I present the 17th report of the Petitions Committee for the 45th Parliament.
Ministerial responses to petitions previously presented to the House have been received as follows:
Last week was particularly busy for the Petitions Committee, with the receipt of a record number of paper petitions for this parliament. All 40 petitions on this report are paper petitions, 31 of which are part of a nationally-coordinated electorate-based campaign.
Petitioning the parliament is an age-old democratic tradition, and, while paper petitioning is the original and well-used format, I can assure you, Mr Speaker, that e-petitions remain a popular format for submitting petitions. At last count we were up to 397 e-petitions and 160 paper petitions for this parliament. As a comparison, recent parliaments have only received between 100 and 200 and we are only a year into the 45th Parliament.
E-petitioning provides electronic options, and members of the public continue to embrace this new style of petitioning. As part of the committee's inquiry into e-petitions last week, the committee took evidence from the ACT Legislative Assembly about their e-petition system. It was interesting to note that the ACT Legislative Assembly informed the committee that it has also noted a marked increase in petitions, both electronic and paper. It's heartening to hear positive feedback about how people are finding it easier to engage with parliament and have their concerns reach their elected representatives via petitions.
This week, the Petitions Committee looks forward to hearing from the Parliament of Tasmania on their e-petitioning system, as well as from representatives from the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia about how our system can meet the needs of all Australians. I'll continue to provide updates to the House on the work of the Petitions Committee and the inquiry into e-petitions.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Coal is on its way out. It's an industry in decline and almost every other leader in the world seems to get that except for our Prime Minister and for Donald Trump.
The world is rapidly moving away from dirty old coal, which is a legacy technology, and making the transition towards clean, green renewable energy.
In 2017, coal makes no sense. It doesn't stack up environmentally or economically and it is literally killing people. Not only is the pollution from coal-fired power stations making global warming worse, but chemicals like mercury and sulphur dioxide are also being spewed into our atmosphere from burning coal. In Australia, we emit mercury at double the global average, and inhaling it and other toxic chemicals carries serious health risks.
Coal doesn't even work when you need it to. During the heatwaves in New South Wales this year, Liddell Power Station was unable to perform as two of its generator units were unable to switch on due to unforeseen boiler tube leaks.
There's a reason that no-one in the private sector is building new coal-fired power stations. It doesn't stack up economically. No-one is interested in investing billions of dollars into a giant coal-fired power station that no-one is going to want to switch on in a few years. No-one is interested in sinking capital investment into an ageing technology when the cost of renewables is plummeting and getting cheaper by the day. Investing in coal is about as sensible as investing in a company that builds fax machines and typewriters.
The cost of renewables is plummeting and we live in one of the sunniest, windiest places in the world. If the government had any vision, they'd be positioning Australia to take advantage of the clean energy revolution. We would be leading the world in renewable energy technology, we'd have some of the lowest prices in the world and we'd be reducing pollution across the country.
Instead, we're being left behind. Whilst the minister waxes lyrical about the falling cost of renewables, he's failing to do what other countries are doing, which is putting in place legislated targets to increase their uptake. China is getting on with it and introducing an emissions trading scheme. While the Treasurer and the Deputy Prime Minister throw around chunks of coal in parliament, Germany has been getting up to 85 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources on sunny, windy days this year.
To ensure that we transition to a nation that is powered by renewables, we need to do two things at once. One is rapidly introduce clean, cheap, reliable renewable energy into the system, and the second is to conduct an orderly retirement of coal-fired power stations—renewables in, coal out, and a legislated program to do it.
But that hasn't stopped this government from peddling their dangerous obsession with coal, and so now the parliament has to stop them.
The conservatives in this place only live and die by the market when it suits them. Right now, around the world, people are forcing out coal and the falling cost of renewables and storage is only going to make them more competitive. But here we've had members of the government recently talking about frantically pulling on one of the only levers that are left available to them—using public money that should be going to schools and hospitals to instead fund coal. This is a truly desperate and despicable step by a Prime Minister that's doing anything he can to hang onto power.
The government has been prosecuting the case hard to keep the decrepit old clunker Liddell Power Station open, for example. That joint—having been out to Bayswater and Liddell and visited the sites as part of visiting coal-fired power station communities around Australia this year, can I say that place is being held together by spit and sticky tape. Liddell is falling apart, and its current owners, AGL, don't want to spend the money on keeping it open. So the government is still, despite its recent announcement last week, bringing public pressure to bear to say, 'Keep it open,' and is leaving the door open to tipping in public money to make sure that the Liddell coal-fired power station stays open.
It should be illegal and unlawful to use public money in this way—public money that could be going to schools and hospitals and should be going there; public money that should be spent on science and research; public money that should be spent on reducing inequality in this country and ensuring that everyone has access to a high-quality education; public money that should be spent securing our renewable energy future; and public money that should be used in the public interest. If the government is wanting to use public money to burn our planet and make climate change worse, that should be illegal. We have to stop them.
The b ill
So the Greens bill that I introduce today, the Coal-Fired Power Funding Prohibition Bill 2017, prohibits:
However, this bill does ensure that the government can use public money to transition affected workers into new industry and use public money to manage the closure of a coal-fired power station.
Let's be very clear about this. Coal kills, whether it's through the toxic pollutants it spews into the atmosphere that affect the air we breathe, or the global warming that it accelerates that will destroy our way of life. We need to stop burning coal. And already, industry and investment are moving away from coal. No major financial institution in Australia wants to finance the Adani coal megamine and no-one in the private sector is interested in building new coal-fired power stations. But this government and the Trumps on the backbench that control it are resisting and opposing what the markets that they claim to worship are telling them, what the science is telling them, what the private sector is telling them, what public opinion is telling them and, most importantly, what the world is telling them. In their blind, dangerous resistance they are turning to the only option they have left: a culture war, using coal as a proxy for their failing grip on public opinion.
They're using their leverage over Malcolm Turnbull to condemn our future generations, and the Greens are willing to stand in the way.
Why? Because you can't count on the Labor opposition to do it. Labor and Liberals are wedded to each other and wedded to coal. The Labor Party tries to talk the talk on renewables and a clean energy target, but when the Greens introduce a motion into this place and into the Senate to rule out any attempts to extend the life of Liddell and to develop a plan for the orderly transition away from coal, where does Labor vote? Labor votes with the government, because when push comes to shove the Labor opposition is still beholden to the fossil fuel companies. Labor is still in the pocket of coal. But, worse still, the revolving door between big interests isn't just for the coalition, but the Labor Party as well. According to an article published in The Conversation on 22 June last year, former ministers Martin Ferguson and Craig Emerson either took up management jobs with mining and energy companies and associations or worked as consultants for them. Earlier this year, The Australian revealed that Cameron Milner, who has worked for the Premier of Queensland and in the Leader of the Opposition's office, was volunteering with the ALP while keeping his day job as a director and registered lobbyist at Next Level Strategic Services (NLSS), which counts amongst its clients Indian miner Adani.
Plan
But the Greens have a plan. We've got a plan to extend the Renewable Energy Target, which—despite what others like the member for Warringah, former Prime Minister Abbott is saying—is working, a plan to legislate a national storage target to run Australia on 100 per cent renewable energy, a plan to transition workers from coal communities into the jobs of the future and a plan to re-regulate electricity prices to bring down costs and provide much-needed relief for households around this country. We've laid out this plan and we're confident that, if it was implemented, we could stabilise the grid, restore investment confidence and end the investment strike on renewables, bring down pollution, bring down prices and even meet our paltry Paris obligations.
It is ideology and weakness, from the old parties, that is standing in the way of the energy revolution. Instead, what we are served up from this government is fear-mongering that falsely blames blackouts on renewables. It is juvenile name-calling in the chamber and it's a government that, instead of taking real action to bring down prices, forces energy retailers to write letters to customers telling them just exactly how much they're being ripped off.
Well, enough is enough.
I urge the opposition Labor Party and my colleagues right across the spectrum in this parliament to find the courage to support this bill so that we can take one important step forward, when the government insists on going backwards. Our precious public money should not be used to prop up clunky and dirty coal-fired power stations. There are better uses for it. If the government doesn't understand that, and if members of the government still want to talk about using public money to build new coal-fired power stations or extend their life, then this parliament needs to make sure we do not waste our money on building coal-fired power stations ever again. I commend this bill to the House.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
We need a national anticorruption watchdog, we need a national ICAC, and this bill will deliver it. In recent weeks and months media and, it seems, the whole country have done what they periodically do, which is put a lot of attention on allegations on members of this place. And, unfortunately, recent allegations that we have seen, for example, of a former minister, who is alleged to have taken up a new job while they were sitting in parliament and not disclosed it and then gone out and lobbied against a government bill, including allegedly while they were in this place, are exactly the kinds of allegations that surface from time to time, and people want to know they are being taken seriously. That's why I and the Greens believe that we need a National Integrity Commission to be a national anticorruption watchdog or a national ICAC that is able to hold members of this place to account. This bill could be a silver lining out of the ongoing saga over politicians and public servants' behaviour. We could see a long-lasting reform of our laws to deal with corruption and integrity. This bill creates a national commission through the establishment of the National Office of Integrity Commissioner comprising three elements: the National Integrity Commission, the existing Australian Commission for Law Enforcement and Integrity (ACLEI) and the new office of the Independent Parliamentary Advisor.
The National Integrity Commission in this bill would be established as an independent statutory agency. The bill provides in a comprehensive legislative framework a critical addition to the national integrity system through the establishment of a National Integrity Commission to enable the investigation and prevention of misconduct and corruption in all Commonwealth departments, agencies and by federal parliamentarians and their staff.
The bill brings together and co-locates this function with the independent oversight functions of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commission for the investigation and prevention of corruption in the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crimes Commission thus creating an integrated federal approach to misconduct and corruption in the parliament and Public Service.
It beggars belief that in this country there is no national anticorruption agency with the powers or jurisdiction to investigate claims of misconduct and corruption across the federal parliament or Commonwealth agencies. People have seen in New South Wales, in particular, that when you have an anticorruption watchdog that is able to investigate all sides of parliament without fear or favour, when it lifts up every rock and is able to open doors and look at places that politicians don't want it to look, it often finds some very disturbing things; so disturbing, in fact, that members of both the Labor and Liberal Parties have found themselves prosecuted as a result of that investigation and convicted in many instances. The question is: if that is what is happening at the New South Wales level, can we really stand up here with hand-on-heart and say, 'Oh, well, it's not happening at federal level; that might be just that happening in New South Wales but it can't possibly be happening federally.' And is it the case some have said, 'There's no case for a federal anticorruption watchdog because there haven't yet been any allegations raised against members of this place.' Or is it the other way around? Is the reason we don't hear about claims of misconduct or corruption at a federal level precisely because there isn't a national watchdog that is able to investigate and hold people at the Commonwealth level to account?
Public trust in parliament and in our institutions is at an all-time low. One of the things that we have got to do in this place is restore the public's faith in the work that we are doing, and one of the best ways of doing that would be to ensure that there is a federal anticorruption watchdog that can hold every one of us to account and that can hold everyone at the federal level, at the highest levels of our federal bureaucracy, to account as well. If the public knew there was someone looking over our shoulders, then they might have a good deal more confidence in us as an institution. There is no argument that we can give to people when we go out and talk to people, as members of this place do—at our stalls, talking on the phones, meeting them on the street—when people say, 'Why is there an anticorruption commission at the state level but not at the federal level?'. There is no good answer to that. It is time for us to fix it. We need to reform a number of things in this place—we need to reform our donations laws; we need to stop the revolving door between politicians and big business—and this is an integral part of that.
The argument that existing agencies and mechanisms are sufficient or appropriate for fighting graft ignores the important role of prevention, the promotion of ethical conduct and the integration of integrity systems across federal and state jurisdictions. Prior to the establishment of the Commonwealth Law Enforcement Integrity Commission in 2006, there were calls for its role to be extended beyond investigating and preventing corruption in federal law enforcement agencies. At the time, those calls were not heeded, but this bill addresses that oversight. This bill will operate in a federal jurisdiction and it won't replace or override state legislation. It provides for the ACT and Northern Territory to contract the National Integrity Commissioner to operate in respect of their territories in the same way that the Commonwealth Ombudsman acts as the ACT ombudsman. And the national commission established by this bill will complement the state based anticorruption commissions.
The need to address corruption is evident in the fact that all Australian states have established or committed to establishing anticorruption bodies with various powers and jurisdictions. Importantly, they all include the power to investigate the activities of politicians. The evidence of the powerful and effective work of the state based anticorruption bodies reinforces the need for a similar mechanism at the federal level of Australian politics. This bill states what we mean by 'corrupt conduct' so that people know what it is and can be held to account for it. It is defined as including any conduct that adversely affects the honest or impartial exercise of official functions by the Parliament, a Commonwealth agency, any public official or any group or body of public officials; or involves the dishonest exercise of functions by a public official; or involves a breach of public trust by a public official or perverts the course of justice; or involves the misuse of information or material by a public official. It lists all kinds of corrupt conduct, such as blackmail, bribery and fraud, for the purpose of adversely affecting the exercise of functions by parliament, a Commonwealth agency or public officials, and provides for retrospectivity and that the National Integrity Commissioner can investigate corrupt conduct that occurred before the commencement of the bill, before a person became a public official or outside of Australia.
We don't bring this bill here because we say that everyone in this case should be presumed to be corrupt. No, that is not the case. And that is the same with our public servants. We are lucky in Australia to be characterised by, I believe, overwhelmingly honest public servants and people who come into federal politics with the best of intentions. But, if there's wrongdoing at the state level, it stands to reason that there's a good chance of wrongdoing at the federal level as well. Yes, it might be by a minority, but it doesn't matter that it's by a minority. It doesn't matter how many people do it; even one instance of doing it is wrong. We have tried through parliamentary committees to pursue that kind of wrongdoing where it's been alleged before—when it was alleged in the Reserve Bank of Australia's subsidiaries, for example. What we know is that it's very, very difficult through parliamentary committees to hold levels of the federal government, the federal parliament and the federal Public Service to account, and that's why we need a well-resourced anticorruption watchdog with teeth, and that's what this bill will provide.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
The question is that this bill be now read a second time. The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that 25 November 2017 is White Ribbon Day (WRD), the United Nations' symbol of the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women;
(2) recognises that WRD aims to prevent violence against women by increasing public awareness and challenging attitudes and behaviours that allow violence to continue;
(3) encourages all Australian men to join the 'My Oath Campaign' and take the oath: 'I swear never to commit, excuse or remain silent about violence against women';
(4) understands that:
(a) one in three women have experienced physical and/or sexual violence perpetrated by someone known to them;
(b) each week approximately one woman is killed by a current or former partner; and
(c) domestic and family violence is the principle cause of homelessness for women and their children;
(5) acknowledges the high economic cost of violence against women, which is estimated to cost the Australian economy $21.7 billion a year; and
(6) asks all Members to show their support for the principles of WRD by taking the oath and wearing a white ribbon or wristband on the day.
I have long considered violence against women, in particular domestic violence, to be one of the most serious and distressing issues in our community. The date 25 November marks White Ribbon Day, the day declared by the United Nations as the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. By now, we should all be familiar with the statistics. One in three women are likely to experience physical or sexual violence in their lifetime and one woman is murdered each week by a current or former partner.
