are smoothing that process for the service men and women and increasing protections for people who serve our country. I'm sure everybody in the House agrees that this is a good thing. I stand here to support this bill wholeheartedly on behalf of my community.
I rise today to speak on the Defence Legislation Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill 2017. Labor is supportive of any measure that serves to better support Australia's Defence Force—the ADF personnel. The special nature of defence service is often highlighted in speeches in this place. Indeed, we have heard that from two contributions this morning. This is another case where there needs to be recognition of the nature of service, particularly with respect to service in the Reserve, and the medical treatment of members and/or treatment of their next of kin. Our ADF members put their lives on hold to serve and protect our country, and we owe them our unwavering support during and after their service. Sometimes what we seek to achieve in the nature of legislative reform is lofty in purpose, but sometimes the measures that we seek to address are more practical and more basic in nature. There is nothing of great geopolitical moment or significance in this proposed legislation. It might at one level be regarded as dry and procedural. Nevertheless, as I've indicated in my opening, sometimes the dry and procedural, the minor changes, the smoothing of processes and attention to detail, is of significance to those who have served on our behalf, those who are required to step into danger and those who in many cases look to the express and implied promises that we will look after them in their time of need.
Labor is supportive of this legislation being passed promptly, particularly having regard to the delayed history, which I will later address in this contribution. The bill effects a range of changes, each addressing separate and distinct issues. The bill comprises four schedules which seek to smooth processes, increase protections for Reservists, realise a recommendation from the first principles review of Defence and add contemporary definitions of 'children' in relation to members with respect to superannuation and retirement, and enables reclassification of those who leave Defence and later find out that they could have been medically discharged.
The first schedule addresses a practical issue with respect to medical treatment of defence members. Again, this is something which is designed to smooth processes and remove the possibility for procedure being invoked with respect to a positive drug test. As a former practising lawyer, I can well understand the frustration and anxiety which must arise under the present system upon a positive test for a prohibited substance. The present procedure requires a show-cause procedure to be invoked. This effectively requires, despite the possibility of a reasonable excuse, the defence member or defence civilian, as the case may be, to engage with a process which is geared towards termination. This bill seeks to implement legislative reform required to simplify the conditions upon which a positive test result for prohibited substances must be disregarded when ADF members and civilian employees have used over-the-counter or prescribed medications.
As it stands, defence members and defence civilians who test positive for a prohibited substance solely because they took a prescribed or over-the-counter medication are currently required by the act to show cause why they should remain in the service or why the arrangement at which they are engaged as a defence civilian should not be terminated. This amendment will insert a provision into the legislation which means that a member's test result will be treated as a negative result when the medication has been administered, supplied or prescribed by medical officers, nurse practitioners, dentists, pharmacists or other health professionals who hold authorisations approved by their Australian national registration boards. Further, this provision will apply when medications have been administered, supplied or prescribed by Defence internally authorised health and allied health professionals or Defence-trained health staff, or have been obtained as an over-the-counter medication as a pharmacy medicine, pharmacist-only medicine or a general sales medicine. This is a commonsense approach that does not make our ADF members feel like they've done something illegal. A practical approach is to be preferred rather than automatically invoking a set of procedures which must involve significant stress, anxiety and resources to be devoted to the circumstances of the particular case.
The second schedule seeks to amend the Defence Reserve Service (Protection) Act 2001 to ensure that all reservists would be eligible for the full range of protections under the act in respect of their employment. Again, it is important to reflect upon the reason why, from a public policy perspective, measures such as these are necessary and appropriate. It is obvious that the Defence Reserves plays a vitally important role at very many levels in providing for an effective, efficient and engaged Australian Defence Force. There is, of course, an obvious conflict between the normal activities of a defence reserve list member, whether that be in the workforce or in education, and service in the Defence Reserves. The amendments in this schedule are designed to address and facilitate the mitigation of some of the disadvantages Reserve members might face when rendering defence service because of their absence from their workplace, their education provider and/or absence overseas. The very helpful Bills Digest with respect to this legislation provides some of the background to these amendments.
It is interesting to note that the protection review undertaken by Major General Neil Wilson in April 2007 was initiated to assess the appropriate levels of protection for civilian occupations without burdening employers with unnecessary compliance. It is suggested that the review outcomes were not publicly announced due to the fact that the review was undertaken in an election year—an election which subsequently resulted in a change of government. Three subsequent defence white papers in 2009, 2013 and 2016 all noted the importance of defence reservists to the ADF's overall capability, but there has been no explicit mention of changes to the policies based upon the findings from the review undertaken by Major General Wilson. The explanatory memorandum of this bill does indicate that the protection review concluded that overall the Defence Reserve Service (Protection) Act was working well and achieving its objectives; nevertheless, enhancements were recommended.
It is useful to consider the scope and significance of our ADF Reserve force. In 2001, there were 19,830 ADF Reservists. This was 22.4 per cent below the budget estimate. By 2007, the number had increased to 23,810. The most recent Defence annual report shows that 19,338 Reserve members received pay for days served; although this does not record the total number of Reservists but those who were in some way engaged sufficiently to trigger payment for days served. The importance of the Reserve is also highlighted by the statistics as to deployments. Since 1999, approximately 14,000 Reserve members have deployed on operations in Australia and overseas. This represents approximately 18 per cent of all deployed ADF personnel. It is notorious that the ADF has increased its operational tempo with overseas peacekeeping and training roles as well as service in overseas theatres, which, in turn, has seen a greater use of Reserves to support large-scale national security events, including the Olympics and the Commonwealth Games, and humanitarian assistance. Disaster relief operations have also seen significant ADF Reserve deployments, including the 2009 Victoria bushfires, the 2011 Brisbane floods, and regional deployments, including Timor-Leste and the Solomon Islands.
The ADF has made changes to its workforce structures and policies which involve the implementation of a total workforce model, including changes to service categories to allow greater flexibility for permanent and Reserve members. These structural adjustments have been positively acknowledged by Reserve advocates such as Paul Irving, the then national president for the Defence Reserves Association, who has stated that this has raised the awareness of the Reserve capability. However, this association has been sceptical of the degree of difference it would make to the overall use of Reserve members. In fact, the association has been critical of the low priority given to Reserves, including the delay with these proposed amendments to the Defence Reserve Service (Protection) Act, which was reportedly moving through the system and was supposed to be considered by this parliament in 2015. It can be fairly said that, if there was criticism of delay with respect to the introduction of amendments which were supposed to be introduced in 2015 with bipartisan support, whilst these measures still receive that bipartisan support it has taken far too long for these amendments to reach the parliament.
The objective and policy behind the Defence Reserve Service (Protection) Act is, as appears in the original 2001 Bills Digest, to provide for the protection of the Reserves in their primary employment and education. It facilitates their return to civilian life. The basic protections provide for the members' employment status and entitlements, such as accrued leave, to be protected, they protect members from a partnership being dissolved while they are absent on defence service and they allow members to re-enrol in and resume a course of education that was disrupted because they undertook defence service. There are additional protections in addition to the basic protections, which address the postponement of debts that a member might be liable to pay or would otherwise fall due after a member starts to render service as a result of a call-out; protection from bankruptcy proceedings whilst the member is rendering service following call-out; and allowing a member who has rendered defence service after a call-out to obtain access to loans and guarantees to enable that person to resume civilian life after returning from service. There are also protections against discrimination, which make it unlawful to refuse to give work to a person on the grounds that that person is rendering, has rendered or might in the future render defence service.
The amendments made by this legislation improve clarity and consistency and address some gaps in the protections I've broadly outlined. The amendments operate to expand the scope of employment, partnership and education protections, apply to all defence service by Reserve members and introduce a new expanded definition of operational service. The amendments also expand the scope of the financial liability and bankruptcy protection to apply to all operational service by Reserve members. They also clarify the employment protections to give greater certainty about Reserve members' rights when they are absent from employment to render defence service. They also enhance the education protections to create an obligation on education providers to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate Reserve members' defence service. They introduce antivictimisation and antiharassment provisions to improve the experience of Reserve members in their civilian workplaces. Finally, they introduce a civil penalty regime as a complement to the criminal offences which already exist within the act.
The amendments are sensible and implement the recommendations of a review in 2008 made into this act, which was introduced first in 2001. Our Defence Reservists should be valued. It is regrettable that this portion of the legislation has not received greater priority.
The third schedule transfers the hydrographic, meteorological and oceanographic functions from the Royal Australian Navy to the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation in accordance with the recommendation from the first principles review of the ADF. The transfer is expected to realise synergies in the exploitation of imagery and other data to produce intelligence and non-intelligence geospatial-related information which will support Australia's defence interests and other national objectives.
Schedule 4 operates to align a small number of provisions in the Australian Defence Force Cover Act with other military superannuation schemes and to provide clarity on the definitions of an eligible child of a member or invalid. The amendments will also ensure that a member who has resigned from the ADF and later finds that they could have been medically discharged will be able to apply to the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation to have their mode of discharge circumstances reassessed. This is consistent with other military superannuation schemes and of course makes very good sense.
The schedule also creates a more contemporary definition to allow a child to become eligible at a later date when the child is found to be ineligible at the time of the member's death. This of course is beneficial in operation and is designed to address a number of shortfalls in the present legislation, which only assesses a person's eligibility at a particular point in time. The example given by the government is that a child over the age of 18 might cease full-time study to care for a veteran. As they are over 18 and not a student they would not otherwise be regarded as a dependant but would be a dependant if they were studying. This amendment would allow a child to become eligible for a benefit in additional circumstances.
Overall, these measures, whilst not groundbreaking, are sensible and continue bipartisan support for the ADF and former members. Labor supports this bill.
I appreciate the opportunity to make a small contribution on the Defence Legislation Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill 2017 and talk about Reservists and why these protections are very welcome. Reservists do an incredible job. Their life is already difficult enough, balancing the demands of their service to our country through their Reserve service with their everyday life and job. I've been proud to not only be a Reservist but also to work as a full-time member of the Army in a Reserve unit and to see the way those incredible people balance those competitions for their time. They're mums, they're dads, they're involved in local sporting teams, so they have this double life that they manage incredibly well. But it's not easy, and that's why I strongly support these increased protections, as I know both sides of politics do—because the reservists of our country make sure our full-time capability is always there for the challenges that we need to meet, and time after time we are drawing on reservists as a defence force to make sure that we can meet Australia's national interests and national security needs, whether it be in war, as we have seen, or humanitarian relief.
I just wanted to acknowledge the service of Greg Sher, who joined the Army as a reservist and was deployed to East Timor back in 2002, but then went on to do the commando selection course and served in Afghanistan. He was tragically killed in a rocket attack in 2009. He is an example of many reservists, commandos and special forces, infantry and other corps who have taken up the baton. They do the same training as our full-time members, so it is important that they have the same protections. Indeed, they have special protections that are specific to their type of service, where they often, as I say, need to have a balance in their lives, managing their time between their families and their workloads. I guess that's why I wanted to make a small contribution. I've seen the demands on them, and these protections are so important.
For humanitarian assistance, reservists are always there. When I was with NORFORCE, we had the 10-year anniversary of the intervention in the Northern Territory. Those magnificent people in NORFORCE and the other reservists from around the country who came to assist with that particular operation did such outstanding work, when, let's face it, it wasn't an enormously popular operation in some Aboriginal communities. In particular, the Indigenous reserve soldiers in NORFORCE, with their 'green skin' on, in a non-political way performed a marvellous job of brokering between the communities and the intervention people, who were obviously just trying to do the best that they could. But the marvellous way in which those reservists did that was because they could walk in those two worlds.
Someone mentioned the Olympics. The Sydney Olympics would not have happened if the reservists hadn't taken up the call and joined Operation Gold, because we simply needed their numbers and their expertise, and often reservists have skills that come together to make our ADF so much more capable. Thanks very much for the opportunity to say a couple of words, and well done to the reservists out there.
I thank the member for Solomon for his contribution. I thank all members who contributed to the debate on this bill and acknowledge the bipartisan support shown in the second reading debate.
The Defence Legislation Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill 2017 addresses four separate measures. The first measure amends the Defence Act 1903 to enable a policy framework to broaden and expand the conditions under which a positive test result for prohibited substances must be disregarded. The second measure amends the Defence Reserve Service (Protection) Act 2001 to ensure all reservists would be eligible for the full range of protections under the act in respect of their employment and education. The third measure amends the Intelligence Services Act 2001, the Navigation Act 2012 and the Telecommunications Act 1997 to include the transfer of hydrographic, meteorological and oceanographic functions from the Royal Australian Navy to the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation, in accordance with one of the recommendations from the first principles review. The fourth measure amends the Australian Defence Force Cover Act 2015 to align a small number of the provisions in the act with the other military superannuation schemes and to provide clarity on the definition of an eligible child of a member or invalid.
The bill moves to make small but significant changes to Defence and other legislation. This will be significant to the operations of Defence, providing streamlining to practices and common sense to policy. They will be significant to members of the Defence Reserves, who will receive greater protection. They will be significant to family members of the ADF, who will now benefit from the changes to superannuation. I want to reinforce what other speakers have said: when it comes to the commitment of our Defence Reserves they put their lives on the line, like members of the full-time ADF. They serve and sacrifice on behalf of our nation and deserve the recognition that comes along with that which we give to our full-time ADF.
I thank all members of the House who have made special mention of the Reservists and what they do for this nation and what they do for the capability of our ADF. I also want to recognise the contribution made by family members of those who serve: the spouses, the children and the extended family. When a member serves, their family serves with them. When I go around the country visiting the Defence bases, and meet with the spouses and children of those who are serving, it strikes me every single time that they are part and parcel of the member who is serving. I thank them for the contribution they make in allowing their loved ones to serve on behalf of our nation. I commend this bill to the House.
I thank the minister. The question is that this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Sitting suspended from 12:47 to 16:00
I rise to support the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill, which is one of Australia's largest public research organisations. It's primarily focused on nuclear research and technology, although, as this bill talks about, what it now requires and enables has grown beyond that, moving further into the research ecosystem and, hopefully, the commercialisation value chain.
ANSTO, as it's known, has a number of facilities—there's the head office in Lucas Heights, the OPAL research reactor in Sydney and the Australian Synchrotron in Notting Hill, which is actually in my electorate. I live in Notting Hill, a few hundred metres from the Synchrotron, which was a wonderful initiative of the then Brumby Labor government, who leapt out ahead of the pack and stole the march on Queensland where the Howard government was looking, for electoral reasons and against expert advice, to put the Synchrotron. ANSTO also, I discovered in my research for this bill this morning, has a number of other facilities that I haven't heard of or visited, so I'm putting them on my 'nerd out' list. They are the Centre for Accelerator Science, the cyclotron and so on.
I am a science nerd. I have a Bachelor of Science in chemistry from Monash University, although, given my final year, some of the other activities I was up to and the distractions, it's probably a good thing for Australian science that I stopped!
An honourable member: Did you say 'science nerd'?
I said 'science nerd', and I'm a proud science nerd. I've also got a view, from that training and discipline, that knowledge, evidence and reason should be the primary underpinnings of public policy. It's an old-fashioned view, I know, in this era where there's a war on evidence and a war on facts by those opposite—for example, in relation to climate change. But, in relation to science and nuclear research, globally it's fair to say—that dreadful, tired phrase—that we do punch above our weight. That's no accident. Unfortunately, though, we're not great at commercialisation. If you have a look at the rates of commercialisation, unfortunately we're still down towards the bottom of the OECD for a range of reasons—not only scale but also incentives. I do hope that initiatives like this will help move us along, but we can't take them for granted, and we need to innovate to create new knowledge and to create value from that knowledge.
I read a beautiful speech, actually, on Friday morning by Australia's Chief Scientist, Dr Alan Finkel. Those opposite would've heard of him—he gave them the report they asked for but now don't seem to want. They commissioned a report from the smartest scientist in Australia and seem to have sent it off to the dumbest side of their party room to try to resolve the issue. Nevertheless, in musing about science, this speech talked about the future and the role of science fiction. I won't go to the role of science fiction, but I do highly recommend that members read this speech. We were all emailed the speech. It really is a beautiful read. It's a fairly long speech.
There's some beautiful prose that I will draw on, because it gave voice to the optimism that I feel, which is that science, knowledge and research technology can continue to do amazing things for humanity. In his speech to the Cranlana Program last week, Dr Finkel said:
I start in the firm conviction that human beings can and do adjust to complicated and even dangerous technologies, given time.
Look at the motor car. Look at electricity. Look at aviation.
All of them were once seen as technologies far too dangerous to put in human hands, and yet we tamed them.
So we can and do harness our powers for good—like a child, learning to pick up the sweet guinea pig, and pat it nicely, without crushing it to death.
But soon we’re going to be a child with superpowers—a child who could crush civilisation in his fist before he ever gets the chance to grow wise.
But also, a child with superpowers who could do amazing things.
He then went on to paint three traps that we must avoid if we're to harness the incredible possibilities of modern, cutting-edge science—utopianism, dystopianism and atavism. I do recommend that part of the speech, particularly to those opposite—not the two members here, to be fair, but to some of your colleagues. Then, he concludes his speech by saying:
We are more capable and creative than we know.
We hold the pen and we write the future.
We can choose to be heroines and heroes.
Set out in that spirit, and I promise you, our greatest adventure has barely begun.
And our children will marvel, when they come to read our chapter … that we touched with our human minds, a distant tomorrow.
Certainly, out of all our research institutes, the work, the mission and the physical and human capital of ANSTO is central to this positive future. Nuclear science is, indeed, a superpower for humanity. It could crush civilisation, but it also does and can do more amazing things.
I have visited the Synchrotron a number of times. For any member who hasn't, I'd be happy to hook you up with ANSTO in my electorate. I try not to go too often lest I become a stalker! There are always new things being done there and new things to be seen. It's pretty much 24/7. I was delighted to see that the Commonwealth, in the last budget I think, finally came through, after a few years of negotiation, on a 10-year block of recurrent funding. ANSTO and the Synchrotron are now in this perverse reality, for most agencies, where they've got the recurrent funding locked in and now they're out scouting for capital. Usually, it's the other way around for new beamlines. Hopefully with the next budget industry, universities and the Victorian government will get the new beamlines.
I also visited Lucas Heights last year. I heard about their work and the value created there and their exciting plans. The new nuclear medicine manufacturing capabilities will meet Australia's growing needs and, economically, will be a boost in helping to meet the global hunger for nuclear medicine and isotopes and so on that are in short supply. I was briefed on the plans to develop this innovation precinct—centred there but it also has national benefits, for the Synchrotron and for universities nationally and in New Zealand. This bill provides for an innovation precinct at Lucas Heights but also, importantly, a potential for similar precincts at other sites around Australia that ANSTO controls, now and into the future. The precinct clusters together subject-matter experts, scientific partners, high-tech businesses and industry and graduates, and uses all of ANSTO's capabilities, those human capabilities and knowledge but also the research infrastructure, to create an innovation ecosystem. It's a really clever and well-thought-out proposal.
I commend ANSTO on the work they have done as an agency in building that case with evidence but also on building it within government. Very cleverly, they've had a number of events here at Parliament House and brought members along as well as the local community. Co-location in the precinct is intended to reduce and remove barriers to mobility for STEM professionals between sectors, agencies and universities. It's that kind of research ecosystem which the modern theory says is particularly critical for cross-pollination and collaboration across disciplines, and for that more fluid work and interrelationship between those who create knowledge and those who seek to commercialise it. Labor commends the government for backing this legislation and supports the precinct because, of course, it was first raised by Senator Kim Carr, the Labor shadow minister, when he was the minister in 2011. Labor expressed this in its Australian jobs plan list in December 2012, and it was commendably picked up in the current government's climate statement in, I think, 2015. So, that bipartisan support has certainly gestated along the way.
The Graduate Institute is an important and critical part of the precinct proposal. It is distinct although critically related. It's a formal training program for researchers, which will see 300 to 400 postgraduate and postdoctorate researchers as part of the institute. The research will be conducted in Sydney at Lucas Heights, at the Graduate Institute there, but also in Melbourne, at the campus in my electorate, at the Synchrotron. It is right next door and across the road from Monash University. They've done a lot of good research in looking at the best such precincts and institutes around the world. It's drawn, particularly, on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT, one of the world's leading universities on that model. Students will stay enrolled at their universities but the supervision and access to infrastructure can happen at ANSTO. You will get top research students and postdoctorates from universities all over Australia and New Zealand, working side by side but still supervised, I guess, and issued with degrees and qualifications by their universities.
ANSTO already works with 40 Australian and New Zealand universities, and several universities have expressed interest in being formally part of ANSTO's Graduate Institute. It's a very clever model. It won't confer the degrees, but the knowledge and education-intensive hub for STEM and nuclear medicine is important for research in its own sake, for development of skills and for help to commercialise in the precinct. Also, this research is global. It provides a hub for connections with others around the world working on similar problems and challenges.
With that as the context, the bill itself formally broadens ANSTO's mandate. There is a new definition of 'scientific research, innovation and training', which is broader than the current narrow restrictions in relation to nuclear science and technology—which, largely, ANSTO has outgrown. The world is not so linear and segmented now, so it needs a broader definition. The bill replaces the words 'on a commercial basis' with 'whether or not on a commercial basis', which gives ANSTO the necessary flexibility in its functionality without requiring that everything has to be on a purely commercial basis. This makes sense, and allows ANSTO explicitly, in a new subsection, to share its knowledge, expertise, equipment, facilities, research, property and so on to other entities, whether or not those entities have a direct connection or sit solely within the nuclear science and technology silo.
I think this bill clearly is of national importance. If you haven't been there, do make the time when you are in Sydney to visit ANSTO for a couple of hours. The government relations team are great and they're passionate about sharing their knowledge and showing you around. It is not just the nerdy science bit that is exciting; it's seeing their entrepreneurialism for spotting market opportunities to create economic value and revenue. It will make any little Treasury bureaucrat's eyes light up with joy, seeing them thinking about revenue streams and so on.
On a parochial note for my electorate, I point out that the proximity of the Australian Synchrotron to Monash University, my alma mater, is of enormous value not just to the City of Monash but to that whole south-east Melbourne precinct. In coming years we will be looking for other places—knowledge hubs and clusters—around the country, and I think that Monash precinct is fast emerging as one of the most exciting innovation precincts. We have the new heart hospital being co-located with the teaching and research hospital and we have the Australian Synchrotron, which does so much work around cancer treatment, protein structure types and creating world-first drugs. There is some fascinating stuff—which sounds a bit scary—about treating actual patients and experimenting with new treatments for people in incredible pain with bone cancer. There is also the physical side of things. They use neutrons from the OPAL to test the integrity of materials—turbines, bridges, pipes and aircraft engines. They test refurbished power station turbines and give a subatomic seal of approval, if you like, that they are fit for purpose. They are helping water resource management in the natural environment stream of their work, and so on.
So, in a national sense as well as a parochial sense, I think ANSTO's work is exciting. It is important and deserves airtime and a record of our commendation in the House of their new mission to create knowledge and wealth for the country.
I would like to thank the member for Bruce for making the most sensible speech I have heard him make in parliament. With the exception of the giggle-worthy comments at the beginning of his speech trying to critique the government, I thought it was otherwise quite a commonsense approach, and I would like to congratulate him on it.
At the end of the day, we are talking about a bill here relating to nuclear science. A lot of people in Australia would hear those words and think that the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill 2017 must be esoteric in some shape or form. Often, people think that nuclear science has very little to do with their daily lives or even their long-term interests. At one fundamental level, that's pretty understandable and perhaps inevitable. Nuclear science is the pursuit of a tiny minority of unbelievably intelligent people, dealing with matters—and with matter itself—that very few of us could even begin to comprehend. To the vast majority of us, nuclear science can seem incomprehensible. Say the word 'nuclear' in Australia and thoughts of nuclear weapons will be immediately invoked in many people's minds. It will immediately trigger debate and, for some, concern. But people rarely think of the more benign and beneficial aspects of nuclear research. However, this bill encourages us to do just that and provides greater flexibility to promote nuclear research and direct collaboration with universities via minor amendments to the legislation of 1987, which established, and continues to govern, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, ANSTO, as a corporate Commonwealth entity.
The amendments reflected in this bill are necessary not just because of the positive outcomes and direct impacts here in Australia but also in light of Australia's longstanding participation in this science. The obvious example to point to is health. A statistic I read today that I would like to repeat in this House because I found it amazing is that around one-third of all medical procedures now conducted in our hospitals have a nuclear science component. One-third involve radiation or radioactivity as a diagnostic or even therapeutic tool. On average, every one of us at some point in our lives will have a brush with radiopharmaceuticals and nuclear medicine. Applications are extremely broad. Nuclear medicine is relevant in sectors from cardiology to paediatrics to psychiatry. Some cancers are now being detected two years earlier than they otherwise would have been thanks to nuclear medicine. And such early diagnosis obviously saves lives. There are a vast range of procedures, including irradiation of bones and tendons that are intended for transplants or grafting. Irradiation is also used for sterilisation of bandages, cotton tips and other materials used for implants. Bone imaging can be used to diagnose stress fractures and is widely used not only in our hospitals but by vets, especially in the horseracing industry. The list of medical benefits which have real application to our lives is all but endless.
Another area that benefits from nuclear science is in fact food safety. The radiation of foodstuff at safe levels, far too low to induce radioactivity, can and does make both domestically produced and imported foods safer to eat and for longer. An extension in agriculture involves balancing the use of our precious water resources with maximum productivity. Grape growers, for example, optimise their crops when water is delivered to their vines at precisely the right time and in the right quantities. Nuclear moisture probes pushed into the soil provide extremely accurate data to enable irrigation that is just right, generating big boosts in overall productivity, profit and sustainability. Similar technology is being applied to many other irrigated crops, with equally significant environmental and productivity benefits, which is a very significant thing in a country like Australia which is just so dry.
Other agricultural applications of nuclear technology include sterilised male fruit flies released into the wild that do not breed. This technology, helping to control pests by sterilisation, has enormous extended benefits by helping to reduce insecticides in the environment and is now a very common means of controlling insects and pests worldwide, including right now in controlling fruit flies in south-east Australia.