Although there's been a profound transformation in public awareness of domestic violence and the level of discourse, it remains a longstanding and complex issue. Domestic violence continues to remain one of the most disturbing issues in our country today. More than 50 per cent of all assaults reported to local police in my electorate are domestic violence related and 60 per cent of boys growing up in an abusive household are likely to become abusers themselves. One thing I find even more confronting is that 50 per cent of girls growing up in such an environment are likely to take an abuser for a lifetime partner, and then the cycle goes on; it perpetuates. Domestic violence remains the leading cause of homelessness amongst women. Added to this are the far-reaching personal and social ramifications for our community. The economic cost of domestic violence is currently estimated at $21.7 billion a year. These statistics make it pretty clear that domestic violence is not an area about which we can afford to put our heads in the sand and say, 'It's just a matter for the authorities.' This is a matter for our communities. We must work together to develop and integrate greater coordination of multi-agency approaches and responses to this issue. However, for me it's a personal issue. As a husband, a father of a daughter and a very proud father of six granddaughters, I am petrified at the thought that, statistically, one of these women who mean more than life to me is likely to become a victim of violence.
Violence against women is real and it's happening in our neighbourhoods, in our suburbs and in our families. It involves women, no matter how successful, strong or resilient they are and no matter what their ethnic or religious backgrounds are. And most of the victims, through fear of reprisal or harm to their children, do not seek help. The number of unreported cases of domestic violence against women is absolutely staggering. If we are to work towards eradicating domestic violence, we must give women the confidence they need to report these crimes and to engage with our police. We need more of our men to stand up and say that violence against women is not acceptable. We need more men promoting and educating the community about violence against women. The simple fact is we do need more real men. It's not right that women live in fear, not knowing when their partner might once again lash out. And today is also a time we should remember those women who have lost their lives through domestic violence and offer our prayers for them and their grieving families.
It's not enough to give speeches as we approach White Ribbon Day. It is imperative we as a community take responsibility and look out for our families, our friends, our workmates and our neighbours. There are a number of organisations in my community working hard to spread the message of violence against women. I would particularly like to acknowledge Karen Willis from Rape and Domestic Violence Services Australia as well as Mary Mullens from Bonnie Support Services.
I will be taking part in a White Ribbon Campaign along with many members here and would like to acknowledge Detective Chief Inspector Darren Newman and his team at Cabramatta Local Area Command for hosting a very significant White Ribbon Day event in a couple weeks' time. As a White Ribbon ambassador, I urge all men to take the oath never to commit, excuse or remain silent about violence against women. Take the oath but live by the pledge. We must break this cycle of violence.
Is the motion seconded?
I'm delighted to second this motion. I rise to support this motion on White Ribbon Day and I commend the member for Fowler for bringing this issue before the House. White Ribbon Day occurs on the United Nations International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. It acknowledges the work of White Ribbon Australia and so many other organisations across the country who work not just on one day but 365 days a year.
While it is important that this parliament support White Ribbon Day, it is of concern to know that such a cause still requires so much attention in Australia in 2017. Despite the unprecedented amount of support from government and so many organisations in the community, we are still inundated with stories that continue to shock us all.
Thirty-five-year-old Blair Dalton was strangled in her Ettalong home, which she shared with her young children. Blair Dalton succumbed to her injuries and died in hospital. A 34-year-old woman in Campsie was left unrecognisable from critical head injuries sustained after allegedly being attacked by her partner with a hammer and a carving knife. A 30-year-old woman in Whalan was allegedly stabbed by a man who was in contravention of an apprehended violence order. Emergency services staff were unable to save her, and she died at the scene. All three of these incidents occurred in the space of one horrific week in New South Wales during September this year.
Sadly, these incidents are not isolated. They are the very real human tragedies and faces of alarming statistics that we simply cannot ignore. One in three women have experienced physical or sexual violence perpetrated by someone known to them. This is often a person who is currently or was formerly in a position of trust such as a spouse or partner. One in four children are exposed to domestic violence in the home. On average in Australia one woman each week is killed by a current or former partner. I find this statistic staggering. And we know there are still so many incidents left unreported.
Domestic violence is a scourge on our society. It does not discriminate by geography, affluence or education. Critical to the eradication of the problem is ownership of the issue. Government can and should provide leadership, but in the end it requires each and every one of us as individuals and communities not to turn a blind eye when we believe domestic violence or abuse might be occurring. And, yes, it requires a commitment from all people and men in particular to stand up and condemn violence against women.
The breadth of the problem gives rise to the need for victim support services across the country in towns big and small. I rose to speak on this matter a year ago and was pleased that our government had just implemented a $100 million domestic violence strategy which was already making inroads. Recently the government announced the expansion of a very worthwhile pilot program to deliver targeted services to women through specialist domestic violence units. In my own electorate we already see a growing sense of ownership of this issue. The work of Mary's House, a relatively new women's refuge, has been greatly utilised and appreciated. It joins an existing refuge in the Lane Cove area which has done so much with limited space and means.
I want to thank the volunteers and staff who dedicate their time to ensuring the safety of women and their children seeking shelter and support in our area. Having worked with both organisations, I have just been so impressed by the efforts of so many volunteers to raise funds to provide the critical needs of those services, and that support has extended to local businesses and other community organisations who have been prepared to get involved.
I'm hopeful that the government will be able to lend some financial support to both these services through the current round of the Stronger Communities Program. Their applications have my strong support. Yet I also know that the services for such demand are still inadequate on the North Shore of Sydney. Much more needs to be done to support women and their children in need of an immediate sanctuary and support in our area.
I also want to acknowledge the work of our Defence forces. Locally, HMAS Penguin has organised a fun run on behalf of Defence in which all the competitors will take the oath:
… never to commit, excuse or remain silent about violence against women.
I applaud those schools in my electorate which have also taken action to promote the cause of White Ribbon Day and to instil in their students that there is no excuse for violence against women, that there is no age too young to call it out and that this cause is one for which we must all accept responsibility.
White Ribbon Day is a timely reminder for us all to take responsibility for the violence we see occurring around us. It asks us to act rather than to ignore, and to see it for the crime upon us all that it is, and not as merely a private matter. Together, we must bring about the end of violence against women.
I'm pleased to support this motion put forward by my good friend the member for Fowler. And, like him, I agree that domestic and family violence are the scourge of our time. It is a disgrace that, on average, one woman a week is killed by a partner or a former partner in our nation; it is a disgrace that one in four Australian women has experienced physical or sexual violence by an intimate partner; and it is a disgrace children are being exposed to this violence, with more than half of the women who experience violence having children in their care.
While we talk about violence against women, I want to stress that all violence is wrong. But the evidence is undeniable that family violence is gendered. Both women and men are more likely to experience violence at the hands of men: 95 per cent of all violence is reported to be perpetrated by men. While men are more likely to experience violence from other men in public places, women are more likely to experience violence from men they know—and most often in their own home, the very place where they should feel safest. While, statistically, family violence is a gendered problem, the solution must be driven by everyone. It is especially important that men speak out against family violence and that men—all men—are part of the solution.
The member for Fowler's motion recognises White Ribbon Day, which will be held on 25 November. White Ribbon Day was initiated in Canada in 1991 by a group of men in Toronto. Tragically, it was formed in reaction to a horrible episode of violence against 14 female university students. The men wanted to raise awareness of violence against women and to encourage men and boys to be a part of the solution. White Ribbon Day is now recognised in over 57 countries around the world. White Ribbon Australia strives to encourage Australian men to be a part of the solution, to make the safety of Australian women an issue for Australian men too.
I want to stress that only some men resort to violence. Most men, most gentlemen, would agree that violence against women is never acceptable. But in order to change the culture that allows some to think it is acceptable, we need all men to speak out when they see any violence against women. We need all men to speak out when they see women being disrespected. We need all men to speak out when they see women not being treated equally.
We know that the predominant cause of violence against women is gender inequality. Readjusting the balance between men and women in power, resources and opportunity will only be accomplished when all genders are driven by that same objective. Then it starts out calling out the little things. It's those excuses for bad behaviour that we accept: 'Boys will be boys', or, 'He was just being a lad.' It's the patronising comments: a male tradie saying to a capable woman, 'You better check that with your husband.' It's the sexist comments: the football coach saying, 'Don't be a girl.' It's the gender pay gap that sees women doing the same job as men but earning on average 16 per cent less pay. This is gender inequality and it should be called out every time, even if it is uncomfortable. A brief moment of feeling uncomfortable is nothing compared to the suffering of women who are beaten black and blue—or worse, murdered by their violent partner.
It is up to everyone, but especially men, like me, to challenge gender inequality every day, wherever we see it and wherever we hear it. We need to change the conversation so that men are part of the solution, not the cause. Until we have gender equality we will not eliminate violence against women, and until we have eliminated violence against women we need to make sure that women experiencing family violence are given the support that they need from services like the Women's Legal Service Queensland, which is actually based in my electorate of Moreton.
This year's White Ribbon 'my oath' campaign is asking men to take an oath. The oath is: I swear never to commit, excuse or remain silent about violence against women. I will be taking the oath and I encourage every Australian man to do the same. Whether you're a politician, a bus driver, a lawyer, a plumber, a teacher, an accountant or a baker, whether you live in Sydney, Brisbane, St George or Sunnybank, every man has the power to stop violence against women. Each time we don't speak out we are giving permission for violence against women to continue and for harm to flow on to children too often. Each time we don't speak out we are empowering the abuser. Each time we don't speak out we are failing every woman and, ultimately, every man.
I swear never to commit, excuse or remain silent about violence against women. This is my oath. In 2014 I took this oath when I became a White Ribbon ambassador, as part of my strong belief that women should live in safety and free from all forms of violence. For most of us it comes as the natural way of things, and presents a personal challenge to us when others either do not share our views or, maybe without specific intent—in fits of personal rage or drug induced detachment—breach the trust between a man and woman in relationships.
Women are not goods and chattels. They are not, or should not be, subservient to men and, though on average they have less physical strength than men, there is no circumstance where the exercise of physical dominance can be acceptable. Sadly and alarmingly, violence against women continues to be one of the most prevalent human rights abuses in Australia and around the world. As a White Ribbon ambassador I believe all men must act to prevent domestic violence and all violence against women. In recognition of White Ribbon Day, on 25 November, I want to speak out in defence of women experiencing violence. Being an ambassador means taking an active stand against any form of violence committed against women, and those who take this oath make a promise to live by the oath not to commit, excuse or remain silent about this issue.
Statistics can be very confronting. They are in this case, depicting an appalling story of abuse of women and children by men. It is true, I have come into contact with some men who have been victims of abuse and violence committed by their female partners, and that is no more acceptable than the violence committed against women. But the numbers overwhelmingly demonstrate that the predominance of violence is committed by men against women—in fact, some are quoted in the wording of this motion:
(a) one in three women have experienced physical and/or sexual violence perpetrated by someone known to them;
(b) each week approximately one woman is killed by a current or former partner; and
(c) domestic and family violence is the principle cause of homelessness for women and their children;
As men I and my fellow males, particularly those of us in positions of authority in our communities, must confront those statistics. We must publicly stand against violence and abuse. Violence comes in many forms. Emotional violence, where men control finances, isolate women from family and friends, humiliate, demean and belittle, make threats against children or threaten women with injury or death, can cause long-term emotional damage.
Anecdotal evidence shows us the vast majority of violence against women goes unreported, and its prevalence has been unbroken and has intensified through the decades. It is an intergenerational issue and the damage is long-term. Victims are left with shame, fear, resignation and powerlessness for change. Women blame themselves for not being perfect, for not trying hard enough, for not living up to what their partner demands. This is an appalling state of affairs. We must instil in our young women and girls self-worth and the complete and utter intolerance of any kind of violence. We must instil in our young men and boys respect for women.
The federal government's domestic violence campaign launched last year is part of a $100 million women's safety package targeting how parents raise young boys. Violence against women starts with disrespect. The excuses we make allow it to grow. We must support women who have suffered violence. If someone who has been suffering from domestic violence wants to make a permanent separation, they need support from family and friends and from organisations that offer safe refuge for abused women and children and that specialise in aiding victims of domestic violence. Women's stories are often unheard, but the long-term damage to them and their families is insidious. I encourage males using violence in their relationship to seek professional help and to use their networks to promote discussion and social change. Hurt people seem to hurt people. But we can do better. We need to do better. The wellbeing of both our sons and daughters is at stake.
I'd like to thank the member for Fowler for his very committed response today regarding this issue. And I want to place on record today my very strong support for this motion of the member for Fowler on behalf of the community groups, advocates and people I have met in my short time that I have been a member of parliament, who are doing everything they can to stamp out, remove and abolish domestic and family violence. I have read the reports, I have heard the speeches and I have listened to the victims. One in three women have experienced physical violence since the age of 15 and one woman dies at the hands of a current or former partner every week in this nation. Every year, that's around 300,000 women who are experiencing domestic and family violence.
Like every member of this House, I am really proud to be a strong supporter of the White Ribbon Campaign, not only as a representative in this place but also as a community representative. We know White Ribbon's aim is to generate understanding of domestic violence. It acknowledges men speaking to men about stopping violence against women because, as we know, that's the most powerful catalyst for change. Through education, preventive programs, community partnerships and bringing people together, we will see a reduction in these horrific statistics.
I want to place on record again today my sincere and genuine thanks for an event that I attended in my local community. I'm so proud to represent schools like Glenala State High School, which hosted its first domestic violence symposium, simply entitled 'Inala says no'. This campaign event brought together community representatives, parents, students, teachers and the Queensland Police Service. The event served as a timely reminder of this important issue and it really provided important knowledge, support and opportunity for the school community to collaborate on solutions. We heard from speakers like: Professor Ross Young; a school based police officer, Senior Sergeant Paul Ennis; and the Glenala State High School captains, wonderful student leaders in our community, Jonathon Bryan and Sheba Ooms. The school also unveiled two new murals created by the students to highlight the issue, and I want to thank my local newspaper, the Southwest News, for highlighting this wonderful initiative. These murals were made from 262 individual tiles painted by the students. They represented the shared advocacy and solution of the local community on the day.
While sadly domestic and family violence remains a part of many Australian communities, I'm immensely proud to see schools like Glenala State High School in my electorate taking a lead role. I want to publicly thank the school principal, Ms Anne Lawson, all the teachers, support staff and particularly the students who really stepped up to show what it means to say no to domestic and family violence.
One of the other significant community events that I'm proud to support—I went along to it last year and it will be held again—was organised by a wonderful community advocate, Lome Swan, of Anglicare in the Oxley electorate. People like Bevan Doyle, Bruce Manu Sione, my good friend Uncle Albert Holt, Eddie from Kiwi Daddys and Jeffrey Mwanza, who was a White Ribbon ambassador for 2009 and has been a dedicated social worker in our community, will come together again to celebrate and to recognise the important White Ribbon event on Saturday, 25 November, at a community breakfast.
These events being held right across the country shine a spotlight on the scourge which is domestic and family violence. It is not just the community works I want to acknowledge; I want to acknowledge and thank members of workplaces which are now gathering and recognising White Ribbon events. Over the years, I've attended a number of business sites and I want to recognise large organisations like Capral Aluminium which, alongside the Australian Workers' Union, have taken a key leadership role on worksites right across the country to highlight the issue of domestic and family violence, to stamp this issue out and to make it clear—whether it be in the community sector or at worksites—that, when it comes to domestic and family violence, our community says no.
I thank the member for Fowler for moving this critical motion today. Every year we stand up at this time to recognise White Ribbon Day and to decry violence against women. I look forward to a day when this speech is no longer an annual event. But news from across the globe shows us that this scourge is not dissipating. Of course, it is good that the despicable acts of Harvey Weinstein can finally come to light and lead to the ruin of his empire, but we cannot overlook the thousands of daily acts of unreported domestic violence across our country. That is why White Ribbon Day is so important.
I am proud to say that I am a White Ribbon ambassador and have been for many years. It is an honour and a responsibility, and I take it very seriously. It requires me to pledge never to commit, condone or remain silent about violence against women—a vital pledge that we all should take.
The following shocking statistics help demonstrate the prevalence and severity of violence against women. On average, at least one woman a week is killed by a partner or former partner in Australia. One in three Australian women has experienced physical violence at some time since the age of 15, and one in four Australian women has experienced physical or sexual violence by an intimate partner. One in four Australian women has experienced emotional abuse by a current or former partner. Violence against women is not limited to the home or intimate relationships. Every year in Australia over 300,000 women experience violence, often sexual violence, from someone other than their partner. We must remember that it's not just physical violence that matters. Eight out of 10 women aged between 18 and 24 were harassed on the street in the past year.
These figures are as terrifying as they are appalling. So, as a government, we must be proactive in trying to turn this around. That is why in the last budget the government committed an additional $39 million over the next three years to community legal centres, with it to be prioritised for family law and domestic violence matters. We're also providing $3.4 million over two years to expand specialist domestic violence units so they can provide essential trauma and services to women who are experiencing or are at risk of domestic or family violence.
Housing is also important in addressing the issue of domestic violence. Women who have no alternative home are often forced onto the street or, worse, forced to remain with their abusive partner. So the government has announced a new Housing and Homelessness Agreement that continues to prioritise people affected by violence and family violence. The government will provide an additional $375.3 million over the next three years, from 2018-2019, to fund ongoing homelessness support services, with funding to be matched by state and territory governments.
While this funding is vital, it is directed at helping women who have already been abused. But in this, as in all things, prevention is better than cure. This is why, in partnership with the states and territories, the government has launched a $30 million national campaign to change young men's attitudes towards women and violence. While in its early days, the message is getting out there, with almost 42 million online views of the TV commercials, and the campaign website has been viewed over 546,000 times. This campaign is vital. We urgently need to get the message across to the men and boys of Australia.
As I have said in the past, I firmly believe that men are not naturally violent. Violent and abusive behaviours are learned. Sadly, for some, violence is a way of expressing masculinity. Or sometimes it simply comes from a complete lack of respect for women. All men must develop respectful relationships with women and we must be an example to each other. We must treat women with respect and as equals. Words can damage. We must consider our language and our actions and how they can be interpreted. Attitudes must change. Violence against a partner is never excusable. No matter how tense relationships may get, violence is never the answer. And victims of abuse must know that it is never their fault. I say to all men that the most masculine, the most manly thing you can do, is to always respect your partner. White Ribbon Day marks the day to make these statements, but that respect must be expressed every day of the year.
White Ribbon Day is held each year on 25 November to coincide with the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. And in marking White Ribbon Day it is important to note the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women because that really goes to the heart of what is driving so much of the public response to White Ribbon Day—genuine concern about the prevalence of family violence in our country.
I have listened to some of the other speakers in this debate, and I note that they have been talking about the importance of men treating women with respect and as equals. It's important to make those comments because it's not just a lack of respect that is the source of family violence and domestic violence; it is gender inequality. That's what the research says, that's what the work that has been done in relation to preventing family violence says—that the heart of family violence is gender inequality. Therefore, when we look at White Ribbon Day, it is important to acknowledge that men have a role, as the predominant perpetrators of family and domestic violence, in ending family and domestic violence. That's why men's based organisations like White Ribbon and men's behavioural change programs are important in the struggle to reduce and ultimately eliminate violence against women. And that means we require recognition from this place that gender inequality is something that requires concentrated effort to ameliorate and ultimately end.
You can't stop domestic violence without dealing with gender inequality, and that is why policies and programs aimed at increasing and enhancing the status of women remain so important in discussing domestic and family violence. When the other speakers in this debate quite rightly talk about respect for women, they need to acknowledge that that respect has to come from an acceptance and acknowledgement that women and men are equal. It's not enough to treat women as equal as a form of discretion; you have to genuinely believe that women are equal to men in order to have meaningful action in relation to family and domestic violence.
I commend White Ribbon for the work that it does to engage with men in corporate Australia, in sporting organisations and elsewhere to raise awareness in respect of family violence and the unacceptability of using family violence and of committing violent acts against women and children. I think the work they're doing has been recognised as being incredibly important, and it's part of a much broader movement across our nation to respond to family violence. Of course, government has an important role to play in reducing and ultimately eliminating family violence and domestic violence.
It's worth noting that this month is Sexual Violence Awareness Month—and, of course, sexual violence and domestic violence do tend to go hand in hand. As the previous speaker mentioned, so many of us have been touched by the scandal that's currently enveloping Hollywood in relation to sexual harassment and sexual assault by people with power in that particular industry and area. So many of us have been seeing stories crop up in our Facebook posts from friends who have been the subject of sexual harassment and sexual assault. It's quite wearing, isn't it, Mr Deputy Speaker? It's quite grating on the soul to be constantly bombarded with the sense that every woman you know has been the subject of sexual harassment and sexual assault.
But let's take that feeling of weariness and turn it into action. Don't be sceptical about the idea that every woman you know has been the subject of sexual harassment or sexual assault. There is a great deal of prevalence. It is unsurprising to me to see how many of my friends are joining #MeToo and saying that they have been the subject of it. What also needs to happen is that the men in our lives need to talk about their role in ending sexual harassment, sexual assault and, of course, domestic violence. That comes back to the issue of equality, of understanding and believing that women are equal to men.
So much more needs to be done and said in relation to family and domestic violence. I hope that the government will ensure that domestic violence is back on the COAG agenda as soon as possible. I look forward to seeing much more work being done to respond to and reduce and ultimately eliminate family violence in Australia.
On 25 November 2017 we celebrate White Ribbon Day. It's a day when we, as men in particular, stand against violence against women. Just last week in this House, I spoke about the campaign Polished Man, which seeks to stop violence against children. So too we, as men, must do all we can to put an end to violence against women, which happens, unfortunately and sadly, most commonly in the domestic environment.
I should acknowledge that not all domestic violence occurs where men are the perpetrators. It sometimes happens where the woman in a relationship commits acts of domestic violence against her male partner, and that is equally damaging to the man that's impacted. But I'll leave that for another day.
Today in my local newspaper, the Sunshine Coast Daily, there was an excellent article which dealt with the all-too-common issue of domestic violence in my home state of Queensland. According to the Sunshine Coast Daily, the Queensland Police Union has been lobbying the Queensland state government to introduce an offence under the Queensland Criminal Code of 'commit domestic violence'. Many people in this place, and perhaps those who may be listening, wouldn't know that it wasn't an offence to commit an act of domestic violence. I'll say that again: in Queensland, it's not an offence to commit an act of domestic violence. Whilst some people may be charged with assault, it is not a specific offence. This is something that the Queensland Police Union has been pressing the Queensland state government on, and it's something that I support as a sensible reform.
It is only an offence in Queensland if a person breaches a domestic violence order. Whilst offenders can be charged with assault, the Queensland Police Union says that, by introducing the offence of 'commit domestic violence', less time would be spent by police applying for domestic violence orders through the civil jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court. Mr Leavers, who is the Queensland police union president, said it took two officers an average of four hours to apply for one domestic violence order. When you look at the statistics in Queensland, which are absolutely appalling, police lodged 7,144 applications for domestic violence orders with the Sunshine Coast and Gympie courts alone between 2012-13 and 2016-17. What those stats mean is that about 28,000 hours are spent per year in domestic violence order applications. That's work done by the police that could be spent doing other things which are obviously also important for police. Mr Leavers said that the domestic violence epidemic is creating a massive increase in workload for police and is, in turn, affecting police's ability to effectively undertake their job, and that stands to reason. If they are concentrating much of their time on domestic violence breaches, then they can't be out doing other work as well. So I call on the Queensland Labor government to support the Queensland Police Union's push. It's a sensible reform and it's something they should look at immediately.
When I was overseas recently, investigating and researching mental health, it really dawned on me that in Europe—which, similar to Australia, is not immune to domestic violence—one of the key causes that impacts on mental health is domestic violence, just as homelessness is often a result of mental health issues. If we want to resolve many of our mental health issues, particularly in our women, we must address the issue of violence against women. Thank you.
I commend the member for Fowler for proposing this motion in support of White Ribbon Day, which is 25 November this year. White Ribbon Day is a day that has its genesis in the very thing it stands to prevent. On the afternoon of 6 December 1989, a student from the University of Montreal massacred 14 of his fellow female students. Such a horrific act traumatised Canada and brought the issue of violence against women to the forefront of its collective consciousness. In response, a group of men in Toronto decided to speak out and work to stop men's violence against women. In 1991, they initiated a male-led movement known as White Ribbon and the annual awareness-raising event White Ribbon Day.
Continued trauma from violence against women, the ever-increasing public awareness of the number of women and children affected by violence against them by men, and the willingness of men demanding that we all stand up against violence against women now sees White Ribbon as an international effort with actions by men and boys in over 57 countries. This year alone, 39 women have already died in Australia due to violence against them. Countless others are seriously injured both physically and mentally. Much of this violence is also directed at children, or at least done in front of them, causing lifelong psychological impacts on them as well. Indeed, in Western Australia more of it occurs in my electorate than in any other in Perth.
I'd also like to pay tribute to those women in this parliament, such as the member for Lindsay and others, who have shared their stories with the nation to bring further national prominence to the scourge of violence against women in our society. However, it shouldn't have to take this for people to know that violence against women is wrong. It is simple human decency that at least in words we try to teach and expect our children to learn from a very young age. Alas, despite all the words and rhetoric, any of us who are parents know that it's actually our actions and attitudes that make the difference.
The cyclical nature of domestic violence and violence against women is well understood. That a lack of respect for women begets violence against women is also well understood. But it is here that we have a breakdown, with not enough men willing and able to say to those that they see or know committing acts of violence that it is just not on. And so I'd like to acknowledge a group that gets little acknowledgment in this place, in fact gets quite the opposite most weeks: the CFMEU in Western Australia. Under the leadership of Mick Buchan and Joe McDonald, the WA CFMEU have been leaders in the Labor Party and the union movement in supporting paid domestic violence leave, campaigning against domestic violence, providing monetary and other support to women's refuges around WA, and supporting White Ribbon.
Despite what those opposite might think and say, unions do have a very positive role to play in social leadership in this country. In a time of declining union membership, when the union for industries are as male heavy as construction and mining, the CFMEU stands up and says to its members that violence against women is not acceptable. And not only does it stand against it but it also fundraises to support the refuges that support those victims of domestic violence. That is leadership; it is leadership by action. It's the leadership that makes us on this side of the chamber proud to be union, just as the actions of paid domestic violence leave across the union movement make us proud. While we can and should talk about such things in this place, the time for talking really should be over. The government should pull its finger out on paid domestic violence leave.
I would also like the government to consider a White-Ribbon-specific initiative. The White Ribbon Australia Workplace Accreditation Program recognises workplaces that are taking active steps to stop violence against women, accrediting them as White Ribbon workplaces. The program builds on existing gender equality and diversity initiatives, providing the tools to strengthen a culture of respect and gender equality at all levels of an organisation. The program supports organisations to respond to and prevent violence against women, whether it occurs inside or outside an organisation, through supporting women experiencing violence, holding perpetrators to account, supporting all employees to challenge inappropriate behaviour and strengthening gender equality within the broader community. Current White Ribbon accredited workplaces include the Australian Army, the Royal Australian Navy, the RAAF, a number of New South Wales, Queensland, South Australian, Tasmanian and Western Australian government departments, the NRL, Virgin Australia, and many, many others. I strongly urge the government and the presiding officers of this parliament to consider accreditation under the program.
There is one final piece of talking that is very important and it is this oath that, as a decent human being, I am happy to make and make often: I will stand up, speak out and act to prevent men's violence against women. This is my oath. My challenge to all Australian men is: will you take the oath too?
I first want to commend my colleagues who have already spoken, and particularly the member for Fowler for bringing about this motion. As a father, a husband, a brother, a son and a grandson, I am proud to make women's safety my concern. And, as a member of parliament, I commit to doing whatever I can and whatever I need to do to help end men's violence against women.
As a society, we have made a lot of progress with regard to changing attitudes and pulling up people when they make a remark or do an action that may be construed as sexist or harmful, but we still have a long way to go. One part of the campaign that I feel is particularly important is recognising that violence against women is not only physical but extends to things like financial abuse, emotional abuse, verbal abuse, social abuse, sexual abuse, spiritual abuse and stalking. This by no means underestimates the harm that physical violence can do but goes to the heart of the issue surrounding violence against women—that is, violence is also sexual and psychological harm and, in some cases, includes threats, coercion or acts that can make someone feel unsafe, violated or unable to live freely.
Some time ago, I was aiding a Dunkley woman by the name of Sarah Jane who was dealing with an abusive ex-partner, who also put her child at risk. Speaking to Sarah Jane highlighted to me not only some degree of the harm that domestic violence does but also the ongoing effects and repercussions of dealing with those experiences, not only for her but also for her son. In Australia, one in four children is exposed to domestic violence and one in three women has experienced physical and/or sexual violence perpetrated by someone known to them. This statistic—that it even exists—is far too high and we as a society need to do more.
As a husband to my wife, Grace, of over eight years and as a father to a young daughter, this issue is particularly pertinent. I don't want to see any violence towards them or to any children or others across Australia. We need to stop all domestic violence against women, as highlighted by White Ribbon Day, but also against anyone, whether they be children, the elderly, men, women, people of different faiths, people of different ethnicities and so forth.
I again thank the member for Fowler for bringing this motion, which is so important. It's very important to raise this issue not only in this House but right across Australia. I hereby therefore pledge, along with my colleagues in this House, to never to commit, excuse or remain silent about violence against women. I will stand up, speak out and act to prevent men's violence against women. This is my oath.
This is too familiar a subject area for me to stand in this place and speak from the data, the statistics or the need to do more. Sure, all of those things are true, and I thank sincerely the member for Fowler for his advocacy and all of the speakers who have contributed to the debate on this motion. I thank them for their awareness and their commitment to the thousands and thousands of victims of domestic and family violence, of whom there are too many, whose stories are too common and whose lifetimes are too deeply affected.
Last year I stood in this place and delivered my own personal account of my experience of family violence. I shared that in here because too often we rattle off statistics and speak as policymakers about the nation's greatest shame but rarely speak as experienced survivors. It had a profound effect not just here but around the world, and I want to place on record my thanks to the thousands of people who watched it, who shared it, who opened up, who disclosed and who shared their own personal stories and to those who reached out.
I think the reason this had such an impact was that it gave people, childhood survivors, women who are victims and those who work in that space the permission to speak honestly and freely about their experiences. It was a reminder of how powerful this place can really be. The stories and disclosures of so many people flooded my office—some of true horror. For the benefit of those unfamiliar with this subject area or who question our nation's need to do more to address this, I want to read into the Hansard the comments from brave survivors who shared with me their own stories following that speech last year.
A woman says:
I too grew up in a house filled with chaos, alcohol and violence. I have a lump in my throat and tears in my eyes at that very admission—it is a secret I hold close, shared only with my 3 siblings.
so thank you for sharing your story as a professional woman, a Mum, a victim, a survivor. I do not have your courage, yet.
But absolutely take strength from yours.
Another woman reflects on her own childhood. She says that, as a woman:
… I am, at age 62, still astonished at the ongoing effect … on me. 'Surely I can put it behind me now' … are words often echoing in my head, and mostly,
I do.