Many other industries and procedures benefit remarkably from nuclear science. Steel rolling mills use superaccurate nuclear science enhanced gauges to get precisely the right dimensions in their products. The same applies in the accurate measurement of everything from the amount of product in soft drink bottles to the precise composition of detergent ingredients and even jet engine fuel.
Closer to home, smoke detectors rely on nuclear science, with tiny amounts of radioactive materials measuring the quality of the air, triggering that lifesaving beep exactly when it's needed. Even watch faces that glow in the dark owe that glow to very, very small amounts of radioactive material. And the now ubiquitous personal computer and many other electronic devices rely on silicon chips that have been irradiated in a way that turns atoms into phosphorus, enhancing the semiconducting capability of the chips. The mantles used in gas lanterns that have lit many a camping trip, microwave ovens, electric lights and car windshields all owe something to nuclear science.
I could go on and on, providing a long list of examples demonstrating how peaceful nuclear science and research is contributing to our daily lives and to our industries in positive ways and is very often unrecognised outside the immediate environment in which they have their impact. It should be a source of pride to Australians that our nuclear scientists and our nuclear facilities, restricted as they are, have been significant players in the field at a global level for so many decades.
The principal use of our first reactor at Lucas Heights from the late 1950s when it was commissioned was for medical purposes. Its purpose was to produce neutrons for the production of nuclear medicines and for other civil scientific uses, which has led to countless lives saved and massive contributions to industry. We produce our own nuclear medicines and have done so for a very long time. The successor to Lucas Heights, the OPAL reactor, opened at the same site in 2007 and for the same purpose. It's a state-of-the-art facility, one of the best and most important of its type in the world. And the science that's being applied there today accounts for 60 years of Australian expertise in the production of nuclear medicines, industry technologies and academic research. OPAL will, it's expected, become a major source of supply of nuclear medicines globally. A former major supplier, a reactor in Canada, closed last year, and a number of others worldwide are ageing, so we have increased our capacity and our output to mitigate a potentially serious global shortfall. This is also, as a residual benefit, good for the Australian economy.
This bill seeks to further leverage our experience and the quality of our contribution in nuclear science. We are globally recognised as a significant player in this space, albeit from the exceedingly narrow base of a single nuclear reactor. The government wants to enhance our contribution because we have, in our science community, in our population, the innovative capacity to do so at a level that can lift our already significant reputation, based on real achievements, up to even higher levels and continue to deliver tangible benefits. We want more to flow from that expertise—more life-saving breakthroughs in medicine and more benefits for agriculture, the environment and industry. This bill gives ANSTO, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, the legislative flexibility it needs to develop that opportunity by establishing an innovation precinct comprised of three elements—a graduate institute, an innovation incubator and a technology park—to better enable ANSTO to boost outcomes by sharing the knowledge, facilities and properties it has with other entities and individuals, and to become an even more effective conduit between research, industry and universities.
The specific proposal facilitated by this bill—to establish an innovation precinct at ANSTO's Lucas Heights campus—aims to crowd in scientific partners, knowledge-intensive businesses, high-tech industry and STEM graduates from around Australia's regions into a premium nuclear facility and also a hub of knowledge. This is by no means an insignificant aim. Once established, the ANSTO innovation precinct will become the world's first nuclear science and technology incubator—innovation that is in lockstep with the government's National Science Statement and the objectives of our National Innovation and Science Agenda. These reforms are key to the coalition's policy and vision. Whether it be for the defence industry or nuclear science, our aims are the same, and they are to drive growth in our capability and our economy, and to create jobs through investment and ongoing innovation. It's no wonder, therefore, that members opposite do support this bill; it's no wonder that, in consultation with industry groups, universities and local governments, they were all excited about this new vision for ANSTO. It's hard not to be. The potential here is unmissable. The only exception to this, of course, are the barking-mad Greens, but that should go without saying.
This is all good news, but there is a further imperative, and that is the need to capture and hold new technology and skills in Australia. As Australia has, to date, sought to deny itself a nuclear energy sector at even a minimum level, we lag behind our peers in the application of the technology in that regard. If we are, however, to continue down this path or, if, indeed, we decide to seriously explore the nuclear option for energy purposes, then a small but highly capable and well-resourced nuclear science based expert group will keep open a better range of options for our country. In this 21st century, the pace of knowledge generation and the application of that knowledge is 'blurringly' fast. If we want to stay in the main game, we have to accelerate, because standing still is never, never an option. It is for that reason that I commend the bill to the House.
I thank the member for Fairfax for his comments. I unequivocally support the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill 2017 and recommend it to the House. This bill will enable ANSTO to expand its operations, improve its research, increase both its pre- and post-graduate training opportunities in nuclear physics and nuclear medicine, provide high-technology jobs and increase flexibility to adapt to changes and opportunities which are occurring on an almost daily basis in this high-technology field. It will help to promote the innovation precinct in southern Sydney—a concept first conceived and introduced by the Labor Party, under Senator Carr, as the then minister for industry, in 2011—and provide export earnings and high-value jobs in the technology of the present and the future. It will also help, very much, to promote post-graduate education in nuclear science and nuclear medicine in a sustainable and innovative manner to which a larger student group will become available and provide outstanding, I'm sure, research in the future.
A little bit of history is important. Australia has led the world in many ways in nuclear physics and in nuclear medicine. ANSTO began in 1949 as an industrial committee, which evolved into the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. It has had many outstanding scientists since. The AEC started in 1953 and it was replaced by ANSTO in 1987. The first nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights, the HIFAR reactor, was switched on by the then Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, on Australia Day 1958. The present OPAL reactor, the Open Pool Australian Lightwater reactor, was opened in 2007. As well as providing radioisotopes for medical use, OPAL is invaluable in research, industrial applications, material analysis, industry, agriculture and many other situations. It is state-of-the-art technology and is staffed by incredibly talented scientists.
As well as the facilities at Lucas Heights, ANSTO operates the Australian Synchrotron in Melbourne, which uses particle accelerators to produce a beam of high-energy electrons that travel at almost the speed of light, which is invaluable in material analysis, molecular biology and physics. Interparticle or molecular physics is used for highly technical research and has applications across a broad range of industries—agriculture, mining and medicine. It is another world-class high-technology facility.
ANSTO's OPAL reactor at Lucas Heights produces over two million doses of medical isotopes every year. About 80 per cent of nuclear medicine procedures use one particular isotope, molybdenum-99, which degrades to the medical isotope technetium-99. ANSTO produces molybdenum-99 from low-enriched uranium targets in its reactor. Most of the isotopes are used in Australian hospitals and nuclear medicine facilities, but ANSTO also exports to the USA, China, Japan and South Korea, with increasing interest in many other countries. There previously has been a shortage of supply of molybdenum-99. When I was working at the children's hospital and at Campbelltown Hospital at that time—2009 to 2011—we had a shortage of isotopes available for medical use and it was quite a problem. This was thought at that time to be due to older nuclear medicine plants closing down. But there are now looming shortages, because most of the plants that produce these medical isotopes are reaching the end of their productive lives. ANSTO's new facility will help fill some of that gap.
The new facility, including with its nuclear waste plant to capitalise on processing of nuclear waste, will produce almost 30 per cent of the world's requirements for molybdenum-99. We rely on our nuclear medicine physicians to give us much-needed information about an increasing spectrum of illnesses, so the use of nuclear medicine will increase around the world, particularly for our northern neighbours. They will require increasing sophistication of their medical facilities and the requirement for medical isotopes is going to increase. In paediatrics in particular we use nuclear medicine quite a lot, because we find it much better in terms of requirements for invasive procedures. Nuclear medicine can often avoid some of these. An example is investigating a child for a possible bone or joint infection. We use nuclear medicine scans to try to see if the infection is in the bone, where surgery is not recommended, whereas infection in the joint requires immediate surgery and drainage. Nuclear medicine can be very important in discerning the differences. It can also help tell us whether the child has an infection or an inflammation, such as caused by juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. We use nuclear medicine techniques to look for collections of purulent material, collections of pus, to drain that aren't immediately obvious. So it is a very important non-invasive investigation.
We use nuclear medicine in medical oncology in children, particularly for some of the rarer childhood cancers, such as neuroblastoma or Wilms tumour, a kidney tumour. We also investigate for subtle changes in kidney function, particularly kidney scarring, which can follow urinary tract infection, and can dictate best methods of treatment for these conditions. So, in paediatrics we use nuclear medicine a lot. Throughout Australia, the isotopes we use come from the Lucas Heights reactor.
In adult medicine, we also use nuclear medicine isotopes increasingly in things like cardiovascular disease. Cardiac scans can give us a lot of information in a non-invasive way about coronary artery function and myocardial heart muscle function. It can tell us whether we need to consider things like coronary artery bypass surgery or valve surgery or whether even more-invasive procedures are required. Nuclear isotopes are also used in the investigation of thyroid disease. Indeed, iodine-131 is sometimes used in treatment of hyperthyroidism and thyroid cancers. This is another isotope obtained from the nuclear facilities at Lucas Heights. It is also very useful in investigating people for metastatic malignancy. This is very important in determining staging of different cancers and in treatment options. So, increasingly, we are using nuclear medicine investigations.
There is a burgeoning field now of using targeted radio isotopes attached to molecules that can be injected and targeted in a more localised way of providing radiotherapy in some forms of cancer. A classical one now is in the treatment of prostate cancer, where a molecule can have a radioactive isotope attached to it that is concentrated in bone and the isotope then attacks the prostate cancer in the bone, which can be very important in particular for relieving the bone pain that occurs in metastatic prostate cancer. Most of us, unfortunately—or fortunately, in many ways—will require nuclear medicine investigations at some stage in our lives. The technology and the types of investigations are rapidly developing almost every day.
According to the OECD, their nuclear energy agency feels that almost all the current major radioisotope-producing nuclear reactors in the world will cease production over the next 10 years. We've spoken about the 2009-11 crisis in availability of nuclear medicine isotopes, and ANSTO's new production will enable us to provide a significant proportion of the world's global demand in the next few years, increasing the availability of high-technology jobs and increasing export earnings for the country. The Labor Party thoroughly recommends that this bill be passed to enable ANSTO to compete on a global basis for these sorts of technologies.
In industry, the need for radioisotopes is also growing. The development of the ANSTO facility as well as its postgraduate and graduate teaching facilities will further help us meet demand in this burgeoning technology, as will the development of the Synroc waste processing plant, which is part of the redevelopment of the nuclear hub and will be completed in 2019. That will provide us with even more jobs. Labor has for some years promoted the concept of higher-technology, value-added jobs in technology hubs, and this is a really great example of that. The government is to be commended for doing what it can to try to help this get developed. We feel that this current bill will help drive improvements to ANSTO's ability in research and the development of high-technology jobs and export earnings, and also with its collaboration with private industry.
We must continue, of course, to provide supports to ANSTO to continue to upgrade its facilities, also including the Synchrotron, in Melbourne, for which the government has just provided some extra funding. But every year we need to continue to update our progress in these areas. I thoroughly commend this bill to the House.
I'd like to commend the member for Macarthur for his speech on the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill 2017. To have such an educated medical man give such convincing, thorough and detailed approval of the work ANSTO does is truly refreshing, especially when we hear in parliament some of the nonsense that is peddled by Greens members. I say that as the only member in this parliament who actually has a nuclear reactor in his electorate, and I say that with great pride, because ANSTO truly does world-leading research that plays a valuable, important role in the health of all Australians.
As my good friend the member for Macarthur noted, on average every single Australian can expect to have a nuclear medicine procedure that uses radioisotopes for diagnostic or therapeutic purposes at some stage in their life. On average, we'll all need those vital, lifesaving nuclear medicines that Lucas Heights provides. Yet we have some misguided Greens who sit in this parliament and want to close it down. What a tragedy that we see such misguided people who fail to look at the evidence and fail to look at the science.
But getting back to the specifics of the bill, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill 2017 will provide Australia's nuclear science and research agency, known as ANSTO, with the flexibility required to successfully establish an innovation precinct adjacent to Lucas Heights campus in southern Sydney, in my electorate of Hughes, and will potentially establish additional precincts in association with other campuses. This is fantastic news for my electorate. Having that innovation hub, that innovation precinct, next to ANSTO will enable hundreds if not thousands of high-paying research jobs in the southern part of Sydney, in the electorate of Hughes. I am very, very excited about the future for nuclear medicine and the work ANSTO will do in the future.
We know that one-third of all procedures in modern hospitals involve radiation or radioactivity. The science tells us that these procedures are safe, effective and don't require anaesthetic, and they are useful for a broad spectrum of medical specialities—from paediatrics, which I note the member for Macarthur was very much involved and has great expertise in—to cardiology and psychiatry. This is something that we as a nation should be proud of. In fact, I note that one of Canada's large nuclear facilities is closing down. This will enable Lucas Heights to increase its isotope production from about 550,000 a year to around 10 million. A quarter of the world's demand will come out of the ANSTO reactor at Lucas Heights in my electorate, something that I am immensely proud of. Everyone who is involved in ANSTO should also be immensely proud.