Another survivor said:
Bravo … I spent my childhood in perpetual fear, I was abused institutionally and in the family abode. I watched for years—
as—
my mother was almost daily bashed … she was in a wheelchair with only use of one arm. She relied on us kids—
to do everything for her. The account continued:
My siblings and I never said anything about our abuse … because no one wanted to know.
A child trapped in the cycle shared her story:
I also grew up in a similar situation. My mother stayed as she had no choice. Along with my sisters, there were five of us, we were subjected to watching the physical and emotional violence my mother endured at the hands of our father; the times as a small child we had to do the shopping for my mother, who didn't want to—
go out—
with a blackened eye.
Another woman said:
On one occasion I hid in the property next-door. The neighbours came home and I had to hurtle past them and retreat back to my own house.
I was so embarrassed—nothing was ever said about it. I know they saw me … perhaps they just knew.
Another person said:
My mum would put us to bed—
one night—
and then suddenly decide to go on a holiday for 10 days without telling us, we thought it was odd until we realised she was spending her holidays in hospital. That was many years ago, for me, I have never spoken of this not even to my own wife.
Perhaps the email from a legal professional best sums it up:
It is only by sharing stories and making the owners of these stories visible that we can ever hope to change the attitudes of many in the community and improve the lives of children.
In the work that I do within the Court I confront these attitudes daily and am especially dismayed at the ignorance of so many … lawyers and other professionals.
These are a handful of stories shared with me. They are all unique. They all happened. They all have a theme.
The shame and the degree to which this is hidden in plain sight continue today. We have an obligation to change the story for so many children growing up in the cycle of violence, and we should. There isn't a single person in this country who should not feel empowered to do something about this. We need to ensure that victims can access paid domestic violence leave. We need to get our Family Court system right so that it does not continue to traumatise already traumatised people. It's time to end the ability of perpetrators of domestic violence to cross-examine their victims. We need to acknowledge that one in three victims is a woman, and one woman is dying each week.
This White Ribbon Day, I again urge people to take action. I've now become an accredited White Ribbon advocate. I've applied for my own electorate office to become a White Ribbon accredited workplace. I will be challenging my community of Lindsay, which has the second highest rate of domestic violence in metropolitan New South Wales, to do the same thing. I commend the member for Fowler for this motion, and I thank every person who works in this place every day to end the scourge of domestic violence.
I appreciate the opportunity to talk about this topic, which is very important, particularly for regional communities. As we know, 25 November marks White Ribbon Day, the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. Obviously, a very important part of White Ribbon Day is raising public awareness and changing the attitudes and behaviour that allow this violence to continue. It is testament to this effort that the White Ribbon movement has now spanned 57 countries.
Domestic violence is, as I said, a serious issue in regional communities, and particularly in the area of Orange in central western New South Wales, which, for some reason, has very high rates of domestic violence. But there is a dedicated team of people who are working hard to bring this issue to a close, to the extent that we can. The White Ribbon Day committee there does a fantastic job. It was formed in early 2016. I'd like to make special mention of a number of the committee members here today, including Chair Nicole Paterson, vice-chairs Granton Smith and Andrew Pansini, and also committee members Danielle Haase, Janelle White, Krista Mentjox, Darren Tindall, Alli Gartrell, Ash Morrow and James Cashen.
Last year they organised an event in Orange that was extremely well supported. It was a treadmill relay that went for 24 hours nonstop. It drew attention to the fact that 80 women were, tragically, killed in violent incidents Australia-wide in 2016. The relay kicked off with the committee painting a giant white ribbon on the sloping grass roof of the Orange Regional Museum. Each participant in the relay was given a small, handwritten card with the name and details of a woman who had died in violent circumstances in the preceding year, which, I think, really brought the gravity of the situation home for many of the participants and members of the public who passed by and were able to gain information on what the group was achieving. I participated in that relay last year. It had over 50 teams participating, and more than 300 local people registered to take a turn on the treadmill. I can only believe and imagine that this year's will be even bigger.
As I said, I participated in last year's relay and it was sad that we actually had to hold an event like that to draw attention to this issue, but I think you need to shine a spotlight on this issue in order to bring it to a stop, because the public need to be aware that this can't continue. I think that, for too long, domestic violence has been viewed by the community as a private matter between a husband and a wife, for example. But it's not a private matter; this is criminal behaviour. It's quite often degrading and disgusting behaviour. I think that if the general public knew the details of many of these incidents of domestic violence they would be absolutely appalled at what they learnt. I know that because, in my previous occupation as a lawyer, I came into contact with women who were victims of domestic violence.
I'd also like to pay tribute to the Wellington Domestic Violence Collective, Robyn Edwards, Nicolla Giddings, Loretta Stanley, Wendy Peachey, Helen Dowling, Sonsera Boles and Colleen Allen, for their work in raising awareness for White Ribbon Day and organising events in the Wellington community. (Time expired)
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.
I move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges that:
(a) 15 October 2017 marks the 200th anniversary of the death of Tadeusz Kosciuszko; and
(b) on 22 June 2016 the Polish Sejm (the lower chamber of Polish Parliament) adopted a special resolution proclaiming 2017 'The Year of Tadeusz Kosciuszko', leading to world wide celebrations under the patronage of UNESCO;
(2) recognises Tadeusz Kosciuszko as an indomitable fighter for the universal values of freedom, liberty and equality;
(3) acknowledges the importance of Tadeusz Kosciuszko to the 180,000 strong Polish community in Australia, marked by our naming of the highest mountain on Australian mainland after him; and
(4) recognises the work of Kosciuszko Heritage Inc. whose mission is to promote Kosciuszko in Australia, and to organise activities aimed at commemorating this Polish national hero.
Fifteen October this year marked the 200th anniversary of the death of the Polish, American and Australian national hero, Tadeusz Kosciuszko. To commemorate this momentous occasion, the Polish Sejm, equivalent to our House, proclaimed 2017 as the year of Kosciuszko, and I'm honoured to present a motion recognising Kosciuszko's monumental contribution to the universal quest for freedom, liberty and equality. Involved in not one but two revolutionary movements, Kosciuszko has come to embody the defiance of tyrannical authority characterised by the Polish people. His genius in the battlefields of Europe and North America in pursuit of Polish and American liberation played a large part in shaping the evolution of military tactics, and his exemplary leadership made him a model for others to aspire to. As a young engineer in the Continental Army, having been inspired by the American desire for independence, Kosciuszko was instrumental in redesigning and shoring up American fortifications, ensuring that the British advance was halted. Back in Poland in 1792, as a general, Kosciuszko's valiant attempts to defend Polish sovereignty resulted in his forces defeating a Russian army five times their size.
Described by Thomas Jefferson as being 'as pure a son of liberty as I have ever known', Kosciuszko's message is not confined to the historical context of Poland. Nor is his legacy relevant only to military tacticians. Rather, he has come to represent the fight for the universal values of freedom, liberty and equality. As both the leader of the Kosciuszko uprising in 1794 and a senior figure in the American Revolutionary War, Kosciuszko championed not only the cause of freedom from tyranny but also that of emancipation. Throughout his life, he paid little regard to the distinctions of race, culture and religion that were so prevalent at the time. While serving in the Continental Army, Kosciuszko earned the trust and respect of Native Americans. Applying his values of tolerance and respect for all humankind, he acknowledged the mistreatments of Native Americans and actively combated the scourge of slavery. He fought against injustice and discrimination throughout his life, even when it came at the expense of his own personal relationships.
Kosciuszko steadfastly pointed to the inequalities and faults within his own community. A close friend of the American founding fathers, he long detested the mistreatment of African-Americans and their subjugation within the slave trade that was rampant at the time. Kosciuszko decided that he could not abide the perpetuation of what he saw as a cruel practice and made repeated attempts to improve the conditions of forced labourers, including those of his friend Thomas Jefferson. Such was his altruism and dogged determination for equality that, in his will, Kosciuszko set aside his estate to buy the freedom of as many slaves as money could buy and to ensure their education and continued wellbeing. Above all, Kosciuszko was a man of unwavering integrity. In Poland he was a vocal advocate for the equality of Poland's peasants and religious minorities as well as for the fair treatment of women—and this in the 18th century. Unquestionably, Tadeusz Kosciuszko was a man ahead of his time. He fought for values and freedoms that most of us take for granted in Australia today—freedoms that had not been accorded to mankind equally; freedoms that are still being fought for in many countries around the world today.
As part of the rich tapestry that is our great country, Australia is home to a large Polish community. Our first Polish settler, Joseph Potaski, arrived in 1804. Since then, the community has grown to over 180,000 Australians. Over a thousand Polish Australians live in my own electorate of Mackellar. To them, as to many others, Kosciuszko's legacy is significant and certainly enduring. A national hero, Kosciuszko is seen as a standard-bearer of the Polish character—one of resilience, strength, courage, compassion and defiance.
Through these values and by sharing their own culture and history, the Polish community has had an immeasurable impact on our own culture and what it means to be an Australian today. The legacy of Kosciuszko cannot be overstated. Many might, in fact, not know that our nation's highest peak is named Mount Kosciuszko after Tadeusz. The famed explorer Pawel Strzelecki thought it an apt name because he saw the mountain as a fitting tribute to the general's indomitable spirit, stating, 'I felt I was among a free people who appreciated freedom.'
The Kosciuszko Heritage group based in Sydney is vital in keeping this flame of Kosciuszko's legacy alight. Promoting the life and achievements of Kosciuszko, the group plays a vital role in encouraging the celebration of Polish culture and history as well as the large contribution Polish Australians have made to the national fabric of our great country. Organising community events and producing radio shows and documentaries, the Australian youth for generations to come helps to preserve the Polish identity for all Polish Australians.
Our relationship with Poland is as enduring and unwavering as Kosciuszko's legacy. In fact, this year marks the 45th anniversary of the establishment of Polish-Australian diplomatic relations, and in May we were honoured to receive the Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs, Witold Waszczykowski, to mark our enduring cooperation and continued support for the values that Kosciuszko championed. Throughout our shared history we have cooperated in our desire to ensure liberty, equality and progress. Australians and New Zealanders fought alongside the Polish in World War II in the liberation of Italy and many other nations. The Battle of Monte Cassino reflected the values imbued by Kosciuszko. Outnumbered and outgunned, Polish forces carried forward his legacy with tenacity, fighting for freedom from oppression and persecution.
Following the war, countless Polish migrants helped to secure Australia's economic future through the construction of the engineering marvel that was and is the Snowy Mountains scheme. Our continued cooperation can be seen to this day with Poland and Australia both being major partners in the global coalition against Daesh.
It is clear that even today there is a lot to be learned from Kosciuszko's life. The freedoms that he fought for are still not a reality for all. We must hold up his message and legacy and recognise Kosciuszko as a beacon for the values of freedom and freedoms for all.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion. I congratulate the member for bringing forward this motion. It is well and proper that we celebrate the life and achievements of Tadeusz Kosciuszko and, of course, the links that we have in this country to the honouring of that memory and the Polish heritage that we enjoy and celebrate together.
This was a remarkable man by any standards—a man who I believe was well ahead of his time. I studied quite some time ago the biography and life of General Kosciuszko as a man who really was a citizen of the world in so many ways. He didn't allow himself to be confined by the geographic boundaries of the time or the narrow thinking of the time. He was well ahead of his time in seeking improvements for women and the situation of Polish Jews, minorities and serfs in his own country but then took up the cause of the American Revolution in 1776, inspired by the Declaration of Independence and the values that were proclaimed in relation to their struggle against Great Britain at that time.
But he was also, of course, very cognisant of the circumstances of American slaves in the South and America of that day, notwithstanding the fact that he had property in the United States given to him by a grateful nation after his tremendous contributions, particularly in relation to employing his military engineering skills in fortifications and in ensuring the successful defence of Saratoga. But, in recognising the situation of the slaves in America, he also donated the money from his estate to be used to buy the freedom of slaves and to help educate them and provide them with enough land to support themselves. He truly was a man ahead of his time and he continued his struggles right through his life, not only in North America but back in Europe as well.
So it is well and proper that we not only celebrate his life but that we celebrate his presence in our own landscape. Paul Strzelecki, a surveyor, named our highest mountain after Tadeusz Kosciuszko in 1840 and there's a national park that surrounds it that also bears his name. It's a coincidence of that step forward by Strzelecki that there would be a continuing association with the Snowy Mountains landscape by the Polish community, as has been mentioned, in relation to the hydro scheme. Quite a number of Poles came to Australia to help build the scheme as part of that wonderful step forward that created the beautiful and multicultural matrix landscape that we celebrate across the nation. In my own background, I was privileged to have served alongside Polish troops in Iraq.
The Kosciuszko tradition is celebrated in our region with the Kosciuszko festival held in Jindabyne. One of the things that's not well-known about Tadeusz Kosciuszko is he was also a very fine musician who composed a number of pieces, and we celebrate those pieces in the Kosciuszko festival. Kosciuszko Heritage has been coordinating its activities with UNESCO throughout this bicentennial celebration. This weekend in the Snowy Mountains there will be a continuation of those activities and the festival, and I'd like to encourage all to travel to the region to attend the activities around the festival.
Interestingly, in recent times we've been looking at our landscape and the true Indigenous connections to it. A lot of the terminology, labelling and names of our prominent features have been adjusted, like Mount Gulaga. But when the Indigenous community of our region came to look at the situation of Mount Kosciuszko, they did actually accede to that continuing association with General Kosciuszko because they accepted the fact that this was a man who had a broader international importance, particularly acknowledging his struggle for racial equality, racial liberation and his fights against slavery. So the Indigenous community of our region have been quite happy and indeed honoured to have his name associated with our landscape, quite appropriately so. I would encourage all to travel to Jindabyne over the weekend to continue the celebrations of General Kosciuszko's life and achievements, and I certainly, as an ex-military person, acknowledge all of those rights and services he rendered to the world. (Time expired)
I am pleased to rise to support this motion moved by the member for Mackellar and I thank him for it. This motion acknowledges that 15 October 2017 marks the 200th anniversary of the death of Tadeusz Kosciuszko, who is known to Australians by our famous Mount Kosciuszko. Kosciuszko was born on 4 February 1746 and died in October 1817. He was a Polish-Lithuanian military engineer and a military leader who became a national hero of Poland, Lithuania, Belarus and the United States. In fact, I'll go further than that. I'd say he is a hero to all people who loved freedom, liberty and equality. He fought in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth struggles against both Russia and Prussia and also on the American side in the American Revolutionary War. As supreme commander of the Polish National Armed Forces, he also led the 1794 Kosciuszko Uprising.
Born the son of a Polish-Lithuanian noble, he could easily have lived a simple life of pleasure, but he didn't. He gobbled up liberal ideas from a young age. In his 20s he travelled to France, where he was exposed to writers like Rousseau and Voltaire. During his trips to America he even became a close friend of Thomas Jefferson, who described him as 'a pure son of liberty'. In fact, when Strzelecki, the famous Polish explorer, was exploring and discovered what was our highest mountain and was considering that he should name it Kosciuszko, he said these words:
… although in a foreign country on foreign ground but amongst a free people who appreciate freedom and its votaries, I could not refrain from giving it the name of Mount Kosciusko.
It is a great honour that we have our highest peak named after such a famous and important person in history.