The issue we have had over the years is that we simply haven't had the nuclear research technology that we should have, despite the great work that ANSTO has done. Australia, with our deposits of uranium, should have been one of the global leaders in nuclear technology across the board. But the sad thing was that, when we constructed the new OPAL reactor at Lucas Heights, the country that had the technology to build it for us was Argentina. In fact, we didn't have the technology or the scientists here in Australia. We had to go to Argentina in South America to get the technology that we needed. That was because of the misguided scare campaigns we had against the nuclear industry in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s that prevented the development of a nuclear industry in Australia.
A very interesting article in today's Australiantalked about the future for nuclear power. This was written by a gentleman called Michael Shellenberger. He is a former renewables advocate and adviser to Barack Obama and was awarded TIME magazine's Hero of the Environment in 2008. He said:
Like most people, I started out pretty anti-nuclear … I changed my mind as I realised you can't power a modern economy on solar and wind.
He said:
Wind and solar are only useful for leveraging the fossil fuel mix … They have to have back-up, they are doubling the cost of electricity and they have big environmental impacts …
He said:
All existing renewable technologies do is make the electricity system chaotic and provide greenwash for fossil fuels.
He went on and said that opposition to nuclear was 'like a superstitious religious belief'. He said:
In what other issue does the science say one thing so clearly but such a vocal group—
referring to the Greens—
refuses to accept the evidence …
That is where we are. He concluded:
Nuclear is the only technology that can lift everyone out of poverty and reverse human impact.
Yet we, for some unknown or illogical reasons, have simply banned the development of nuclear power in this country.
If we are going to be serious about reducing carbon dioxide emissions, we simply cannot, as Mr Shellenberger notes, run a modern economy on solar and wind. This is the mistaken ideology that we have had behind the renewable energy target. I think we are now starting to see the results of that policy. I think by the time the history of this century is written, and someone sits down to look at all the policy decisions that have been made throughout this entire century, they will say one of the greatest policy mistakes this nation ever made was Kevin Rudd's Renewable Energy Target. It has caused absolute chaos in our electricity market. It has been the main thing responsible for lifting the price of electricity in this nation, taking what was once our nation's greatest competitive advantage—that of low-cost energy—and turning it into a competitive disadvantage. That is what it has done.
Get back to the point. Get back to the bill.
I am getting back to the bill. This bill talks about Lucas Heights and the work they are doing in nuclear science. In the future this innovation hub will lead us to a greater understanding of nuclear technology. But the reason that we are actually behind in many aspects at the moment, and why we had to go to Argentina to get the OPAL reactor built at Lucas Heights, is our misunderstanding of nuclear power.
We have seen, as I said, the mess that the Renewable Energy Target has caused. If you want a practical example of the failure, just go and look at what has happened in South Australia. Here is a place that now has the proud title of having the highest electricity prices anywhere in the world. It takes a special level of incompetence to go down the track of imposing policies upon your state that give them the highest electricity prices in the world, yet that is what the Labor government has done in South Australia. You would think that, if you had the highest electricity prices in the world, the electricity would at least be reliable, but they've managed to give themselves not only the highest electricity prices in the world but the most unreliable electricity in this nation. We saw blackouts last Christmas. The Australian Energy Market Operator estimates that there is a 30 per cent chance that there will be further blackouts this summer in South Australia.
We've seen the publicity stunt they pulled, the idea that the world's biggest battery can somehow solve it. Look at the numbers for that completely and utterly farcical publicity stunt. It will produce 129 megawatt hours of electricity—129! How much electricity, in megawatt hours, does South Australia need on a hot day? They need close to 50,000. This idea that you can somehow have batteries to back things up is an absolute farce. Just look at the numbers: it will produce 129 megawatt hours out of a daily need of 50,000. For that, it's north of $100 million, and we don't even know what the cost is. Then they have to back that up with 200 megawatts of diesel generators, again at a cost to the taxpayer of over $100 million, that will burn through 80,000 litres of diesel fuel in an hour. If you want to generate electricity in the dirtiest way possible, you probably can't do worse than diesel generators that rip through 80,000 litres per hour, but that is what South Australia are doing.
You would think, holding that up, that everyone would see what an absolute debacle that is, that no-one in their right mind would copy South Australia and that we would thank them for the grand experiment they inflicted upon their people, because we have learnt what not to do. That is what common sense and logic say should happen, but instead we see Labor in Victoria saying: 'We want to copy South Australia. We'll go down the South Australian track, like lemmings off a cliff, and we'll copy South Australia's policies.' When Labor came to power in Victoria, they said it was their policy to get Hazelwood to close down, tripled the coal royalties and chased them out as quickly as they could. What has the Australian Energy Market Operator said of that mess, now they've chased Hazelwood out of town? What's going to be the result? The Australian Energy Market Operator has estimated that, this summer, the state of Victoria faces a 40 per cent chance of blackouts. Not only have they accelerated electricity prices and made them unaffordable to many but they've also given the state a 40 per cent chance of blackouts. You would think common sense, logic, everything that we've been taught, is to look at the examples. We look at the example of South Australia and we say, 'What an economic disaster; that's not what you do.' We look at Victoria—another lemming over the cliff. You see that you cannot go down the path of a 50 per cent renewable energy target. But in this federal parliament the alternative government, the opposition, want to do exactly that. They want to copy Victoria. They want to copy South Australia. They want to bring in a 50 per cent renewable energy target for this nation.
That is a recipe for the complete economic destruction and de-industrialisation of our society. But the Labor Party stand up in parliament and complain—we hear them complain—about how sad they are about the cost of electricity. Yet they have a completely illogical and incoherent policy that they're copying because they want to appeal to those Green, inner-city basketweavers for votes. They are selling out regional areas, selling out the working people of Australia, selling out the mums and dads and the pensioners in their pursuit of Green votes. That's what this parliament has descended into, where we see that policy from the Labor Party.
If we are going forward, we should have a look at what the options are. What is the nuclear option for our electricity generation fleet? Great research in this area is currently being undertaken. Small nuclear modular reactors of 20 and 50 megawatts are being developed. They're still several years down the track, but we should have that option in this country. We should keep all options on the table. We should take advantage of new technology as it comes along, not artificially force-feed higher-cost electricity options to the market because it will win Green votes in the inner city.
I am very proud of the work that ANSTO does. This bill will enable them to continue with their great work. It will bring many more jobs, highly paid jobs, to my electorate, and I commend this bill to the House.
This is a very important debate because the facilities that are managed by ANSTO are massively important research assets for our nation. It is hard to overstate the significance of these particular facilities. At the Sydney campus, there's the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor, and, at the Melbourne campus in Clayton, the Australian Synchrotron, which are, as I said, vitally important research facilities.
I'm very pleased that I was able to visit the Synchrotron, at Clayton, in recent months to see some of the work that is being done there. Not everyone knows what a synchrotron is, of course. It's a massive facility, about the size of a football field—a great, big, round facility. What it does is speed up electrons so they're going almost at the speed of light and then it deflects them through magnetic fields, creating superbright light. Shooting off from the big, round Synchrotron are things called beamlines, which are big pipes, and that light travels down these big pipes.
'What on earth could that be useful for?' you might ask yourself if you're not a nuclear technology and nuclear science buff. Happily, for all of us, including me, the ANSTO website has a bit of information about the applications of the Synchrotron, and I was able to see some of them in person when I visited. Some of those applications are to biosciences, including macromolecular/protein crystallography and cell biology. When you can see through incredibly strong microscopes the work that's being done, the science that's being done, at this facility, it's quite incredible. Of course, medical research is a major use of the Synchrotron, in microbiology, disease mechanisms, high-resolution imaging and cancer radiation therapy. It has applications to the environmental sciences; agriculture; minerals exploration; advanced materials, like nanostructured materials; engineering, such as imaging of industrial processes in real time; and forensics, such as the identification of suspects from extremely small and dilute samples.
You can tell from what I've said that there's an incredibly diverse and varied group of applications for the Australian Synchrotron, so it was particularly delightful to be able to get the opportunity to meet with ANSTO and have a look at the facilities. These are facilities that a range of Australian universities seek to use for their own research work. I think ANSTO is a national treasure, and that is why I was so keen to speak in relation to this motion today. On the other campus, the Sydney campus, ANSTO has been expanding its activities, including a nuclear medicine plant, and this has tripled the production of molybdenum-99, of which there is a worldwide shortage. It is wonderful to see the nuclear medicine work that ANSTO is doing.
The aim of this bill is really to develop the Sydney campus into a major national innovation precinct. I was pleased to be able to attend an event here at the parliament that ANSTO conducted a little while ago to talk about their vision for this becoming a major national innovation precinct. It's important not just to think about the benefits that we get from the research that would be done by ANSTO but also to think about the benefits that would be obtained through collaboration at an innovation precinct. If you've been to Silicon Valley, for example, you would have seen that a lot of the work that gets done and the achievements that are made are because people who have the creativity and the right skills are in the same place at the same time. Collaboration does matter, and it's more likely to occur when you bring people together in a precinct. It is also important to remember the broader economic benefits of having good, world-class research facilities, not just because of the ability to commercialise the research that gets done in relation to these facilities but also because it provides opportunities for the local community to have flow-on or second-order benefits from the existence of a research facility or in this case an innovation precinct. It's part of the economic revitalisation of the area in which this innovation precinct is being proposed. When you look at experience in cities around the world, you see that where there's a university, a big research facility or an innovation precinct they stimulate other activities as well. People get excited and it really helps to bring the area to life. So it's a very exciting proposal for ANSTO but, more importantly, it's a very exciting proposal for the part of Australia in which the innovation precinct is intended to be built, down in Sydney.
So I support the proposal to develop the campus into a major national innovation precinct. Unfortunately, at the moment, as it stands the legislation governing ANSTO unduly restricts the scope and potential of that precinct. This bill would overcome this by allowing ANSTO to share its knowledge, expertise, facilities and property with other entities. These entities would not need to have a direct involvement in nuclear science or technology. That's an important point, because one of the benefits of innovation precincts is that they bring together so many different disciplines, skills and businesses that might not have anything to do with each other, but the communication and camaraderie that develops provides a spark of innovation. Who knows which ideas might come? Who knows which ideas might be developed? You could have an anthropologist working with a nuclear scientist, and the different perspectives they bring to each other can spark new and creative ideas. That's a very important thing.
This bill broadens the definitions of scientific research, innovation and training in the ANSTO Act so they are not restricted in that way to nuclear science and technology. The precinct will include a graduate institute providing research training for up to 400 postgraduate students and postdoctoral fellows at the Sydney and Melbourne campuses. Again, very importantly, there are direct opportunities for research for postgraduate studies and postdoctoral research. It's very important that we broaden the opportunities that people can have from using ANSTO's facilities and assets. These facilities can make such a massive contribution to research in Australia.
Together, all of these changes in this bill will make it easier for ANSTO to cooperate with industry, as well as universities and other publicly funded agencies. That collaboration with industry is very important. We do need closer connections between industry and research in Australia. It's something that a lot of universities and other institutions have a strong history of doing. This isn't a comment intended to suggest in any way that only commercialised research or industry-connected research is valuable—I certainly don't suggest that for one minute. Most people in this place would have the view that blue-sky research—research that may not have any immediate foreseeable commercial application or industrial application—is still very important, because blue-sky research can lead to all sorts of world-changing ideas and studies. The recognition of the importance of blue-sky research does not, in my view, undermine the practical work that needs to be done in relation to building connections with industry. From my experience of talking to people working in science and in research, I think it is also quite satisfying to have connections with industry. One of the frustrations that can arise in purely academic work is that you see what needs to be done, but you're not necessarily translating it into getting it done; whereas when you do have industry connections there is a strong imperative for translational work to be done. That, I suspect, is quite satisfying for people—to see ideas and research in real-life application and making a difference to people's lives.
I'm quite excited about this bill. It's great to see the work that's being done to promote the links with industry and to promote the collaboration between research institutions and between Australian universities. As I said, visiting the Synchrotron was really an opportunity to see how different universities were using a piece of plant, or a facility—a very big and technologically advanced facility, but a piece of plant nonetheless—to come up with new applications to solve old problems and to look at things in different ways using incredibly bright light. I think this idea of inviting even more people in to collaborate more, to get more engaged and to work together is a very solid and sound one, and one that deserves support from across this parliament. I should say that this is the kind of exchange between sectors that Labor promoted in government, and we support this bill for those reasons. In fact, we also took to the last federal election a range of innovation policies in which we acknowledged and recognised the importance of bringing people together. I think that that remains such an important focus for innovation and research policy in this nation.
I am pleased to be able to support the bill and am very grateful for the opportunity to have spoken in support of it. I do wish the people at ANSTO well in actually executing the work to be done under this bill in creating an innovation precinct. They can rest assured they've got a good supporter in me—I've got my little ANSTO badge on for them! I do think it is important to promote the work that is done in the nuclear sciences, including nuclear medicine but not limited to nuclear medicine, here in Australia. We do have a lot to be proud of. We're a smart nation. We're a nation that can look forward to good, strong, quality research.
This has been a week of argument about our university system, and I don't necessarily want to repeat some of the concerns that I have about the impact of public funding cuts to universities and what that might do to overall university quality. You will have read the matters in the paper recently about possibilities for other cuts in the event the government's preferred package doesn't go ahead and some of the suggestions that were made there. I hope this is an opportunity for us to say, 'Actually, what we want to see is world-class research in Australia,' because we do have an advantage in it. We do have high quality, we do have the smarts, we do have great facilities, and we do have a tradition of supporting research and innovation here in this country. If we work together, we can see facilities like the wonderful ones that ANSTO has continue to become even greater assets to the Australian community.
I thank all members who have contributed to this debate, including the member for Griffith who's just spoken and the member for Hughes who spoke so passionately just before her. We've heard a lot about research and innovation in this debate and, to that end, I want to compliment most earnestly the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Senator Arthur Sinodinos, and his assistant minister, the member for Reid, for what they're doing in this space.
The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill 2017 makes minor but important amendments to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation's governing legislation, the ANSTO Act. The amendments will allow our national nuclear science agency the flexibility to successfully establish an innovation precinct adjacent to its Lucas Heights campus in southern Sydney. They will also allow ANSTO to, potentially, establish additional precincts in association with other campuses. More broadly, the bill will facilitate enhanced collaboration between industry, universities, researchers and ANSTO across all its sites. Importantly, the amendments will only empower ANSTO to make available its expertise and equipment or lease its land and facilities to parties that have a science, innovation, high-tech manufacturing or technology development focus and related amenities, and not for unrelated general retail, office or residential purposes. The proposed ANSTO innovation precinct will co-locate and crowd in scientific partners, knowledge-intensive businesses, high-tech industry, science, technology, engineering and mathematics, or STEM, and medicine graduates around Australia's centre of nuclear capability and expertise.
Close synergies and collaborations between our publicly funded research agencies, such as ANSTO, Australian universities and Australian business and industry are a national priority, and the minister and his assistant minister have certainly made that key to everything they talk about and everything they bring to the parliament. These are key to driving Australian innovation, and geography does matter for some innovation. Precincts can facilitate the sorts of collaborative relationships Australia needs if it is to innovate and grow. We all know that. As a parliament we want to remove any impediment that may restrict or discourage these relationships. This bill does just that.
ANSTO already contributes so much to the Australian community. On average, one in two Australians will benefit from the life-saving nuclear medicine produced by ANSTO. ANSTO's landmark and national research infrastructure, including the OPAL research reactor, the Australian Synchrotron and the Australian centre for accelerated science, are a crucial part of Australia's scientific, social and economic base. They enable scientists to tackle some of Australia's most pressing challenges, in areas as diverse as human health, the environment and solving complex problems for industry. Critically, they maintain a home-grown highly skilled workforce and help sustain Australia's competitiveness and global relevance. The adoption of this bill will allow ANSTO to deepen its impact and reach for the benefit of Australian innovation, education, business and industry. I commend this bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
It is my very great pleasure to talk on the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment Bill today because I've had a longstanding interest, notwithstanding my legal practice, in technology and telecommunications. In preparing for this, I had cause to reflect on some of the history of security surrounding telecommunications—indeed, dating back to the 1960s and early 1970s.
If you know your technological history, the history of telecommunications security extends to those wonderful people called 'phone phreakers' who used whistles and the like in order to make long distance telephone calls on the telecommunications network in the United States by using manipulation of the call tones. The development of technology since that day underscores why it's necessary to have a flexible system of security that addresses the massively significant amount of change that occurs in this industry and, indeed, in all sorts of technology that we use on a day-to-day basis. That's why it's vitally important that we have this legislation which amends the Telecommunications Act 1997 and related legislation to introduce a regulatory framework to better manage national security risks of unauthorised access to and interference with telecommunications networks and facilities.
As I indicated in my opening, this is not something that can be dealt with in the abstract. It's something that is vitally important for all of us to give consideration to. We know the maxim, 'A chain is as strong as the weakest link,' and that applies in respect of security vulnerabilities. I'll address that analogy later in this speech. This particular framework within the legislation will ensure that Australia's telecommunications networks and facilities are safe from national security risks of espionage, sabotage and foreign interference. We must acknowledge that because of the sensitive information and data that these networks and facilities are working with they could potentially become an attractive target for interference by state or non-state actors. There are significant risks that arise as a result of this, such as the compromise of defence or military networks, the loss of valuable or sensitive data, the impairment of the availability or integrity of telecommunications networks and the potential impact on other critical infrastructure or services, like banking, health and transport.
When I was practising as a legal practitioner around the year 2000, there was a lot of attention given by large corporates towards their 'year 2000 compliance'. There was a real fear that failures of networks at that time would cause significant problems for not only individual corporations but also businesses across the economy. Such was the risk that the Australian government determined that it was necessary to ensure that all businesses, large or small, took appropriate steps to ensure that they were Y2K compliant. That's an example of what occurred in the past. Now that we are up to date, we need to be absolutely certain, and it is absolutely vital, that the integrity and security of our telecommunications networks and infrastructure is maintained in the face of potential threats to national security and an increasingly uncertain international environment.
We in Labor have consistently worked with the government to ensure that our security agencies have the powers that they need to keep Australians safe. As such, we are supporting this bill subject to amendments that implement the recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, the PJCIS. Indeed, it was a Labor government in 2012 that initially proposed telecommunications sector security reforms. There has been ongoing bipartisan support for the development of such measures and the features of the regulatory model since. A 2013 report from the PJCIS unanimously recommended that security reforms in this space be implemented, noting that 'there cannot be an effective and equitable security regime without enforcement mechanisms'. As part of its 2015 inquiry into the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Bill 2014, the same committee again indicated support for telecommunications sector security reforms.
This particular piece of legislation that we are considering today implements the recommendations from both of these inquiries, as well as public consultation, to ensure that the telecommunications industry engages with security agencies to enable early identification and collaborative management of security risks in their infrastructure and information held or carried on it. This is achieved by the establishment of a security obligation applicable to all carriers and carriage service providers that requires them to 'do their best' to protect their networks and facilities from unauthorised access and interference. I note here that the requirement for carriers to do their best imposes a subjective element which means that what is required to comply with the obligation will differ for each carrier and service provider, depending upon their risk profile. As vulnerabilities change over time, the administrative guidelines will outline what is expected of carriers to comply with their security obligation. The obligation is discharged by the carrier when they can demonstrate that they've implemented effective measures to manage the relevant risks.
It's important that I note at this stage, again, that anything to do with IT and telecommunication is notoriously quick and fast paced. What could have been standard operating procedure last year will be completely outdated upon the identification of a particular security vulnerability or the identification of a particular gap in the market. Therefore, any legislation needs to be sufficiently broad and the obligations imposed need to be sufficient to cast the obligation upon the telecommunications operator. Notwithstanding that, special power is provided to the Attorney-General to issue to a telecommunications carrier a direction requiring them to act or refrain from acting in order to manage security risks. The secretary of the Attorney-General's Department is similarly empowered to request information from carriers and service providers to monitor their compliance with security obligations. The bill also expands the operation of existing civil enforcement mechanisms in the Telecommunications Act 1997 to address noncompliance.
Upon introduction of this bill to the Senate in November last year it was referred to the PJCIS as a matter of course for further review. The committee held two public hearings and received several submissions from stakeholders as well as having a private briefing from relevant agencies and visiting Telstra's global operations centre in Melbourne. One key concern raised through the committee process was the security of telecommunications data that is stored offshore. Currently, telecommunications providers are not compelled to advise the government where retained data is stored. As is noted in the draft administrative guidelines:
Off-shoring raises security concerns because it enables access and control to critical parts of major Australian telecommunications networks outside of Australia, this can facilitate foreign intelligence collection (espionage) and disrupt the network itself (sabotage). Risks arise where control and supervision arrangements have the potential to allow unauthorised access by third parties, such as theft of customer data or sabotage of the network.
Indeed, in the United States, we've seen the recent exposure of significant amounts of consumer data through the loss of credit data in a major security breach. In its report, the committee emphasised that visibility about how and where data is being stored is absolutely critical in giving the community confidence in the security of their data and the telecommunications industry generally. The PJCIS recommended that the review of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act be expanded to include consideration of the security of offshore telecommunications data that is retained by a service provider for the purpose of the data retention regime.
Ultimately, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security made 12 substantive recommendations for improvements to this bill. The recommendations can be summarised as: the revision and expansion of the administrative guidelines; the exemption of broadcasters from the obligations set out in the bill; ensuring effective and regular information sharing; allowing requests for exemptions by carriers and service providers for certain changes; clarifying that the bill does not affect the operation of privacy obligations—I think that's vitally important; expanding the annual reporting and review requirements; and clarifying the responsibilities of the Communications Access Coordinator. I'm very pleased that the government has accepted all of the recommendations of the PJCIS. Labor, as I said earlier, has taken a bipartisan stance on national security legislation introduced by the government and has consistently worked with the government to ensure our security agencies have the powers they need to keep Australians safe.
The government has until now relied upon the cooperation of the telecommunications industry to implement the advice that it receives from security agencies. Certainly, it's acknowledged that there are well-established cooperative relationships between those security agencies and the telecommunication carriers which are already in place. However, the fact that the industry is not currently obliged under law to share threat information with security agencies means that there is a potential vulnerability because those security agencies lack visibility of potential threats. One limitation on this current arrangement is that this particular industry, as I said previously, is a dynamic industry, constantly evolving and with a number of new market entrants that may not have the same cooperative relationship with government. It is important to remember that this cooperative approach is only workable when companies are willing to give due consideration to national security in the public interest.
These reforms give our security agencies the tools that they need to ensure that our telecommunications networks and infrastructure are protected from malicious actors. We know that a key source of vulnerability for espionage, sabotage and interference activity is the supply of equipment, services and support arrangements. Technology and threats are constantly changing. We need to ensure that the framework that we use for regulation is sufficiently flexibility to address the risks these present. There is always pressure upon carriers and service providers to remain contemporary with their service delivery and to serve a market that is also constantly changing. Security is vitally important and should be an overriding consideration for service providers. But, above all, it should be a question of industry culture, not something which is merely imposed.
Australian telecommunications networks rely on global supplies of equipment and services, often located offshore. This potentially creates a challenge to implementing controls to mitigate personnel, physical and ICT security risks, making networks and facilities more vulnerable to unauthorised interference. This is a lesson learned from history. In the 1960s, as I indicated earlier, when the idea of cyberattacks on IT systems and telecommunications networks was becoming an increasing concern for industry and government alike, military strategist and systems theorist Herman Kahn noted:
The aggressor has to find only one crucial weakness; the defender has to find all of them, and in advance.
Indeed, our increased reliance upon internet and telecommunications systems only serves to make us potentially more vulnerable.
Advances in technology and comms have introduced significant vulnerabilities, including the ability to disrupt, destroy or alter networks or infrastructure as well as the information held on them. These vulnerabilities potentially allow state and non-state actors to obtain unauthorised access that could be used to extract information or disrupt networks. Similarly, whilst carriers and service providers act to secure their networks to protect the personal and business information of their users, these requirements may differ from those needed to protect national security interests. The reforms in this bill require carriers and service providers to take into account a broader range of security risk factors when making investment decisions so as to protect national security interests.
As I noted earlier, this bill is the result of a process initiated under the former Labor government in 2012 that was followed by a period of consultation between government and industry. I am very pleased, again, to note that the government has accepted all of the recommendations of the PJCIS for improvements to this bill and, as such, I am confident that the framework established by this legislation can effectively operate to ensure that Australia's telecommunication networks and facilities are safe from national security risks of espionage, sabotage and foreign interference. This is something that every Australian needs to be aware of. It is very pleasing to see the government acknowledging that this threat is very, very real. It is taking it seriously. It's vitally important that we ensure that the measures we take are contemporary and effective.
I rise to give my support to this bill, the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, which strengthens and amends the Telecommunications Act and related legislation in order to better manage the national security risks of interference with and access to telecommunications networks and facilities. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security has handed down two reports from inquiries in 2013 and 2015, and this bill is the result of a lengthy process of negotiation and cooperation between the government and the telecommunications industry which began with the former Labor government's broad review of national security issues in 2012.
In 2013 the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security recommended that government create a telecommunications framework in recognition of threats to our national security that can be made through the telecommunications system. In a further report from the committee in 2015, telecommunications sector security reform was again supported. The bill was first introduced in November last year and was referred to the joint committee for scrutiny. The committee held two public hearings in February this year and another in March. The committee also had private briefings from relevant agencies in Canberra. The committee process of scrutiny of this bill has been rigorous and comprehensive. This is a great example of how our parliamentary system should operate and work effectively.
Before I go on about the joint committee, I just refer to this: I have just seen this on a website about the troubles affecting Equifax, which is one of the largest consumer credit companies in the US. It's in all sorts of trouble over cybersecurity. It has access to the social security details of 143 million Americans, plus a whole bunch of Poms and Canadians. They actually had passwords for their employees that were literally 'admin/admin'—just about the single worst password you could think of. This is a major consumer credit company with very private details of 143 million Americans. This is the exactly the sort of thing we want to avoid in this country, and one that I hope this process would help us to avoid in Australia.