The Polish people for centuries have had to fight for freedom. At no time in Polish history was this perhaps greater than during the Polish resistance in World War II. Much has been written of that resistance. Poland was one of the few occupied nations that produced no major traitors or collaborators. The Polish operatives secured valuable intelligence or destroyed Nazi infrastructure in daring missions. The pilots of the Polish government in exile matched and exceeded their Western comrades in the air. Only when the cracks started to appear in the communists' control in the 1980s could they enter public discourse.
It was Poland's great legacy to be sandwiched between the fascists to the west and the communists to the east. And after having survived the tribulations and the resistance during World War I, they found themselves again oppressed under communist tyranny. When Lech Walesa and the rest of the Polish resistance finally led that nation to freedom, I'm sure they would have gone back to the great spirit of Tadeusz Kosciuszko, who wanted freedom, liberty and equality for all Polish people.
We congratulate the Polish nation on the great achievements that they have made since the fall of the Berlin Wall. We wish them all the best and, with not only all the people in Poland but all people of the world, we share in the celebration of this great man's achievements.
It's good to see this parliament in furious agreement over the member for Mackellar's motion about Tadeusz Kosciuszko. Of course, we tend to regard liberty in Australia and in the world as a given. But, for much of history, mankind has been ruled by divine right and by force and held in bondage, and our liberties have been decided by monarchs, typically on their arbitrary whims. Despots, benign or not, ruled the world, and the very idea of liberty and democracy was foreign. No nation knows this better than Poland because for centuries it was, on one hand, dominated by Russia and its interests and its desires to have a buffer between itself and Europe—and that buffer was held at the price of Polish liberty—and, on the other hand, threatened by Germany, and by Prussia before that. So, frequently, they had to fight for their liberty, fight for justice and fight for their rights.
A book by Mr Jay Winik, The Great Upheaval, alerts the reader to the interlinked nature of the American Revolution, the French Revolution and what was happening in Poland at the time. Of course, Kosciuszko was mentioned many times in this book—many times indeed. Interestingly, it says on page 488:
About him, Lord Byron once declared Kosciuszko's very name alone would "scatter fire through ice". It had also been said that he was one of the "most admirable men of the eighteenth century" and a "harbinger of a new era in the human struggle for the highest ideals."
This book tells you much about the struggle with the new idea of liberty. It was new in America, it was new in France and it was especially new as an idea in Europe. Those three revolutions really came to dominate the forces that now rule our world. On one side are freedom and liberty and on the other side is despotism. Despotism is making a comeback. All around the world we see not human liberty and not democracy but, rather, despotism ruling great swathes of the world and vast populations. Kosciuszko fought against that. He was lionised in the America Congress after his death. On page 490 of The Great Upheaval it says:
… he would be lionized as "a friend of man" and "an advocate of freedom," and, in his own day, Thomas Jefferson called him "the purest son of liberty" …
You know from this man's life that he was prepared to make great sacrifices for not just Polish nationality or nationalism or liberty, and not just for American liberty, but for the rights of man—the ideals of mankind that have come to dominate the 20th century but are under threat in our current century.
A fascinating story which I'll share with the House from the book The Great Upheaval talked about when the Russians launched their final assault on the Polish rebellion. The book says:
Kosciuszko, after shrieking that Poland "was immortal," was himself seriously wounded and then taken prisoner. The heroic revolt was all but over.
It goes on to talk about how Catherine's the Great's army slaughtered 20,000 men, women and children in the wake of that revolt. We know that human liberty and these rights have often been borne of great tragedy, of great fights, and we should celebrate the lives of all those who have stood for liberty, particularly Kosciuszko's, but, more importantly, we should remind ourselves that the great legacy is not automatic in this world. It has to be fought for. Liberty, justice and democracy are critical and crucial things, and Australia and Poland have always stood together to protect them.
It's my pleasure to rise to support the motion to honour the 200th anniversary of the death of General Tadeusz Kosciuszko and his incredible legacy as an individual, but, of course, we honour him in this great nation through a mountain. General Kosciuszko made a significant contribution to the world and particularly, as many other speakers have mentioned, around driving the principles of equality of all people, regardless of their background, particularly on the basis of their gender, their skin colour or their religion. What it really reinforces is the contribution of the Polish community, not just in Poland but around the world. In fact, the electorate that I am very proud to represent, the federal electorate of Goldstein, is also named after somebody who is Polish: Vida Goldstein. I pronounce 'Vida' very specifically, with an emphasis on the 'i', and 'Goldstein' like 'beer stein' because I once found an article from 1904 where she explained how to pronounce her name. Vida Goldstein, like Kosciuszko, was a trailblazer in her own right.
Both of them actually stood up for the rights of people, whether they were part of that representative group or not. Both of them stood up for principles and values that sit at the heart of a liberal democracy: the principles of freedom that endure to this day. Particularly in the case of Kosciuszko, as I said, it's with reference to people regardless of their background, and it was similar with Vida. She was a suffragette who went on to stand up for the right of women to own property when they could not do so and the right of women, of course, to vote. She was actually a marriage equality advocate of her day, arguing that women should be able to enter into marriages on the same terms as men. And so today we don't just honour the legacy of Kosciuszko; we also honour the contribution of all Australian Poles to our great country.
Earlier this year I represented the government at an event for the Australian Institute of Polish Affairs, because the Goldstein electorate, named after a Pole, appropriately has one of the largest Polish communities in our great country. They were celebrating their 25th anniversary as an institute. On 1 February over 80 guests gathered at the Sandringham Yacht Club to mark this important occasion. Amongst the guests were the ambassador of Poland to Australia as well as the CEO of the Melbourne Cinematheque and many others. In particular, there were many people from the Polish community in Melbourne and the executive committee of the Australian Institute of Polish Affairs, including Adam Warzel, President of the Australian Institute of Polish Affairs. They have played an incredibly important role in bringing Polish speakers out from Poland to Australia not just to build and enhance the relationship between our two great countries, not just to invest in communicating the principles that their nation shares and the cultural common ground between us but also to recognise what we can learn from Poland.
What has been said by other speakers and I'll repeat now is that the contribution of the Polish community in Australia has been sound because it has been anchored in the ideals and the values that we mutually share. And they don't take the principles of freedom for granted. Because of the recent history of the tyranny of the Soviet Union and many other countries who have sought to impose their value system of conformity, Poles understand that the principles of freedom have to be fought for through sacrifice if necessary. It's through the solidarity of free people wanting to continue to enjoy their liberties that there is freedom to speak up, say unpopular things and speak truth to power. It is making sure that people are able to stand up and practice their faith without fear or intimidation in private as well as the public square. They understand that principle, and it's something that sits at the heart of our liberal democracy as well. But, more importantly, they saw firsthand the tyranny that comes when the government comes along and tries to suppress people's freedom and limit how they can engage in the marketplace. They saw that, if you try to control capital, in the end you will control people and you will stifle their ambition, their imagination and their capacity to make a contribution to build a better world.
The Polish people experienced that firsthand, and they have never forgotten that legacy and continue to be fighters for freedom in their own country and around the world today. It's on these days that we honour that contribution. We celebrate it, recognise it and wish them well into the future by acknowledging one of their favourite sons, General Kosciuszko; by acknowledging one of their greatest migrants to this great country, Vida Goldstein; and by acknowledging the continuing contribution that the Australian Polish community makes in our great nation today. Thank you very much.
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I present the trade subcommittee's report entitled Inquiry into Australia's trade and investment relationship with the United Kingdom: interim report.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade I present the interim report entitled Inquiry into Australia's trade and investment relationship with the United Kingdom: interim report.
The committee welcomed this opportunity to examine Australia's relationship with one of our important trading partners. The inquiry received 72 submissions from across Australia, the United Kingdom, Ireland and Australian businesses in France and Germany. The committee also heard from 58 separate organisations and individuals during 13 public hearings, including diplomatic representatives from the United Kingdom and British based witnesses appearing via videoconference.
The committee presents this interim report as a summary of its findings to date on the opportunities, barriers and challenges facing Australia's future trade and investment relationship with the United Kingdom.
An obvious factor in this, which presents both opportunities and threats, will be the so-called Brexit, the UK's looming departure from the European Union, which will occur after a majority of the British voters who turned out decided to do this in June last year. Consequently, the British government triggered article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon in March, formally opening a two-year window for negotiating Britain's exit from the EU that expires in March 2019, now less than 18 months away.
Evidence to the inquiry suggests that the outcomes of negotiations between Britain and the EU over Brexit would largely determine the future parameters of Australia's trade relationship with the United Kingdom. The committee will present its final report and recommendation closer to the conclusion of those negotiations.
It does appear that the appetite for broader and more comprehensive trade links between Australia and the United Kingdom is deeply felt on both sides.
In his department's submission to the inquiry the British Secretary of State for International Trade, the Right Hon. Liam Fox, said that the United Kingdom sought to be a champion of free trade and to share Australia's commitment to global trade liberalisation and the benefits of open markets as part of building 'a truly global Britain that is a great trading nation and one of the firmest advocates for free trade in the world'.
The British High Commissioner to Australia, Her Excellency Menna Rawlings, echoed Dr Fox's sentiments, noting that, despite the huge geographical distance, 'when we arrive in each other's countries, we feel as if we're at home'. She noted that there are more expatriate Britons living in Australia than in the 27 European Union nations combined.
The inquiry uncovered a desire for closer trade links on the part of Australian businesses and the primary producer sector as well, with witnesses from a broad range of industries—including beef, sheepmeat and dairy producers, the wine sector, rice growers and sugar farmers—all eager to build on their existing commercial relationships in the United Kingdom and to increase their export volumes if the changes ushered in by Brexit gave them the opportunity to do.
The United Kingdom was Australia's second largest two-way services partner in 2015, accounting for $12.3 billion or 8.6 per cent of total services trade. In 2016, services exports to the United Kingdom were valued at nearly $5 billion, while services imports from the United Kingdom were valued at $7 billion. Tourism was Australia's key services export to the United Kingdom in 2016, at nearly $2 billion, and was also Australia's main services import from the United Kingdom at $2.8 billion.
The United Kingdom's pending departure from the European Union, Brexit, poses uncertainty in terms of Australia's trade relations with Britain and where potential new opportunities Brexit may create are concerned.
Submissions and evidence to the committee also suggested that the United Kingdom's standing as a trading partner may be inflated on account of businesses using the United Kingdom as a gateway to access the larger continental European Union market.
Negotiating Brexit also poses challenges for Australia's trade relationships with the EU given Australia and the EU have commenced a process to explore the negotiation of an Australia-EU free trade agreement.
Australia will not know the implications of Brexit until this UK-EU negotiation is finalised. Should Brexit occur without the UK and the EU reaching an agreement—a so-called hard Brexit—the UK will not retain access to the EU common market or customs union. Under the provisions of article 50 of the Lisbon treaty the United Kingdom is prohibited from negotiating deals with third-country parties such as Australia until Brexit takes effect.
It is obvious that, despite the very best intentions and a genuine desire in both Australia and the United Kingdom for closer trade relations once the UK has left the EU, in practice the question is far too complex to make definitive resolutions and recommendations now.
Given Australia's pursuit of free trade agreements with major trading partners over the last decade—including the United States, China, Japan and South Korea—the exploration of free trade agreements with both the European Union and a post-Brexit UK offers a consistent approach to Australian trade policy that seeks outcomes that are mutually beneficial to all stakeholders.
From the committee's perspective the timing of the UK's departure from the EU is entirely coincidental with the scoping work and ongoing development towards a free trade agreement between Australia and the EU.
Evidence to this inquiry suggests Australia's trade negotiations with the EU are gaining momentum. The committee notes recent developments in the Australian government's trade negotiations following visits by the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources and the conclusion of an agreement on the Australia-European free trade agreement scoping study by the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment.
The committee is of the view that the Australian government should continue its trade negotiations with the European Union as a priority.
However, Australia should be encouraged that Britain has signalled that it is willing to enter into new trade partnerships following its departure from the EU. Australia is well positioned to redefine and expand an already strong trade and investment relationship. The Australian Labor Party would obviously like such agreements to contain no investor-state dispute settlement clauses, but any agreement should include labour-market-testing provisions and independent evaluations of the agreement both beforehand and throughout the life of the agreement.
In conclusion, the committee has heard evidence regarding a diverse range of issues. Future reports by this inquiry will consider these in more detail as the complex issues concerning the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union are resolved and the situation for advancing Australian trade interests becomes clearer.
I commend the interim report to the House.
by leave—As a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I'm pleased to follow the member for Moreton in addressing our interim report entitled Australia's trade and investment relationship with the United Kingdom. As has been explained, we had a particularly high level of interest in this inquiry—72 submissions from across Australia, the UK and Ireland and from Australian businesses in France and Germany. We had 58 separate organisations and individuals presenting during 13 public hearings. These included diplomatic representatives from the UK and British based witnesses appearing via teleconference—and, of course, all of this at the same time as significant international, industry and, of course, national media attention on this issue of potential trade relationship between Australia and the UK in the future.
The committee's report presents a summary of findings to date on the opportunities and barriers facing our trade and investment relationship with the UK in the future. All of this, of course, was precipitated by Brexit, the UK's looming departure from the European Union following British voters deciding by majority to do so in June of last year. Consequently, as has been explained, article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon was triggered, formally opening the two-year period of negotiating Britain's exit from the EU. That is, as has been explained, some 18 months away. The inquiry heard quite clearly that the outcome of the negotiations between Britain and the EU over Brexit will largely determine the future opportunities and challenges for Australia and our trade relationship with the UK.
Having said that, it's clear there is a very strong appetite between Australia and the UK for more comprehensive trade links in the future. As I'll explain in just a few moments, some of that may revisit what we have experienced between our two nations, our two regions, in years and decades in the past. The submission to the inquiry from the British Secretary of State for International Trade, the Rt Hon. Liam Fox, said the UK sought to be a champion of free trade and a supporter of open markets, like us here in Australia, and that environment of free trade is a passion that it shares in considering potential relationships with other countries in the future. The relationship between the UK and Australia, of course, is very strong. We feel at home with one another, as the British High Commissioner to Australia, Her Excellency Menna Rawlings, explained in her discussions with our committee.
Much of the inquiry has included a reference to a great desire for closer trade links on the part of those involved in Australian agriculture, food processing and other primary production. As committee members, most if not all of us have either an agricultural or a rural background and/or agricultural careers. So we as a committee relate particularly well to the potential for Australia's agriculture and food products going forward in the beef, sheepmeat, dairy, wine, rice and sugar areas, on which we have heard various submissions during our inquiry thus far. These industries and producers lost much of their access to the British markets in 1973, when Britain joined what was then the EEC and there was strict enforcement of import quotas and tariffs that remain in place today.
And therein lies the opportunity for Australian agriculture, Australian agribusiness, going forward. To see the decline in beef over many years, to see the decline in other products such as wine, sugar, rice and dairy, brings significance to the potential in growing trade links that will support exports from these very important industries for Australia.
I can refer to the dairy industry example in particular. Where I'm from—Groom, in the Darling Downs, in Queensland—I can recall when I was a young boy the Queensland Butter Marketing Board, which really was operating at its strength, I guess, mid-last century, before I was born, in marketing butter, amongst other things, to Europe. It is fascinating to consider that that happened when we consider so-called food miles, the tyranny of distance, nowadays. But the fact that that supported in Queensland many regional dairy-processing facilities, butter factories, which are no longer in existence is an important part of our agricultural history.
Despite that loss, the UK remains a very significant trading partner for us. Again, this inquiry points to the ways in which we might be able to revisit some of that success in the future in the interests of particularly our agricultural industries, as I've said.
The UK's pending departure from the European Union does provide uncertainty, of course, in terms of our trade relationship with Britain. But of course that means perhaps great opportunities as well, hence the timeliness of our inquiry and hence the importance of remembering, for example, that the UK provides for many of our industries, despite all of this, a continuing gateway to access the larger continental European Union market. Hence the sensitivities for us going forward in considering challenges in not only trade relationships with the UK but ongoing relationships in the future with the EU.
So the May 2019 deadline for resolving the Brexit arrangements is one that interests us all particularly, including our committee's inquiry. It interests all of Australia, I would suggest. Should it be a hard exit, or a hard Brexit, as some have suggested, that will present certain sensitivities that we need to keep in mind. But, of course, we are where we are. Under the provisions of article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, the UK is prohibited from negotiating free trade deals with third-party countries, such as us here in Australia, until that Brexit effect takes a hold.
I come back to agricultural issues, particularly when we consider other relationships that the UK maintains and other relationships that are important to the UK. I refer particularly to Ireland, the biggest supplier currently of beef and dairy goods to the UK, which will provide part of the competitive environment in which we must operate in the years to come. We need to recognise those other relationships as well, as this report suggests.
The reality going forward is that there can be no certainty. There can be no guarantee for markets with products currently restricted by EU tariffs and quotas—again, I particularly mention beef, dairy, wine, rice and sugar—and Australian exporters now in negotiations going forward need to be quite sensitive, sensible and strategic. It is obvious that, with the best of intentions—the ongoing joint desire, as I've said—between both countries, there are significant opportunities going forward in the trade relationship between Australia and the EU. I am thrilled that our government, in particular, has been focused on free trade agreements, and I'm sure that that leadership will continue in considering this potential relationship in the years to come. We've heard a lot of evidence. We know that there will be sensitivities, challenges and particularly opportunities going forward.
I thank the submitters. I thank the committee secretariat. I thank my fellow committee members for the consideration of these exciting opportunities and these challenges during our inquiry thus far. I especially applaud the leadership of our chair, Senator Bridget McKenzie, in our deliberations in the inquiry thus far.
The Social Services Legislation Amendment (Better Targeting Student Payments) Bill 2017 has now been debated in the second reading stage. I thank all members, including members opposite, for their contributions. As has been noted by the government, the bill introduces a package of measures announced in the 2017-18 budget that will better target student payments to ensure they are reflective of a student's circumstances and the original intent of the payments.
From 1 January 2018 or the first of 1 January or 1 July following royal assent, this bill will, as a first measure, restrict the relocation scholarship to students relocating and studying within Australia. Many statements were made by a number of members opposite about the nature and quality of the change that's represented with respect to the relocation scholarship. I must say that one need look no further for an effort to obscure and ignore facts to make a political point-scoring exercise enlivened than what we heard from members opposite. I will read two of those contributions. The first is from the member from Moreton, who describes the relocation scholarship this way:
This was a payment designed by Labor in 2010 to address the barriers faced by students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, particularly Indigenous students and those coming from regional and remote Australia.
He went on to say:
I wonder where the National Party are when it comes to standing up for kids from the bush? Yet again, the National Party has gone missing—missing in regional and remote Australia.
Those comments were echoed by the member for Lindsay, who said:
This bill contains changes to the eligibility requirement of the relocation scholarship … As the member for Moreton asked: where are the Nationals on this? Why aren't they in here? The bill cuts the requirements of eligibility for the relocation scholarship, which will mostly affect kids from the bush.
The very clear statement was that a change to the relocation scholarship is being made by the government, and the clear assertion is that that mostly affects kids from the bush.
This bill makes changes to the relocation scholarship to ensure that the scholarship will be available for precisely those for whom it was designed—that is, kids from the bush—and it will not be available for those it was not meant to assist; that is, those moving from overseas to Australia to study. Under the measure, students will no longer be eligible for the relocation scholarship where each of their parents' homes is overseas or where the student's usual place of residence is located overseas. Likewise, students studying a component of their Australian degree overseas will no longer be eligible for the relocation scholarship. Where a student's parents return to Australia to live or the student returns to Australia to continue studying after undertaking part of their course overseas, the eligibility for the relocation scholarship will be retested and, depending on the circumstances, the student may again become eligible for the scholarship. Youth allowance recipients with a home overseas who are receiving the relocation scholarship prior to the commencement of this measure will continue to receive the relocation scholarship after this date if on the day they started their current course their home was overseas. Students studying overseas, including students who had previously received a relocation scholarship while studying overseas, will have their qualification retested after this date, and they will not be eligible for a scholarship while studying overseas.
In effect, the measure closes a loophole. The measure better reflects the policy intent of the scholarship, which is to assist students to or from regional or remote areas to study in Australia. That's what the scholarship was meant to do. The provision of the relocation scholarship to those students reflects the fact that there are more limited and often specialised study options in regional locations. These study options mean that students are more likely to have to move to a major city or to a different regional location for particular course offerings. Again, the member for Moreton and the member for Lindsay characterising this change, this closing of the loophole, as being somehow disadvantageous to regional students is a perfect example of entering a fact-free zone to score a political point.
What's happening at the moment? Without these changes, we'd be continuing to provide the relocation scholarship to students relocating overseas or relocating from overseas. That is simply not consistent with the policy which was designed to benefit regional students. For instance, the present legislation treats all overseas campuses as regional locations for the purpose of the relocation scholarship. What that means is that, at present, a student from a major Australian city such as Sydney or Melbourne studying at a university in the same city would not be eligible for the relocation scholarship—naturally enough, because they're not from the bush. But they could become eligible for the relocation scholarship, designed to help kids from the bush, if they undertook an eligible exchange overseas from their city university, whether that were in London, Hong Kong or New York. So the accusations that this disadvantages because it makes a change that affects kids in the bush is absurd. A city student studying at a city university could get a relocation scholarship, meant to assist kids from the bush, to study in London or New York or Singapore. Likewise, a student whose parents have their main address overseas and who relocates from Singapore, London or New York to study in Australia could get the relocation scholarship. I mean, it's absurd.
So closing down this loophole is appropriate. It is completely designed to ensure that the original intent of the bill is fulfilled, and it is absolutely not the case, as has been asserted by members opposite, that, in the words of the member for Lindsay:
The bill cuts the requirements of eligibility … which will mostly affect kids from the bush.
What we're doing is closing a loophole so that the scholarship doesn't go to people who aren't from the bush, and it's totally appropriate in those circumstances.
Again, the relocation scholarship will remain absolutely available to provide additional assistance to dependent regional students studying and relocating within Australia and for whom moving away from home is often a necessity. However, the measure means that the scholarship will now be better targeted to align with the intent of the policy, which is to support regional Australian students, not city students going to city universities where there's an exchange overseas for a course inside their area of study.
Under schedules 2 and 3 of the bill, from 1 January 2018, or from the first 1 January or 1 July following royal assent, the bill will also align the education entry payment and pensioner education supplement payment rates with study loads undertaken by eligible students, with four payment tiers introduced for each payment. Additionally, the pensioner education supplement will be paid only during the period a student is studying. This is the time, of course, when the ongoing costs associated with study are incurred. Irrespective of the base income support payments, eligible students will be paid a pensioner education supplement of $62.40 per fortnight if they are undertaking a study load that is at least 76 per cent of the normal amount of full time study. The rate of payment will reduce incrementally to $46.80 and then $31.20 and $15.60 each fortnight, to align with minimum reduced and part-time study loads of 51 per cent, 26 per cent and 25 per cent respectively. These same levels of study will also be applied to the education entry payment. The current payment of $208 a year will continue for students studying at least 76 per cent of the normal amount of full-time study. The lump sum payment will reduce incrementally to $156, $104 and $52, to align with reduced and part-time study loads of at least 51 per cent, 26 per cent and 25 per cent respectively. As it presently stands, someone who is paid the education entry payment or supplement is paid the same amount if they're studying full-time or if they're studying 25 per cent of full-time. And it seems like a completely reasonable approach to try to align the payment of the supplement to the actual amount of study being undertaken by the recipient in question. And the new rates of the pensioner education supplement and education entry payment, in that sense, are quite fair and quite equitable. Students undertaking part-time study loads do not incur the same study costs as those studying full time, as many of the costs associated, of course, are proportionate to the study load. That includes things that members opposite have mentioned, such as textbooks, transport to and from the education institution, and any equipment required for each course. So having the greater level of payment to the student with the greater study load seems perfectly reasonable.
Importantly, these are both supplementary payments made in addition to income support payments, and these measures do not have any impact on the amounts of income support a person receives from the base payments. It is also notable to add that the recipients of the age pension are not paid these supplementary payments, so these recipients will not be affected by these changes.
These supplementary payments were introduced to increase participation in the labour market for payment recipients. The very purpose of them was to increase the employment levels of the people who are receiving the supplements. Unfortunately, and this is sometimes the case with even the best-meaning of measures, these payments have not resulted in particularly improved employment outcomes for the recipients. The facts on this speak for themselves. Of the 34,383 income support recipients who stopped receiving the pensioner education supplement in the 2015 calendar year because their studies had finished, 96 per cent were still receiving income support six months after they had stopped receiving the supplement. After 12 months, 93 per cent of recipients were still in receipt of an income support payment. So, in effect, only seven per cent of the people who received the supplement, which is meant to increase employment through study, actually moved off the base welfare payments and into employment within the 12 months after they finished receiving the supplement.
Obviously the policy was well motivated and was designed to produce an outcome, but I imagine that everyone who designed it would have expected a far better outcome than that. The government intend to ensure that policies actually deliver outcomes and that we actually support people into employment, including making sure that measures targeted at recipients of the pensioner education supplement and education entry payment are assessed to see if those measures work.
What you have here is a policy designed to increase employment. It's reasonable to attach limits to that expenditure and it's reasonable to spend money on other policies that may have a better chance of actually succeeding and that produce a better than seven per cent increase in the employability of the people to whom the payment is made. That is why the government has committed $263 million to the expansion of the ParentsNext scheme. That was announced in the 2017-18 budget. Here is a $263 million program designed to better assist parents to develop the skills to find employment. Obviously, as a way of allocating funds, it's different to the pensioner education supplement, but it's designed to produce the same outcome, and the pensioner education supplement simply has not been particularly effective in producing that outcome, which is greater levels of employment. The purpose of spending the money is not merely to spend the money; it is to produce an outcome, which is greater employment.
The government has also committed $97 million to the Try, Test and Learn Fund to trial innovative policy options that can achieve positive outcomes for individuals in terms of increased employment. The initial focus will be on three specific cohorts, two of which are young carers and young parents. It's also notable that we have allocated $30 million to social impact investment. The 2017-18 budget also announced reforms to Disability Employment Services to help more people with disability find and keep jobs. The reform will provide more choice for jobseekers and better reward for providers for placing vulnerable jobseekers into sustainable work. So the idea of restricting, on a fair and equitable basis by measurement of the actual study load, an education supplement which has not proven very effective in generating increased employment and instead spending very considerable amounts of money in other areas to try something different, new and innovative to increase employment levels seems completely and utterly reasonable. By better targeting student payments to ensure that they are reflective of students' circumstances and of the intent of the payments, the government will improve the long-term sustainability of Australia's welfare system so that it remains available for those who need it long into the future.
I will close by making one final comment with respect to the relocation scholarship. At the moment, the number of students who move overseas from Australia to study is very small—about 150. The number of students whose parents' primary place of residence is overseas and who come from overseas to Australia to study is small—about 300—but it is not appropriate for those people to receive taxpayer money designed to assist students from regional and remote Australia. I've heard some pretty interesting definitions over the years of regional and remote Australia, but the member for Moreton and the member for Lindsay want to extend that definition of regional and remote to include Singapore, London and New York. That is utterly absurd, and they should be called out for it. This is a fair and reasonable piece of legislation that's commended to the House.
The question is that this bill be now 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.
The Treasury Laws Amendment (Improving Accountability and Member Outcomes in Superannuation Measures No. 2) Bill 2017 deals with two issues—choice of fund and closing the salary sacrifice loophole. I note at the outset that the choice of fund provisions most likely affect about one-tenth of the number of people affected by the issue of unpaid superannuation. Accordingly, Labor will not oppose this bill in the House but will reserve our position until the Senate Economics Legislation Committee has reported on 23 October 2017.
The choice of fund provisions amend the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 to require that employees under workplace determinations or enterprise agreements have the right to choose their superannuation fund. Those changes would apply to new workplace determinations and enterprise agreements made on or after 1 July 2018. Industry Super Australia estimates that, of those employees covered by enterprise agreements, about 7.4 per cent are affected and, as a share of the total workforce, only 1.9 per cent are affected. As I have mentioned, Labor will reserve our position on these proposed choice of fund changes until the Senate committee has reported.
The salary sacrifice loophole provisions reflect the fact that current laws allow employers to reduce their superannuation contribution if an employee chooses to salary-sacrifice into super. The Senate inquiry into the nonpayment of the superannuation guarantee recommended that the superannuation laws be amended to ensure that an employee's voluntarily sacrificed superannuation contribution cannot count towards the employer's compulsory superannuation obligation or reduce the ordinary time earnings base on which the superannuation guarantee is calculated. Labor supports this provision, which puts that change into effect and removes the current loophole.
But I do note that, while this change is welcome, it's nowhere near sufficient to solve the problem of unpaid superannuation. Unpaid superannuation is a massive problem in Australia. Industry Super Australia estimates that 2.4 million workers are losing some $5.6 billion in payments each year. That is equivalent to each of those workers losing $2,000 a year which should be going into their retirement savings. Unpaid superannuation is a problem affecting around 10 times as many people as choice of fund, and yet it is not receiving the attention from this government that it should.
Superannuation is part of a worker's pay and conditions. Employers are required by law to pay superannuation, and not to pay superannuation is, frankly, akin to wage theft. We need to do more to make sure people get paid what they earn and to make sure the 2.4 million Australian workers who are suffering from unpaid super get what's rightfully theirs. The government have failed to adequately respond to the problem of unpaid superannuation, instead focusing their energies on choice of fund, an issue which, not surprisingly, predominantly affects industry superannuation funds and affects around one-tenth of the number of workers affected by unpaid superannuation.
We support the closing of the salary sacrifice loophole. We will continue to work on the issue of unpaid superannuation, and we reserve our position on choice of fund until the Senate committee has reported. Universal superannuation is a Labor initiative. Labor will always look for ways of improving superannuation for working Australians.
Section 47 of the Competition and Consumer Act outlaws exclusive dealing. An exclusive deal occurs when one person trading with another imposes restrictions on the other's freedom to choose with whom, in what or where they deal. The Liberal Party is a political movement whose philosophy is grounded in maximising individual freedom. The Labor Party, on the other hand, is about limiting individual freedom, maximising government control and exerting the tyranny of the state on its people. As a movement, the Liberal Party will always seek to maximise the freedom of the Australian people, consistent with the freedom of others.
Third line forcing is a form of exclusive dealing and is illegal throughout Australia. Third line forcing occurs when a business requires a purchaser to buy goods from a particular third party. Third line forcing could occur if a computer store sold you a computer and required you to buy software for that computer from the software store next door, even if that software store was twice as expensive as the software store across the road. It's bad for our economy and consumers because it limits your freedom to choose and increases your costs. Businesses which engage in third line forcing can be hit with fines of $10 million for each and every breach.