The joint committee has made 12 recommendations, including making clear what a company's security obligations are in circumstances where telecommunications infrastructure is used but not necessarily owned or operated by a company. A company's infrastructure may be located in a foreign country and used to provide services and carry or store information from Australian customers—I'm not sure that we could recommend Equifax as a foreign company—and where a company provides cloud computing and cloud storage solutions. With our society becoming more mobile, with people accessing information from different locations and devices, the security of files and information is paramount. Gone are the days when we had a PC at home and another at work, and files were saved to floppy disks—for the young people in the gallery, they were funny little things with I think 56 kilobytes of information. Then along came CDs and USB drives, but all of them were physical media, to be transported physically from one computer to another.
That has all gone. We now live with the cloud. There is a T-shirt doing the rounds that states, 'There is no cloud—it's just somebody else's computer.' That always tickles my funny bone, because it's absolutely right—there is no cloud. The cloud, of course, is really a server, somewhere, connected to your device or devices via the internet. The server is most likely one of hundreds of thousands in a massive facility locked down in some bunker somewhere overseas. These days you will generally save your material to your cloud service, which enables you to retrieve and work on your files from whatever device you choose to log in with. You might start writing a letter at home on the PC. You will save it to the cloud. Then on the bus you might log in and edit the file on your mobile. You will save it again. Then you might get to work and log in via your work PC and finish it off and email it.
Major companies are moving their services to the cloud. Adobe, which owns publishing software like InDesign and Photoshop, now offers all its applications via cloud-based services and has stopped providing software via physical media. It doesn't even offer an online downloadable subscription. The parliament, which does offer InDesign and Photoshop as a work software to members, has to have a special deal with Adobe to get a service that is not cloud-based because of the security issues. Most customers are required to have ongoing cloud-based subscriptions. The cloud is where the world is moving to. In making this change, Adobe is counting on the fact that its customer base—in the main designers, artists and journalists—are comfortable working in an internet environment. That's probably a good assumption to make. Most people are comfortable in that environment, and I would guess that many more companies are going to be offering exactly the same sort of application. We need to get used to the fact that the internet, the cloud, is where services are going to be. That's exactly why we need better cybersecurity and more formal arrangements in place.
While universal availability, dependent on decent internet—let's not talk about the NBN—helps to make our lives easier, it does raise questions. First, it can be impossible to switch off from work, when you can work at home at all hours. Second, and more relevant to this bill, ensuring security of data in a cloud based environment is vital. When working inside the cloud or with remote servers your security is only as good as the company that hosts your data. Sure, you might have file passwords, but you still don't want unauthorised third parties to be able to even get near your encrypted data.
My electorate of Lyons is pretty big and I'm often in my car, along with my iPad and my mobile phone, and that is pretty much my office for much of the week in my electorate. Using the parliament's cumbersome and frankly archaic log-in security services, I can access the remote parliamentary server and edit files as necessary, when I can get on, when I can get decent internet, just as I can from the office PC. The proviso is that the remote server is very slow, even over pretty good internet, and it is a pretty clunky setup. Hopefully there will be some changes in the near future.
What I can't argue with is the need for the security. I accept that. The last thing I want to do is log on remotely while on the road and have someone able to hack into my signal and gain access to my office data, much of which can contain personal information on staff and constituents. I'm not a fan of overbeating the egg on national security. I am generally of the view that we should not dismantle our freedoms in order to protect them, but I do accept we need to take cybersecurity very seriously. It is a huge part of both our national security and our corporate security effort. Frankly, we all need to think a bit more seriously about cybersecurity and, at a personal level, we should ensure that whatever cloud service we use is reputable.
Personal information provided to cloud services includes names, addresses, passwords and billing information, so I would hazard a guess that perhaps people should try to avoid Russian based internet cloud services that they don't know about. Let's make sure we are not handing the information to crooks. What happens to all our information and files if the cloud server is compromised in some way? Is data and information safe? What are the risks? These are the questions we must ask.
Many of the cloud services people use are hosted internationally. It is reassuring to know this bill also includes measures to consider the security of offshore information for Australian providers and carriers. This bill places an obligation on carriers and carriage service providers to notify the government of any changes to offshore arrangements. The last thing we want is a cloud server shifting from Nebraska to North Korea, without anyone knowing about it—though, of course, that would be illegal.
While there will always be an element of risk in relation to the storage of information and data by telcos, this bill goes some way to mitigating this risk and providing confidence that there are measures in place to help keep our telecommunications systems safe. A little shout-out here to Google, Amazon, Apple and others: Tasmania is the ideal place to house your servers. We have a cool, relatively dry climate, we are geologically sound and we have a fairly stable political system. We also have lots of regional, affordable land. We are well worth a visit—come on down.
While on the issue of security, all of us also put a lot of information out there, on social media especially, and thieves like to harvest it. For example, receiving birthday wishes on Facebook can give cyber crooks access to your birthday, one of the questions often used as a security question. We all put the names of our pets and our kids and spouse on social media. All this seemingly innocent material can be harvested by crooks and used to forge false identities with banks and other authorities. Reclaiming a false identity is no easy matter.
This legislation is not just about protecting personal information and files. It is about protecting the wider communications network across the country. Advances in technology like cloud systems and the ways in which we work, communicate and store information have opened vulnerabilities within our systems, risking unauthorised access to networks, with the potential to cause major disruption and potentially disable critical networks. If there were a breach in one area of our telecommunications network, it could have catastrophic consequences and ramifications for the country as a whole. A compromised telecommunications system during an emergency could have wide-reaching implications, particularly in terms of our first responders and security agencies being able to act and to provide the necessary support and action in a timely manner. We have been given a warning of this. There is no better example than Die Hard 4.0Live Free or Die Hard. John McClane is tasked with bringing in a hacker because the villain, played by Timothy Olyphant, is threatening a 'fire sale', a term that means everything must go—energy, telecommunications, finance, transport systems, national security—because it's all wired and it's all connected. Fiction, you say? We'll see.
The bill also puts measures in place that require carriage service providers and carriers to protect their networks and facilities from unauthorised access and interference. While we may think about security of our telecommunications system in terms of the data and information that telcos might hold, security in this instance also refers to the physical assets of the carriers and service providers. So, expect a few more cameras and security patrols around infrastructure.
The security and resilience of our telecommunications infrastructure is vital to the social and economic wellbeing of the nation as a whole. Perhaps they should have a big ugly fence go around them—but that may be a bit controversial. This security and resilience is particularly important in regional areas, such as my electorate of Lyons, where many small communities rely on a secure service in order to stay in touch with family and friends, stay healthy and be successful in business. This bill will give the people of my electorate security in the knowledge that their communications and data are as safe as we can make them. The question of reliability of service and connection is something that can be debated on another day in this place—I'm still talking about the NBN.
Telecommunication companies hold vast quantities of sensitive data, such as billing and other information. If this material is unlawfully accessed it poses great risk, not only to the country but to individuals. Personal security of individuals can be put at risk if sensitive information, such as addresses, is obtained by nefarious characters. Currently, telecommunications companies work voluntarily with government to keep our critical infrastructure safe from foreign and other threats. This bill formalises this constructive relationship between government and telcos. While the current environment and relationship is one that operates on goodwill between telcos and governments, this bill puts measures in place to ensure there is a regulatory framework should that goodwill cool in the future.
Security agencies currently work with telcos to help them manage vulnerabilities in their networks. Increasingly, there are new players in the industry who may not have established those relationships over time. The current cooperative and voluntary arrangement works well, but it does so only with the goodwill of all parties involved. We need something a bit more formal, and that is what this bill hopes to achieve. We cannot take those relationships for granted, so it is important that we have that regulatory framework in place to ensure that current arrangements carry over to all carriers and service providers.
Labor has consistently worked with the government to make sure our security agencies have the powers they need to help keep Australia safe. Labor is pleased the government has adopted all the recommendations from the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and we commend the committee for its rigorous investigation into the government's proposals.
When I heard that the member for Lyons was a candidate in the 2016 federal election, I had known him for quite some time and was very pleased and happy that he was standing as a candidate. He was subsequently elected, and he is doing a great job in his seat. But my faith in him was validated just now, when I had the opportunity to hear him quote from the movie Die Hard 4 in the federal parliament—this is the cherry on top of the cake! I never thought I'd hear that happen in this place. Well done, and kudos to you!
You made a number of very important points, emphasising what a lot of us believe is important with respect to the security of the services that are used and accessed by people online and, increasingly, every day. I think the member for Bass also made an important contribution in this debate. It reinforces in my mind that when it comes to digital economy matters the delegation from Tasmania that sits in the federal parliament today thinks very deeply about this, both in the House and in the other place, and it is to be commended for it.
I think we do not celebrate enough the contribution of the digital economy to the broader Australian economy. We have a number of firms in a wide variety of forms that are making an important contribution to the Australian economy. I note the presence of the member for Robertson, who, in a former life, worked for one of the major telcos in this country—a telco that is making a major contribution not only in this nation, but, importantly, within our region as well, in the form of Telstra. These are all firms that are in one way, shape or form providing jobs, providing commercial value to other firms, and contributing to the economy. More often than not, I think we overlook or take for granted their contribution. I mention this because I was very concerned by the submission that was made by four industry groups representing a lot of these firms as part of the process of considering the legislation that the government's put before the House—the submission of the Ai Group, the Australian Information Industry Association, the Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association, and the Communications Alliance. There were a number of things that were written in that submission that I want to be able to cover today, because I remain deeply concerned. I think it's important that, while we provide a very thorough security framework, we do promote best practice when it comes to cybersecurity. There were some things that were raised in that submission that I was deeply concerned about, and I think we need to set a marker down to keep an eye on them through the implementation process and beyond.
These firms rightly point out that the Australian ICT sector is 100 billion strong. That includes telecommunications carriers, carriage service providers, vendors and intermediaries. In the submission that they made, they raised a number of points. They said that the purpose of the reforms was unclear; that the nature of the compliance requirements was 'onerous', in their words; that there is no established strategy to brief carriage service providers on the threat environment; that there was vague drafting in what was put forward; and that the legislation itself doesn't include, or at least limit, the requirement for carriage service providers to retrofit or remove existing facilities. These are very serious concerns. Bear in mind that it is in the commercial interests of a lot of these companies to take very seriously cybersecurity threats and to be able to demonstrate to their customers that the network they are providing is as secure as it can possibly be. A lot of them recognise the value of it.
There are two groups of people who do not like how seriously a lot of tech firms take cybersecurity and privacy. The two groups are the people who want to cause ill and to be able to exploit vulnerabilities, and the government. The reason: a lot of these phones—for example, the iPhone, of which there's been a new version released today. I met with Apple's head of AI and Siri in the US earlier this year. A lot of people worry that when they talk to their phones—and I don't want to activate my own phone in the process of going through this example!—all of that data is retained on the phone. It cannot be accessed. It is not provided back to the servers at Apple, for example. In the next iteration of their product, the facial recognition elements of that, none of the facial recognition elements will go back overseas either. They will all be retained on the phone. These firms take very seriously the data there. We've had a debate in this country about how you can access—as was the case in the US where Apple stood very firm on not allowing government access to phones where there was a serious national security issue that underpinned the request to access those phones. But these firms take it seriously. It's not as though they are blithe or treating in any sort of lackadaisical manner the issue of cybersecurity; they treat it very seriously.
As much as the government is putting a lot of emphasis on these firms to maintain, to ensure that they invest in and to be able to demonstrate to government the security of their tech, what is interesting and what has been raised by this submission is that there is not an equivalent collaborative arrangement or mindset in government to work with these firms. This is a very important criticism that has been extended by the sector towards government. In the submission that was put forward by these four industry associations, they rightly pointed to the collaborative nature of the working relationship between government and industry in cybersecurity in the US. They did a similar sort of thing in pointing out what happens in the UK. In this country it appears to be a one-way street, where the government will dictate what the firms must do, but government will not share any sort of advance knowledge about threats to ensure that the sector can prepare. All the penalty and risk has to be borne by the industry, and there is no commensurate behaviour by government to inform of threats in advance.