It's therefore a curious peculiarity that, while we outlaw third line forcing for business, it's alive and well in a very damaging form in our superannuation industry. That is to say: there are employers of about one million Australians, who, under federal enterprise bargaining agreements, require their employees to have all their compulsory superannuation guarantee payments paid to one fund and one fund alone, usually, not surprisingly, an industry superannuation fund. If that employee has an account with a different super fund from a previous job, they are prohibited from having their new employer pay superannuation guarantee payments into that fund, even if that means they pay double the administration fees, double the insurance premiums and double the hassle of red tape. It does not matter.
What if a prospective employee refuses to have their super paid to a fund they don't like? Put simply, if they refused to sign away their freedom of choice, they'd miss out on the job, under federal enterprise agreements enforced on people without their choice or consultation. Put simply, this is the effect of these draconian and, quite frankly, immoral measures. They affect one million workers, or nearly 10 per cent of all Australians in work.
The Treasury Laws Amendment (Improving Accountability and Member Outcomes in Superannuation Measures No. 2) Bill 2017 ensures that those one million workers have freedom of choice, that they can choose the best superannuation to suit their future and their retirement. It ensures that they can eliminate the duplication of administration fees they pay to an unwanted industry super fund, that they can eliminate the duplication of unnecessary insurance premiums that they had no choice in taking up and that they can maximise the balance of their superannuation savings in retirement and minimise their dependence on the pension and future generations to provide for them.
Today there are approximately six million Australians with more than one superannuation account who are burdened by this duplication. The government's measure will reduce the number over time. According to David Murray, who chaired the 2014 Financial System Inquiry: 'The Financial System Inquiry found that the outcomes for members were weaker than they should be, the value in the system was weaker, and we found, as a consequence, that the value of the superannuation system to the broader financial system and therefore the economy was not as good as it should be, driven by a weakness in competition around choice of fund, choice of product, a sameness of asset allocation in the system and weaknesses in information for members.' I think David Murray is the master of understatement. There are many reasons why people want to be able to choose their own fund, including as a result of personal circumstances. But do you know what? It doesn't matter. It's their money, and they should have a choice as to where it goes.
The Heydon royal commission heard evidence from Mr Paul Bracegirdle, who, when he became a full-time employee of Toll Holdings Limited, discovered that he was not able to have a choice of superannuation fund under the arrangements agreed between Toll Holdings Limited and the TWU. Mr Bracegirdle had personal reasons for wanting to choose his superannuation fund. His daughter is disabled and will never be able to work. He wanted to choose his own fund because he believes that will enable him to plan the best future for her.
The trade union royal commission also heard evidence that TWU's super provides a large income stream each year to the TWU. For example, according to John Maroney, the CEO of the Self Managed Super Fund Association, a common scenario for many SMSF trustees, of which about 60 per cent are aged 55 or older, is to work in part-time jobs under an enterprise agreement while transitioning to retirement. The fact they can be employed under an enterprise agreement can dictate where their superannuation guarantee contributions go. We believe this is unfair and inefficient and it needs to be changed.
It's not just self-managed super funds that are affected by lack of choice. Arrangements that fail to give employers or employees any choices as to where their super guarantee contributions go may have widespread negative consequences, of which the most significant is accounts proliferation resulting in multiple sets of fees and insurance premiums, both of which can erode superannuation balances unnecessarily. Equivalent third-line measures, if adopted by the banks, would see uproar by the Labor Party and the Greens and calls for a royal commission. This is why I'm pleased to report that the shadow Treasurer, the member for McMahon, agrees with the proposals of this bill. In 2015, he said:
… there's a relatively small number of circumstances where an enterprise agreement says you can only go to that fund: that fund alone. And the Government has said that they'd introduce more choice. Of course, that's something which would be fine. Who could argue with more choice for members?
While I disagree that 10 per cent of Australian workers being impacted by this draconian measure is a small number, I'm glad that the shadow Treasurer agrees with the government's approach. This measure is further evidence of the Turnbull government backing workers. Malcolm Turnbull and the coalition government don't just say we have workers' backs; our actions prove it.
While the member for McMahon may back this change, there may be opposition from the Labor Party and the Leader of the Opposition to this freedom of choice measure, but that's because the Labor Party benefit from the impacted one million workers disadvantaged. While the Liberal Party stick up for the worker, the Labor Party prey on their vulnerability. Let's not forget that, over the past 10 years, industry super funds have given $50 million to unions which fund the Labor Party. Let us realise that it's estimated that the industry funds will give $22 million of workers' retirement savings to unions every year by 2027. While some may call this a gift, Australian workers would be justified in calling it theft.
I'm pleased that these freedom of choice measures will hit many industry funds where it hurts, loosening their unfair grip on workers' super and, further, preventing the Labor Party's hold over workers' superannuation. Let's bear in mind that it's these not-for-profit industry funds which spend millions of dollars a year on TV advertisements to Australians who are forced to buy their product. How is that to the benefit of the workers and account holders? Did you know that these same industry super funds, which one million Australians are forced to join, also spent several millions of dollars establishing a left-wing online newspaper? How is that to the benefit of workers? When it comes to protecting workers, the Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party are all talk and no walk; all smoke and no chimney; all sizzle and no steak. Instead, their actions prove they are willing to sell workers out for their own personal gain.
It is true to say that the Labor Party and the Leader of the Opposition are to workers rights what Dennis Denuto is to the competent practice of constitutional law. During his time as the national secretary of the AWU, the Leader of the Opposition was part of the furniture in a culture of selfishness. His agenda entailed advancing two key interests: that of himself and that of the Labor Party, which was really all about himself. This Leader of the Labor Party stands for nothing but advancing himself. How did signing up the entire membership of the Australian Netball Players' Association to a union and invoicing them $9,000 without their knowledge benefit netballers? This was all so the AWU could have more votes in Labor Party preselections. How did this benefit workers? It didn't. How did the donation of $25,000 of union and workers' money to the Leader of the Opposition's own election campaign benefit workers? It didn't. The Labor Party may call this politics, but would the Australian people call it honest? Only the Turnbull government can be trusted to look out for workers.
This bill also rectifies another curious peculiarity. This bill closes a longstanding loophole which has been exploited by some unscrupulous employers to short-change their employees' salary sacrificed super contributions to reduce their own superannuation guarantee obligations. In other words, there are instances where employees who entered salary sacrifice arrangements discovered that their superannuation had increased by less than it should have because employers used salary sacrifice amounts to satisfy their superannuation guarantee obligation or based their superannuation guarantee contributions on the lower post-salary-sacrifice earnings base, a legal loophole which is really a form of theft. This loophole has seen an estimated $1 billion stripped from retirement savings by dodgy employers.
Consumer advocates CHOICE fully support these measures, describing them as a commonsense reform. Fixing this legal loophole was one of the key recommendations of the government's superannuation guarantee cross-agency working group. To address these inappropriate practices, we are taking steps to ensure that an individual's salary sacrifice contribution does not reduce their employer's superannuation guarantee obligation in any way. If hardworking Australians are to continue to have confidence in the integrity of the superannuation system, we must ensure employers are paying workers their full entitlements, whether they are wages or superannuation.
The government's changes will give members confidence that salary sacrifice contributions boost their retirement savings as they intend. These changes will no doubt also help the budget bottom line as people with more super will need less government assistance in their later years. I commend the bill and this measure to the House.
I rise today to support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Improving Accountability and Member Outcomes in Superannuation Measures No. 2) Bill 2017. The two measures contained in this bill reflect provisions in my own earlier private member's bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Recovering Unpaid Superannuation) Bill 2017. The salary sacrifice integrity provision in this bill relates to item 5 from my own bill and closes a loophole that allows unscrupulous employers to claim an employee's salary sacrifice contributions as employer contributions. This is a pernicious loophole and closing it has long been overdue.
The second provision in this bill, choice of fund for workplace determinations and enterprise agreements, relates to item 7 of my private member's bill and returns the power to the individual employee to determine which super fund they wish to join rather than, through an enterprise agreement, forcing them into a fund they may not wish to join. This does not mean that default funds cannot still be recommended for those people whose knowledge of superannuation is limited, but it places the power to opt out back in the hands of the employee, and I believe that's the right place for it to be.
I would add that I do not believe the measure goes far enough, and that I cannot see why employees who are paid under some awards cannot be allowed to choose, if they so wish, a fund other than the default recommended fund. However, although the Nick Xenophon Team supports this bill, it does not go far enough. Although the vast majority of employers do the right thing, I have spoken at length in this parliament about the systemic problems of underpayment of superannuation by those few unscrupulous employers who are dudding their employees of their superannuation entitlements and dudding the Australian taxpayer because retirees must rely more heavily on the public purse and pensions to make up for their lost superannuation.
As I have also stated before in this parliament, the current process for recovering unpaid superannuation by the Australian Taxation Office is weak and ineffective. Too many of my constituents have waited for years for the Australian Taxation Office to act, but they have waited in vain—all whilst it is business as usual for some unscrupulous employers. This is just not good enough. I call upon the government to provide employees with a right of action to recover their own superannuation instead of forcing employees to rely upon the ATO to recover what is, after all, their own money and not the tax office's money. I also encourage the government to consider closely the other provisions in my private members' bill, which they have yet to adopt into parliament as parts of their own superannuation bill, all of which seek to improve the payment of superannuation to Australian workers.
In closing, I support this bill. I commend this bill, and I look forward to us in this parliament doing much more in providing employees with the protections they deserve under superannuation. Thank you.
I'm very pleased to speak on this Treasury Laws Amendment (Improving Accountability and Member Outcomes in Superannuation Measures No. 2) Bill 2017. There are two main provisions of this bill which I'll speak on now, and I'll also make some more general comments about the importance of the superannuation system to Australian employees and the government's activities in this area.
This first issue, related to schedule 1 of the bill, is of course about enabling people to have the choice of fund that they want so that they can choose where their money goes. I think that the overwhelming majority of Australians would agree that people should not be forced to put their superannuation money into any particular fund; they should be able to choose. I think that a lot of Australians would be surprised to know that there are currently about a million people who effectively don't have the right to choose where their superannuation money goes—usually because they are in a federal enterprise agreement. I think that a lot of people would be very surprised to know that. Obviously, it makes sense: it's your money and you should be able to put it wherever you want. What this bill will do is to ensure that that's the case. Under a federal enterprise agreement or workplace arrangement it will still be possible to have a default fund, and if people are happy for their superannuation money to go there then that's fine. But what won't be okay is for people to have their money go into that fund when in fact they don't want it to.
When you think about it, there are people who are at all sorts of different stages of their careers and who have all sorts of different priorities when it comes to investment. Younger people might want to invest in higher-risk funds with potentially higher-returns, but people who are closer to retirement might want a more conservative asset allocation. There are people who might want to invest in particular asset classes, namely local shares, overseas shares or infrastructure—whatever it is. Or, indeed, they might want a self-managed superannuation fund, which of course is an increasingly popular option. But the bottom line is that people should be able to choose, and I think that is self-evident.
As the member for Mackellar said, it's good that a couple of years ago the member for McMahon made sensible comments in relation to this issue. He said:
… there's a relatively small number of circumstances where an enterprise agreement says you can only go to that fund: that fund alone. And the Government has said that they'd introduce more choice. Of course, that's something which would be fine. Who could argue with more choice for members?
Indeed, who could argue with that? It's a self-evident proposition.
Nobody wants a situation where particular funds are advantaged by these default arrangements, and this bill that has been introduced by the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services will ensure that funds receive members' money when those members have actually chosen for that to occur or they've been happy with their money going to the default fund. What it won't allow is for funds of whatever kind, whether it's an industry fund, a retail fund or whatever, to effectively acquire these huge volumes of assets without the proactive choice of the members. Because it doesn't make sense for, say, an industry fund to be acquiring potentially hundreds of millions or billions of dollars of members' funds unless those members have actually chosen to join that industry fund. That concept applies to not just industry funds; it also happens to be a particularly prominent feature of some enterprise agreements—that is, employees are required to put their money into that industry fund—and this bill will change that. This is a very positive development. It would be hard to find an Australian out there who would say that it's a bad idea that people should get to choose where their superannuation money goes, and so it's great to be able to support this bill today.
Another important part of the bill is schedule 2, which addresses an unfortunate loophole that exists in the system at the moment in relation to superannuation guarantee entitlements. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, the bottom line at the moment is that employers are required to put 9½ per cent of the value of an employee's salary into their superannuation fund. That fund then enjoys the various tax benefits associated with superannuation. That's a good thing, because it means that those employees will, over time, accumulate funds, which will give them a much stronger position when retirement comes around.
However, there are a couple of loopholes can be exploited by unscrupulous employers at the moment, and this bill fixes them. When an employee elects to salary sacrifice some of their salary and take some of the salary in another form, there are occasions where that reduced headline salary can be used to reduce the value of the superannuation that is paid. For instance, if you have an employee who earns $100,000 a year and salary sacrifices $10,000, there are circumstances in which an employer can say, 'We'll apply the 9½ per cent superannuation guarantee not to the $100,000'—which is the true salary of the employee—'but to the $90,000.' This would effectively mean that that employee would get 10 per cent less in superannuation than they are entitled to. It's good to see the government moving so decisively to end this scenario. There are also some scenarios where the employer—again, this would only occur in circumstances where the employer was acting in an unscrupulous fashion—actually uses some or all of the employee's salary sacrifice amount of money to say that that can be put towards the employer's superannuation guarantee. So the employee's salary sacrifice is effectively being used, in theory, to meet the employer's obligations. That loophole will also be fixed by this important legislation, so these two elements of the bill are both very important.
This bill exists in the context of the broader superannuation reforms that the government is putting in place in the parliament—here in the House and in the Senate as well—as we speak. More than $2 trillion is now invested in superannuation. I guess that's what happens when governments mandate that a large chunk of employee salaries are compulsorily placed into a particular savings vehicle. More than $2 trillion—an extraordinary amount of money, and one of the largest pools of retirement savings anywhere in the world. It is very important that when you have such a massive amount of money you have government standards that are commensurate with what people would expect of those looking after their retirement savings.
If you look at the statistics on household wealth from the Australian Taxation Office, you'll see that for most families their No. 1 asset is their home and their No. 2 asset is their superannuation. With each year that passes, the superannuation savings of Australians go up. This is a very, very big deal. We need to ensure these funds are governed with the highest standards of probity, that the people who are on the boards of the funds have appropriate qualifications and that there is a degree of independence, because you don't want a situation where all the directors are drawn from one particular cohort. You don't want the directors to come from, say, a union group or, indeed, to all come from an associated employer group. You want a degree of independence such as we see in best practice in public sector boards and in APRA-regulated entities.
What the Superannuation Laws Amendment (Strengthening Trustee Arrangements) Bill, which is currently before the Senate, does is require that entities have a minimum of one-third independent directors, including an independent chair, on their boards. That is good news for people with money in superannuation funds, because what they would want is independence, an objective review of what is best for their savings. Certainly, the last thing people would want is for key decisions about that critical asset—the second most important asset that households have—to be made by a very narrowly focused group, whether it's a group associated with a various trade unions or other groups. Independence is a very good principle.
The APRA-regulated funds hold $1.4 trillion, with $2.3 trillion being held across the entire sector, but the trustee boards that manage these funds don't have governance arrangements that reflect the important role they have in ensuring the retirement savings of their members. It is important that that changes so that their governance arrangements are closer to what we would expect in private sector groups of similar size. In 2014, the Financial System Inquiry recommended that all public offer funds should have a majority of independent directors, including an independent chair. APRA, the regulator responsible, has indicated that independent directors improve governance, and that is why APRA requires a majority of independent directors for banks and insurers. APRA suggests that having at least some independent directors on boards best supports sound governance outcomes. In APRA's view, the diversity of views and experience that independent directors bring supports more robust decision-making. That is eminently sensible from the very strong organisation that we have in APRA. But, today, there's no requirement for the boards of superannuation fund to have any independent directors among their trustees—not one. That's wrong. That needs to change. That's what this government is doing in requiring that the chair and at least one-third of directors be independent.