I think this is a serious problem, because we all have a stake in improving cybersecurity. We all have a stake in making sure that these services continue to deliver, on top of what the sector is already doing, and this was raised through the committee process. The government recognises it needs to do more, but the test will be, 'Will they share information about threats in a timely way to allow the sector to respond accordingly?' Again, I quote from the submission:
Further, there is no obligation established in the legislation for the Attorney-General's Department to work cooperatively and proactively with Industry in identifying, communicating and responding to threats and attacks …
I think this is a vulnerability, and it needs to be addressed by government. It needs to be able to also ensure that industry is treated as a partner, not as someone that just basically jumps the minute government clicks their fingers. It shouldn't be that way. For example, something I was very concerned about was highlighted in the submission:
… there is no corresponding obligation on Government to justify its actions, take responsibility for any unintended outcomes, bear the costs or deliver a practical and timely threat advice service. Nor is there any guidance or limitation on regulatory creep—
none of that. The government just stonewalls on this. It keeps saying, 'No, we need to do this; there are threats at play, and industry simply needs to respond.' Industry, as I said, takes this seriously, and they should be treated seriously. Government should be better at lifting the general approach to cybersecurity when it comes, in particular, to what we're dealing with here. Again, I quote from their submission:
… the Associations reiterate a preferred approach would be to reconsider the roles and responsibilities of risk assessment through collaborative sharing of information about actual and potential threats, and what tools and techniques are recommended to ensure appropriate action is taken to protect all the components that make up networks (i.e. hardware and software)—
these are not outrageous things to request; they are quite straightforward—
Industry-developed frameworks are likely to be significantly more flexible with regards to the frequent adaptations required to keep up with technological progress and market changes—
another well-made point. The other thing that concerned me was that, if, for example, there is a case where government believes that there needs to be a retrofit of certain systems, the entire onus and cost is shifted onto industry. As I said in my earlier remarks, there's not enough flagging of potential threats to industry and sending a signal to the sector about things they need to do. That's absent. Then, if there is a problem and it requires a huge investment of resources, time and money to retrofit a particular network, for example, that cost could be completely borne by industry, with no regard by government. Government has said, through the course of the inquiry process, that this would be an extreme instance—and I agree; I think it would be extreme—but there needs to be a better assurance about how that cost issue would be managed. Again, in terms of those notification requirements, I go back to the submission:
It appears highly inefficient that C/CSPs are obliged to proactively notify Government of proposed changes to their networks … and proposed risk mitigation strategies while Government is not compelled to equally notify C/CSPs of any potential or real security threats …
The government agrees it needs to work better on that. On the issue of retrofitting, this is still left out there without any real commitment as to what will happen. In fact, I think the government has said no. This is despite the fact that the sector said in its submission:
… a simple assurance in the Explanatory Memorandum and Guidelines that non-compliant systems will not be penalised does not create sufficient certainty for C/CSPs.
… the legislation itself ought to be amended to reflect the intention to not require retrofits except in rare and extremely serious circumstances.
Again, these are important points, but the government has refused to come at least halfway—well, not even halfway; it's basically said it's not going to do it. I am very concerned that, in the rare instance that this occurs, the impact on the sector is significant. The way that the sector concluded their submission was by saying:
… the Associations do not believe that a comprehensive case for TSSR has been made. In its current form, the legislation is too discretionary and vague and is lacking two-way cooperation and information, thereby imposing substantial costs, uncertainty and regulatory risk onto the entities proposed to be regulated. The legislation is an over-reach and an unnecessary imposition …
I make these remarks in this debate so that they are markers, more than anything else. From my consultation with the sector, the industry echoed the remarks of some of my colleagues—that they were very happy with the way the committee process and the hearings went. They believe that the industry were heard. They do still have some concerns. They're very pragmatic. They say, 'Obviously, you're not going to get everything that you want,' but there are some serious issues in there that I think we need to keep tabs on in the longer term.
Throughout the whole debate about metadata—the issue about the costs and the way in which industry would have to respond on data storage and management as a result of that—the government played hardball with the sector for quite some time, even though how much cost would be imposed on them was well documented. Obviously, with the requirement for additional regulation, there will always be a cost. But I think we have to always bear in mind that costs are already put in place by the sector in their pursuit of customers and to be able to demonstrate to those customers that those systems are strong and are able to withstand known threats and potential vulnerabilities. They already invest in that. When government itself refuses to provide detail about potential threats and allows those industry players to modify their networks accordingly, but then leaves hanging over them the threat that there might be a cost for retrofit or for other required amendments to their network, I think that is pretty unfair to the sector.
So I'll be watching with interest. Obviously, our side has been keen to work with the government on this. We'll work with them on national security issues. But I think those industry concerns should be listened to.
For the last 18 months, here in Canberra, I've been campaigning very, very hard on the NBN. Up until about two or three months ago, the vast bulk of my electorate of Canberra wasn't even on the NBN rollout map. So I campaigned very hard for Canberra to be placed on the NBN rollout map and, finally, we achieved that a few months ago after a lot of lobbying and a lot of effort.
Now I'm lobbying and advocating for an even approach to the technologies that are going to be rolled out in Canberra. At the moment, we're going to have three technologies—fibre to the kerb, fibre to the node and fibre to the premises—in the one street, which is completely and utterly unacceptable. The concern I also have is despite the fact that we are finally on the rollout map, after 18 months of advocating and trying and campaigning on the issue, and encouraging people in Canberra to send me their speeds, most of Canberra is not going to be rolled out with the NBN until late next year and early 2019.
For the past 18 months I have been reading and sharing with the rest of Canberra the appalling speeds that Canberrans are having to deal with, which are significantly hampering their educational opportunities, significantly hampering their business opportunities and significantly hampering their ability to take part in what I call active citizenry. We have Canberrans, like Jenny and Steve from Fadden, who are regular subscribers to my Send Me Your Speeds campaign. They've been sending me speeds for months now: Jenny and Steve, thank you so much for taking part in this campaign and thank you so much for being active contributors to the campaign. You can really understand why they are so concerned about their speeds, why they want to jump on the bandwagon of this campaign, why they want to see Canberra prioritised in the NBN rollout map and why they want to see even technologies. We'd love fibre to the premises. Why should we be penalised for the fact that we weren't even on the NBN rollout map until a few months ago? Why can't we get fibre to the premises like we have in Gungahlin on the north side?
A digital divide exists in Canberra as a result of different technologies in one street, in my electorate, these different technologies between the north and south side of the ACT. There's a real digital divide and there's a real case of haves and have-nots, which is why I want technology that's as even as possible across my electorate—ideally, fibre to the premises for everyone. If we can't get that, I want fibre to the kerb and fibre to the node. I will come to some concerns I have about fibre to the node after I've run through my Send Me Your Speeds campaign, which will tell you why Canberra needs to be prioritised on the NBN rollout map.
We are talking the nation's capital. We are talking 2017. We are talking suburbs that are less than 20 kilometres from this very Parliament House. And these are the speeds they are dealing with. I will run through some speeds that Jenny and Steve have been sending me over recent months. One day, recently, they had an upload speed of 1.91 megabits per second and a download speed of 1.91 megabits per second. Those speeds are pretty bad—but it get's worse. I'm warning you now: brace yourself. As if those absolutely appalling speeds weren't bad enough, Jenny and Steve also have regular interruptions to their service, which makes using the internet absolutely impossible. Then they sent me speeds of 0.43 megabits per second for download, and—listen to this; they might as well not even try—an upload speed of 0.05 megabits per second!
This is in Canberra; this is in Fadden—less than 20 kilometres from this Parliament House, in 2017, in our nation's capital. We're not talking remote Australia here. We're not talking the outback. We're not talking some sort of mountain range or chasm or gorge. We are talking less than 20 kilometres from Parliament House, in our nation's capital, in 2017: upload speeds of 0.05 megabits per second. Jenny and Steve recently had an upload and download speed of just 0.15 megabits per second. Jenny said that recently she was watching Q&A and a question was asked regarding internet speed satisfaction. Seventy per cent of the audience were dissatisfied. Jenny also sent me speeds of 0.92 download and 0.11 upload. Jenny is concerned about trying to communicate with these absolutely appalling speeds, but then she hears on Q&A that 70 per cent of the audience are actually dissatisfied with their NBN. She's rightly concerned, given that she's dealing with this absolutely appalling state of things now, about what the future will look like when we actually get NBN, particularly given the distance she is from the exchange. I will showcase once more the appalling situation Jenny and Steve have to live with, with a download speed of 7.5 megabits per second and an upload speed of 0.09. At least it wasn't 0.05 download speed and 0.09 upload speed, which was one of their recent readings.
Another response from a participant in the Send Me Your Speeds campaign that underscores why we need to be prioritised on the NBN rollout map and need the best NBN possible in terms of the fibre to the premises and fibre to the curb was from Bec, also from Fadden. She sent me an email saying her broadband speeds were so low she couldn't manage to get a speed test done. That's how bad it was! Poor old Bec couldn't actually send me her speed because she couldn't actually download it. She is less than 20 kays from the Parliament House, in the national capital, in 2017! When she did find enough speed, poor little thing—pedalling away there—to run the test, it was a download speed of 0.20 and an upload speed of—listen to this!—0.03 megabits per second.
Julia from Kambah emailed me earlier this year after receiving a copy of the Brodtmann Bulletin in her mailbox. She's getting a download speed of just 0.25 megabits per second and an upload speed of 0.03. Poor old Bec and poor old Julia! Julia wrote:
I am currently on an ADSL plan with iiNet and at times it's worse than the ye olde dial up. IiNet would never own up to it, but I'd bet my bottom dollar they're making the existing ADSL connections crap to induce their customers to sign up to their VDSL network before the NBN rolls out.
Victor from Macarthur is getting a download speed of 0.12 megabits per second and an upload of 0.06. He says that it's a real challenge to get one-tenth of a megabit per second each day and when he does actually achieve that it's a good day. He lives with his girlfriend, who studies, and she says it's nearly impossible to study and watch her lectures for universities. The videos and documents just won't load. That's not surprising, Madam Deputy Speaker, when you've got a download speed of 0.12 and an upload speed of 0.06. I'm surprised she can download anything with those speeds.
Paul from Fadden has a download speed of 4.8 megabits per second and an upload of 0.84.
For Craig from Yarralumla it's a download speed of 0.19 and an upload speed of 0.28. He says a friend of his, who lives in Virginia in the US, showed him speeds of nearly 900 megabits per second, which he's getting for $69 per month. So there's poor Craig in Yarralumla, just down the road from here, five minutes away from Parliament House, getting a download speed of 0.19 and an upload of 0.28, while his mate in Virginia has a speed of 900 megabits per second for $69 per month. That's something we can only dare to dream of.
Ahmed from Calwell has a download speed of 5.15 megabits per second and an upload speed of 1.30. To quote him:
The biggest question is why my street is planned for fibre to the node in April while people in the same suburb will get fibre to the kerb on the same date. Why not fibre to the premises like Gungahlin? Are we second class citizens?
Another response was from a family who didn't wish to be identified but wanted to have their experience heard:
Our kids were keen to do maths tutoring based in the US but needed a minimum download speed of 5 megabits per second and an upload speed of about 2 megabits per second. As you can see from the screen shot we didn't even come close so the kids missed out.
As I said, my community is missing out on educational opportunities as a result of the fact that we have these absolutely appalling download and upload speeds.
The government, despite my many, many attempts to communicate with the Minister for Communications, doesn't care. It does not care about the fact that this community is having its educational opportunities impeded, it's having its business opportunities impeded and it's having its citizenry opportunities impeded by these absolutely appalling speeds that basically don't allow for the community to communicate. I have told the minister this many times, and this government just does not care. We need to be prioritised. My community is actually getting a second-class service. As Ahmed said, they are being treated as second-class citizens by this government because of its inability to prioritise areas with these appalling speeds and its inability to get an even approach to the technology that's being rolled out. As I said, in one street there is fibre to the curb, fibre to the premises and fibre to the node. It is unacceptable.
Here we have a family whose children are missing out on the opportunity to take part in maths tutoring based in the US because their internet speed is about two megabits per second and the requirement is five megabits per second. They go on to say:
We certainly can't watch HD through the internet and the kids struggle to do internet based homework on a regular basis. Even using Skype with my parents in Sydney is a chore with frozen screens, pixelations and bad quality sound. And our mobile phone reception isn't much better either. I need to step outside to take some calls.
I've heard that said quite often. Further, they say:
Good luck getting the Senate to listen to ordinary Australian family challenges with the world's slowest internet speeds.
In terms of the experience of this person, who chose to remain anonymous, I've heard so many times from Canberrans that they have to step outside to make phone calls because the reception is so bad. At one of the NBN forums that I held in Tuggeranong, I remember I woman saying that she had to climb up on top of her garage roof to get reception for her mobile phone. I hate to think what she did at night. I hope she had some decent lighting there. This is happening here, now, in our national capital! It's just breathtaking.
Bill, from Chisholm, is another frustrated Canberran broadband user. He says:
An update on my never ending saga with slow internet speeds here in my home in Tuggeranong.
This is a real problem, particularly in Tuggeranong. Whenever it rains, things go pear shaped. You can forget about communicating whenever it rains in our nation's capital in 2017. Bill goes on to say:
Last weekend when we had some rain and the internet dropped out ...
This happens all the time. I can read so many written accounts sent to me by Canberrans about their appalling internet speeds. As I've said so many times, these slow speeds are having a significant impact on the ability of my community to take part in educational opportunities, in business opportunities, in citizenry opportunities and in the e-health options that exist. My community is being seriously impeded in its options, choices and opportunities for prosperity and growth as a result of the Turnbull government's continued ignorance and continued contempt for Canberra and also for the suffering that is going on here in terms of telecommunications.
I rise to speak on the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. I can concur with the comments of the member for Canberra regarding the National Broadband Network. I think what's happening in most Australian communities regarding the NBN can be perfectly summed up by the tweet that was posted by Annabel Crabb a couple of weeks ago:
When people complained about the NBN, I used to think privately "Surely it can't be that bad". I hereby apologise to those people.
That says it all about the National Broadband Network in Australia at the moment. My community, the community of Kingsford Smith, is one of those suffering because of this government's incompetence when it comes to delivering a decent telecommunications system. If Labor were still in government, the NBN would've been rolled out in three-quarters of the community that I represent by now. It would've been world-class, fibre-optic cable to the premises. Most homes and businesses would have received it, yet, at the moment, only a very, very small proportion of homes and businesses in our community have actually received the NBN. Basically, only new developments in our area have received the NBN.
I went to a briefing with the NBN Co here at parliament a couple of years ago. I asked, 'When will it be rolled out in my community?' They said, 'It should start being rolled out in your area by the beginning of 2017.' To date, it hasn't been rolled out. Then, I went to another briefing a couple of months ago. Again, I asked: 'You told me that the NBN would be rolled out in 2017. It hasn't happened yet. When will it happen?' They looked at the map and said, 'It will now probably be 2018 when it is rolled out.' So I imagine, when I go to the next briefing, that that will be pushed back to 2019 and so on.
The people of Kingsford Smith, like the people of every other community in this country, are crying out for decent telecommunications services. All we want is the world standard that other nations, including underdeveloped nations compared to Australia, are receiving so that businesses can operate their businesses effectively and efficiently and so that Australians can do their work, can study and can live fulfilling lives using modern telecommunications and the internet. Sadly, this government is lacking in delivering that.
In respect of this bill that we're debating here today, the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, this is a reform that the Labor Party and I are supporting. The purpose of this bill is to create a regulatory framework to manage national security risks of espionage, sabotage and foreign interference to Australia's telecommunications networks and facilities. The bill will provide the Attorney-General with a new power to direct a carrier, carriage service provider or carriage service intermediary to do or not to do a specified thing on a security-related ground—for example, alter a procurement assessment as giving rise to security risks.
The proposed measures in this bill form part of a package of reforms to national security legislation identified by the former Labor government in 2012, commonly referred to as the telecommunications sector security reforms. The TSSR is the process of developing a regulatory mechanism to ensure that industry engages with security agencies to enable the early identification and collaborative management of security risks to their infrastructure and information held on or carried over it.
There's been parliamentary interest and consideration of issues related to security of the telecommunications sector for a number of years. I recall being a member of the infrastructure committee, where we looked at this very issue, the interaction between security agencies and ISPs in Australia and cases where security agencies and, indeed, other financial regulatory agencies had had cause to shut down telecommunications sites for particular reasons. This bill reflects previous considerations of issues pertaining to the security of the telecommunications sector generally by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.
This bill assists the national security agencies to manage risk in this space by imposing a new security obligation on carriers and CSPs to do their best to manage the risks related to unauthorised access and interference to networks and facilities that they own and operate. It also imposes notification requirements on carriers and certain nominated CSPs to notify the government of planned changes to their systems and services that are likely to make the network or facility vulnerable to unauthorised access and interference. The Secretary of the AGD is provided with information-gathering powers to facilitate monitoring of and investigations into compliance with the new security obligations. The Attorney-General is provided with two directions powers, subject to certain conditions being met, to direct a carrier or a CSP to do or not to do a specified thing—for example, alter a procurement assessed as giving rise to security risks or shut down a specific service, notably through a specific shutdown power, and by providing enforcement mechanisms by extending the civil remedies regime provided for parts 30, 31 and 31A of the act to address noncompliance with security obligations, a ministerial direction or a notice to produce information or a document.
This bill is a result of several years of negotiations and cooperation between the government and the telecommunications industry. In 2015, as part of the committee's inquiry into the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Bill, the PJCIS again supported telecommunications sector security reforms and recommended that the government ensure a framework of enacted reforms before the end of the implementation of the data retention regime, which was in April of this year.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 18:15 to 19:05
These reforms were also subject to two rounds of public consultation on exposure draft legislation before the current bill was introduced to the Senate. The bill was introduced to the Senate on 9 November 2016 and immediately referred to the PJCIS for careful scrutiny and review. That committee received eight submissions and four supplementary submissions from industry, government and academia. The PJCIS held public hearings, and an advisory report on the bill was made by that committee. They made 12 recommendations for improvements to the bill, the explanatory memorandum and the administrative guidelines accompanying the bill. Subject to these 12 recommendations being implemented, the PJCIS recommended that the bill be passed.
When it comes to legislation pertaining to interests and matters of national security, I'm pleased to say that the Labor Party and the coalition have been at one, particularly since 2014, and close scrutiny has been applied to all measures designed to bolster our national security. Through the PJCIS, Labor recommended improvements to the bill that have consequently been adopted and presented by the government. These include clarifying company obligations, making clear that the bill does not apply to certain broadcasters, a recommendation that the Attorney-General's Department share information with industry where possible and making clear that the bill does not impact on existing legislated privacy obligations.
The bill bestows significant powers upon the Attorney-General, allowing the AG, subject to strict criteria, the power to direct a carrier or service provider to do or refrain from doing an act to eliminate or reduce risks that are associated with security issues. A test of reasonable necessity has been applied as a safeguard, and the Attorney-General must also be satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken to reach agreement and to consult affected carriers or carriage service providers in good faith.
Labor is totally committed to ensuring our national security organisations and agencies have the power, resources and flexibility needed to protect our nation's people and interest. We're pleased to accept all of the recommendations of the parliamentary joint committee and therefore commend this bill to the House.
I rise to speak on the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. It is to the benefit of every Australian that our telecommunications industry has worked diligently over the past decade to ensure that the networks we use are safe and resilient. Communications is at the heart of our society, and with every passing day we become more dependent upon the applications and services they make possible. This increasing dependence on connectivity also means that the impact of any disruption to our networks is greater than ever. These risks permeate critical sectors of the economy, such as government, banking, finance and energy. The Internet of Things is also transforming Australian industry. The next phase of digitisation will integrate connectivity into industrial applications that have traditionally been free of any digital dependence.
Just imagine what the world might look like in 2030, with autonomous vehicles coordinating themselves through peak-hour traffic, underpinned by high-speed connectivity through next generation mobile networks. I make this observation to emphasise that technology changes much faster than our laws. This has been the case in the past and will remain the case in the future. From this vantage point the evolving technology and security environment warrants a careful assessment to ensure our capabilities, systems, processes and laws remain fit for purpose. Ultimately this comes down to a question of what arrangements can best preserve the confidentiality of communications carried on telecommunications networks and equally ensure the availability, resilience and integrity of these networks.
Over the past decade, the Australian telecommunication industry has been voluntarily working with the government to ensure that Australia's critical infrastructure is safe from foreign interference, threats or espionage. The security professionals in companies such as Telstra and Optus are world leaders in threat detection and response, and both the Australian public and the private sector have benefited from their expertise. We are indebted to industry for its cooperation, engagement and goodwill over this period. However, it has been recognised on both sides of parliament that the existing framework for managing these risks in the telecommunications industry is not adequate for the times we are in. The current framework relies on voluntary cooperation and goodwill, which may not always be sufficient, given the nature of the risks to national security and the increasing consequences if those risks were to materialise. Put another way, security agencies have a legitimate need for greater visibility and certainty, and this includes protecting against the possibility that such goodwill may not be voluntarily forthcoming from all telecommunications companies at some unknown point in the future.
Addressing this gap is largely the subject of the bill before us. The Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment Bill puts a framework around that working relationship to ensure that both government and industry know what is required to keep Australians safe and what is expected of them to ensure that these measures are taken. The bill is the result of several years of negotiation and cooperation between the government and the telecommunications industry, arising from a broader review of national security issues by the previous Labor government in 2012. It implements the recommendations of two separate inquiries by the PJCIS in 2013 and 2015. In 2013 the PJCIS examined telecommunications security as part of its inquiry into potential reforms of Australia's national security legislation. Arising from that review, it was recommended that the government create a telecommunications security framework. In 2015, as part of its inquiry into data retention legislation, the PJCIS again supported telecommunications sector security reforms and recommended the government ensure a framework be enacted prior to the implementation of the data retention regime. The bill was subsequently introduced to the Senate on 9 November 2016 and was referred to the PJCIS for scrutiny and review. The PJCIS report on this bill made 12 substantive recommendations to improve and clarify its operations. As the shadow Attorney-General has outlined, Labor supports the PJCIS recommendations, and we are pleased the government has also agreed to all 12 recommendations.
The bill seeks a balance between the legitimate needs of security agencies and the regulatory cost and uncertainty often borne by industry when there is legislative change. The amended bill seeks to achieve this by providing a proportionate and escalating framework for addressing national security risks, which includes granting the Attorney-General powers, subject to certain checks and balances, to ensure certain steps are satisfied before any direction is issued. The key elements of the bill include establishing a security obligation applicable to all carriers, CSPs and intermediaries, requiring them to do their best to protect their networks and facilities from unauthorised access and interference. It requires carriers and nominated CSPs to notify the communications access coordinator of planned key changes to telecommunications services or systems that could compromise their ability to comply with this security obligation. Notifications may be provided in the form of either an individual notification or an annual security capability plan. It provides the Attorney-General with the power to issue carriers or CSPs with a direction requiring them to do, or refrain from doing, a specified thing in order to manage security risks. It empowers the Secretary of the Attorney-General's Department to request information from carriers and CSPs to monitor their compliance with the security obligation, and expands the operation of existing civil enforcement mechanisms in the Telecommunications Act to address noncompliance with the obligations set out in the bill. Further, the bill seeks to strengthen existing arrangements, including information sharing between government and industry.
On the topic of information sharing, I would like to offer a metaphor which can hopefully add to how we think about risks to telecommunications infrastructure. On the topic of nuclear reactors, The Economist once observed that safety was not a technological given; rather, it was an operational achievement. That is, we cannot guarantee a given technology is absolutely safe. Instead, we should strive to implement the best systems, processes and controls in order to make something as safe as it can be. This example reminds us there is no such thing as technological determinism. Safety and security are and will remain an operational achievement. We need to keep refreshing our tools and frameworks whilst remaining acutely aware of this reality.
This applies to the security of telecommunications networks, which brings me to the importance of enhanced information sharing between government and industry. Network security is core business for large telecommunications companies and they devote considerable resources because it is in their interests and, frankly it's what the market expects, particularly of the larger providers. As Senator McAllister has noted in the Senate during the PJCIS inquiry, industry stakeholders raised concerns that the bill did not place an obligation on the government to proactively brief industry about possible threats and attacks. Stakeholders argued that it would be challenging for industry to notify the government about possible vulnerabilities in their networks or infrastructure when industry may not be aware of a specific threat or risk information. The PJCIS recommended that the Attorney-General's Department work collaboratively with industry to further develop this and to ensure effective and regular information sharing—in particular, sharing such threat information with industry.
I strongly endorse this approach and consider it in the common interest of security agencies and industry to ensure there is effective and regular information sharing. It is essential that all parties work together to ensure that professionals have access to relevant and timely information to mitigate threats where necessary. The safety of telecommunications networks is a common endeavour. We are all in this together. Labor have worked consistently with the government to ensure Australian security agencies have the powers they need to keep citizens safe, and we are pleased the government has accepted the 12 recommendations of the PJCIS.
I thank all honourable members who have contributed to this debate—the members for Bass, Lyons, Chifley, Kingsford Smith and Greenway. In particular, I thank the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which made important observations and contributions that have resulted in recommendations that the government has implemented through government amendments.
Since 2014, the coalition government has led the most significant program of national security legislation reform in a generation. This bill, the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017, is now the ninth tranche of significant national security legislation this government has introduced in the past three years. This bill is a critically important piece of national security architecture. Telecommunications networks form part of Australia's critical infrastructure and also support other critical sectors such as health, finance, transport, water and power. The existing framework for managing risks to telecommunications networks is inadequate. It relies on voluntary cooperation and goodwill, which is not sufficient given the nature of the risks to national security.
The bill will amend the Telecommunications Act 1997 to place an obligation on all carriage service providers and carriage service intermediaries to do their best to protect telecommunications networks and facilities from unauthorised interference and unauthorised access. This obligation will be supported by a new notification requirement to encourage early engagement to allow risks to be assessed and mitigated. In line with the risk based nature of these reforms, the notification regime includes an exemptions process. This will reduce the regulatory burden on some companies and ensure that the resources of security agencies are targeted.
Following introduction of the bill on 9 November 2016, the Attorney-General referred it to the committee for inquiry. The committee recognised that protecting telecommunications infrastructure requires a joint partnership between government and industry. The recommendations of the committee provide greater clarity and certainty for industry, encourage information sharing and enhance the transparency of the regime's operation. In addition to the committee's inquiries, these reforms have been the subject of extensive industry consultation since 2012. A number of changes were made to improve the operation of the proposed legislation in response to this feedback, including providing additional safeguards to govern the use of the proposed regulatory powers and clarifying the intended scope and application of requirements to be imposed on telecommunications providers. I would like to extend my thanks to those who contributed throughout the consultation process.
This bill will establish a regulatory framework to better manage national security risks of espionage, sabotage and foreign interference, and better protect networks and the confidentiality of information stored on and carried across them from unauthorised interference and access. I again thank colleagues from all sides of the House for recognising the need for these important reforms. The reforms will ensure our legislative framework is more effective and better targeted to the current national security threat. The bill will ensure that the Australian public can continue to rely on telecommunications networks to store and transmit their data securely, while allowing the industry the necessary flexibility to remain innovative.
The question is that the bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:21