If you look at different bodies and governance standards, you'll see that the superannuation industry is somewhat out of step with other areas. For instance, for ASX-listed companies the ASX corporate governance principles say that the chair should be independent and a majority of the directors should be independent. If companies don't have an independent chair or a majority of independent directors they're required to explain to the ASX why that is the case. That's obviously a very sensible piece of legislation. The same applies to banks, which must have independent chairs and a majority of independent directors. So for that bill which is currently before the Senate and which is an important part of the government's superannuation reforms, it is important that all of these issues and all changes are very thoroughly aired, because they are inextricably linked. All members of this House, undoubtedly, would support strong governance arrangements through the inclusion of independent directors on superannuation funds. It is good to have an opportunity to discuss these important measures in the context of the minister's superannuation reforms.
These are particularly important provisions existing across the whole spectrum of the superannuation reforms. The measures in the Treasury Laws Amendment (Improving Accountability and Member Outcomes in Superannuation Measures No. 2) Bill 2017 are exceptional measures which should be supported. I commend the bill to the House.
I'd like to thank those members who have contributed to this debate, in particular the very eloquent and thoughtful contribution from the member for Banks, who also takes a strong and special interest in this subject as the chair of the House Standing Committee on Economics. I commend you, Member for Banks, for the great work you're doing there.
The measures in the Treasury Laws Amendment (Improving Accountability and Member Outcomes in Superannuation Measures No. 2) Bill 2017 will ensure that choice of fund is provided for over one million more Australians and that salary sacrifice contributions are reflected in members' retirement savings. It is part of a broader package of government reforms that is squarely focused on protecting members' money and members' interests with a strong prudential regulator, APRA. Schedule 1 of this bill extends choice of fund to around one million people covered by federal enterprise bargaining agreements. David Murray, former chair of the financial system inquiry, said of the financial system inquiry at a recent Senate committee inquiry hearing:
… we found that the outcomes for members were weaker than they should be … driven by a weakness in competition around choice of fund, choice of product, a sameness of asset allocation in the system and weaknesses in information for members.
As a result of this measure, more people will be able to choose for themselves where their compulsory superannuation contributions are paid, including into a self-managed superannuation fund. It will no longer be possible to deny choice to individuals on the grounds that they are part of an enterprise bargaining agreement or similar determination.
An example which shows the problem that this bill will address is best demonstrated by evidence heard in the Heydon royal commission from Mr Bracegirdle, who, when he became a full-time employee of Toll Holdings Ltd, discovered that he was not able to have his choice of superannuation fund under the arrangements agreed between Toll Holdings Ltd and the TWU. Mr Bracegirdle has personal reasons for wanting to choose his superannuation fund. His daughter is disabled and will never be able to work. He wants to choose his own fund because he believes that it will enable him to plan the best future for her. The trade union royal commission also heard evidence that TWUSUPER provides a large income stream each year to the TWU.
The government wants people to be able to make choices about their deferred wages and to be active in making decisions about their future. It's great to see the member for McMahon here because I'm about to quote him. In 2015, the member for McMahon also agreed with extending choice of fund when he said in a television interview on the ABC:
… there's a relatively small number of circumstances where an enterprise agreement says you can only go to that fund: that fund alone. And the Government has said that they'd introduce more choice. Of course, that's something that's which would be fine. Who could argue with more choice for members?
We agree. To be clear, this measure does not prevent enterprise bargaining agreements from specifying a particular fund. It simply allows individuals to choose a different fund if it suits them better.
Schedule 2 of this bill will close a loophole that has been used by some unscrupulous employers to short-change employees who make salary sacrifice superannuation contributions. The CEO of CHOICE, Alan Kirkland, said of this measure:
Shutting down the salary sacrifice loophole which has seen an estimated $1 billion stripped from retirement savings by unscrupulous employers is also a great outcome for consumers.
… … …
This is a common sense reform which CHOICE fully supports.
There are instances where employees that enter salary sacrifice arrangements discover that their superannuation has increased by less than they were expecting because employers have used salary sacrifice amounts to satisfy their superannuation guarantee obligation or have based their superannuation guarantee contributions on the lower post-salary-sacrifice earnings base. To address these inappropriate practices, the changes in this bill will ensure that an individual's salary sacrifice contributions do not reduce their employer's superannuation guarantee obligation in any way.
If Australians are to continue to have confidence in the integrity of the superannuation system, we must ensure employers are paying workers their full entitlements, whether that be wages or superannuation. After all, it is their money. I commend this bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
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 Medicare Levy Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017 and related bills. Here we have a situation where a government which professes to be a low-tax government, a government which claims that it's interested in reducing the tax burden on working Australians and a government that beats its chest and reminds people how much it's done for them when it comes to reducing tax seeks to increase personal income tax paid by anybody earning more than $21,000 a year. This is a stark difference between the two sides of this House.
The Labor Party will oppose this bill. We don't believe that a tax hike on over seven million Australian workers earning less than $87,000 a year is justified. It is particularly concerning at a time of low wages growth, high cost-of-living pressures and a government which is standing by watching Australians take a wage cut for committing no crime other than working on a weekend—and this government is prioritising an income tax increase for those same workers. As I said, the government likes to talk the talk about reducing tax and the Treasurer likes to boast that he cut tax, as the Prime Minister likes to boast, but what they're doing here is increasing tax. This government believes in lower tax for some and higher tax for others. It believes in lower tax for corporations and higher tax for low- and middle-income workers, and even believes in lower tax for high-income earners but higher tax for those who can least afford it. This tax increase will mean a worker on $55,000 a year would pay $275 a year extra on tax while someone on $80,000 will pay more than $400 a year extra on tax.
You occasionally hear this government, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer asked: what have been their achievements in office? I understand why they struggle to answer that, but they search around and come up with, 'We've cut taxes on workers. We've cut personal income tax.' But the problem for them is that their tax cuts, which received bipartisan support, are outweighed by this increase. Under the government's plan to increase the Medicare levy, it turns that out a worker earning $85,000 a year will lose the full benefit of last year's tax cut, which the government likes to boast about, and will end up paying more in income tax. They will be worse off compared to if the government had done nothing—not cut tax last year and not increased the Medicare levy this year. If the government did nothing, then that worker on $85,000 a year would be better off.
It is understandable that Australians look at this Treasurer in particular and shake their head when they see that this government is increasing taxes on them. This party of lower taxes introduced over $20 billion in new taxes in this year's budget. The tax-to-GDP ratio is higher now than it ever was when Labor was in government, as high as we've seen since the Howard government. And it's clear that the government's corporate income tax cuts are, in a technical sense, unfunded. The government has no plan to pay for them.
But in a real sense they are actually funded by Australian workers, because what the government is doing is increasing personal income tax at the same time as it reduces, or seeks to reduce, corporate tax. Recently, the Parliamentary Budget Office put out a report entitled 2017-18 Budget: medium-term projections, which made some interesting points. It noted that once the tax cap is increased that personal tax receipts are projected by the PBO to continue to rise as a percentage of GDP as company tax receipts decline from 2023-24. This is as a result of the government's enterprise tax plan. Those are PBO's words, not mine. The PBO projects that the average tax rate on personal income will rise from 22.7 per cent in 2016-17 to 25.9 per cent in 2027-28. The report states that in 2023-24 personal income tax will be 12.4 per cent of GDP, while company tax will be 4.5 per cent of GDP. But by 2027 personal income tax will be 12.6 per cent while corporate tax will be 4.2 per cent. So, from 2023-24 to 2027-28, when the company tax rate is meant to decrease to 25 per cent for all companies, personal income taxes will rise by 0.2 percentage points of GDP while company taxes decrease by 0.3 per cent of GDP. That might not sound like much, but of course as a percentage of GDP it adds up to a very substantial amount.
This was further reinforced in another report put out by the Parliamentary Budget Office a few weeks ago, showing that middle-income earners are set to suffer the greatest tax burden under this government's policies. As I said, only last year the Treasurer was talking about delivering income tax relief for middle-income earners like it was the greatest challenge of our time. Despite the Liberal Party's low-tax talk, the Turnbull government is delivering tax cuts only for big business while actually increasing income taxes on lower-level income earners. In fact, as I said, somebody on $85,000 will be worse off as a result of the interaction of both of those things.
Another PBO report, entitled Changes in average personal income tax rates: distributional impacts, shows that average tax rates for individuals in every quintile are set to increase between this year and 2021. The largest increase in average tax rates is expected for people in the middle-income quintile, earning just $46,000—the largest increase in tax will be paid by those earning just $46,000! And the average tax on the middle-income quintile is expected to increase by 3.2 percentage points—much higher than the less-than-two percentage point increase expected for people in the top quintile. And average tax rates on middle-income earners are expected to rise to 20-year highs. What we're seeing here is in many respects a combination of the government's policy of increasing the Medicare levy on every Australian who earns more than $21,000 and bracket creep—people moving from one tax bracket into another.
Of course, we were told that this would be the great moral mission of the Treasurer—that he was going to introduce big, sweeping personal income tax cuts to deal with this. He said so. He said, when he became Treasurer, that he was passionate about bracket creep and that he would be dealing with it. Sometimes the tax cuts were called 'big', sometimes they were 'very big' and sometimes they were 'extremely big', but it was very clear that he was laying out his personal agenda on which he would be judged a failure or a success. What he's done is produce today's tax cuts last year, which are now more than eaten away by this personal tax increase.
It goes to the heart of the lack of a credible economic plan by this government. It goes to the heart of their lack of beliefs—to their lack of a coherent and consistent agenda. This is a government which actually doesn't believe in anything; a government which could, with a straight face, actually say to the Australian people that this Medicare levy increase is necessary when it wasn't mentioned by them at the last election. All they were saying at the last election was that they had a magical plan to grow the economy by reducing corporate tax and that they didn't need to fund it because, in effect, it would fund itself. I wonder why they, who were so keen on this plan, weren't straight with the Australian people at the last election, which was a little more than 12 months ago? The fact of the matter is that many people will be worse off as a result of the government's policy compared to the Labor Party's.
The Labor Party is prepared to be reasonable. We believe that the only increase in the Medicare levy that can be justified is for those who earn more than $87,000 a year. We don't say that with any relish or enjoyment, but, if difficult decisions are necessary, governments need to prioritise. We say it is sustainable and reasonable to exempt those earning under $87,000 from this increase.
The government will in the course of this debate try to justify their policy by claiming it is necessary to save the National Disability Insurance Scheme. This is highly irresponsible for the government to argue. It's highly irresponsible because it generates fear among those who rely on the NDIS, for themselves or for family members, who come to the view that somehow the NDIS must be under threat or at risk. Well, firstly, the reports we have seen indicate that there's been no blowout in the cost of the NDIS. In fact, the final budget outcome, which we saw a few weeks ago, showed that the NDIS was running at under projections and that the government was actually spending less on the NDIS than had been projected at budget time. So for the government to argue that the NDIS is out of control and unfunded is not only highly disingenuous but also deeply irresponsible. As I said, it creates fear among those who rely on the NDIS.
Here is a challenge for the government. We know that the NDIS is not running over cost. Minister Porter himself has confirmed that. He has said there is no evidence that there's been a cost blowout. We know that the Labor Party in government took difficult decisions to fund the NDIS. We put those decisions through—some of them with the support of the Liberal Party. That was done. But, if the government are really saying that the NDIS is under pressure or under threat, what they're saying is that they will renege on the signed agreements they have with the states to introduce and implement the NDIS. I don't believe the government will renege on their agreements. But they should be honest about that. They should confirm that they won't renege and that the NDIS is fully funded—as it is.
So the NDIS argument falls flat at every hurdle. It is completely disingenuous. The NDIS has been funded by both Labor and Liberal governments. Both Labor and Liberal governments have allocated funding to the NDIS in all budgets since 2013 and signed bilateral agreements with the states that contain the government's commitment to the full funding of the NDIS. Like other items of government expenditure, such as defence, the NDIS is funded from consolidated revenue and does not require a separate funding arrangement. Why should the NDIS be different from all the other worthy and good things that the government spends money on? This government singles out the NDIS and says to Australians earning more than $21,000: 'You've got to pay this special increase in the levy to fund it.' We do not believe that that should be the case. We believe it should be funded in the normal fashion, through consolidated revenue, as was implemented by the previous Labor government.
I will shortly move a second reading amendment. This amendment points out that this is a tax hike for over seven million Australians who are earning less than $87,000 a year and the errors in the government's approach. The package of bills that we are debating today includes a bill that would abolish the Building Australia Fund and the Education Investment Fund—
Outrageous!
a matter of some interest to my friend the member for Grayndler. Members may recall that the government tried to abolish these two nation-building funds when the former Treasurer, Joe Hockey, put forward his ill-fated Asset Recycling Fund. And now, after slowly crab-walking away from the Asset Recycling Fund idea, the government goes back to its old idea of abolishing these funds and crediting them to an NDIS special account. This is something my colleagues will say more about in their contributions, but I can say very clearly that we will oppose the government's plan. In the consideration in detail stage, I will be seeking to move amendments that will seek to implement our policy to have the Medicare levy increased for those earning over $87,000. And I will be moving amendments that set up the legislative framework for the reinstatement of the budget repair levy. While we may be constitutionally prevented from reinstating the levy itself, we can put the framework in place. I move the amendment circulated in my name:
That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"the House declines to give this bill a second reading as:
(1) this is a tax hike on over seven million Australian workers earning less than $87,000 a year;
(2) the Government is already supporting cuts to penalty rates for low and middle income workers;
(3) at a time of low wages growth and the high cost of living pressures, including energy costs, the Government should not be seeking to raise taxes on these low and middle income workers;
(4) the Government:
(a) is cutting funding for vocational education, university and research infrastructure, and transport infrastructure;
(b) has failed to abolish the Nation-Building Funds previously; and
(c) has sidelined Infrastructure Australia when making infrastructure investment decisions;
(5) the National Disability Insurance Scheme has been fully funded in a bipartisan fashion, and funding has been allocated to the NDIS in all Budgets since 2013-14 and bilateral agreements with the states that contain the Commonwealth Government’s commitment to the full funding of the NDIS have been signed in a bipartisan manner;
(6) like all other items of Government expenditure, such as defence, the NDIS is funded from consolidated revenue and does not require a separate funding arrangement; and
(7) there is a better and fairer plan which would:
(a) only raise the Medicare Levy for those earning above $87,000 a year;
(b) reinstate the Budget Repair Levy for those earning above $180,000 a year; and
(c) would ease the pressure on low and middle income workers, and be better for the budget bottom line".
I know the member for Grayndler is particularly keen to second it. I will continue my remarks at a later hour.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
I seek leave to table a petition from the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons to the Prime Minister, signed by more than 50 organisations in civil society.
Leave granted.
This petition is signed by a very broad group of people representing civil society: Amnesty International, the ACTU, the Edmund Rice Centre, Oxfam, Sisters of St Joseph, the National Council of Churches, and many other organisations. It's been coordinated by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, which campaigned strongly for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons to be adopted by the United Nations. It has been supported already by more than 122 nations and it will enter into force when ratified by 50 countries. Due to its leadership, for a small organisation that began in Melbourne, ICAN received the Nobel Peace Prize for 2017. Nuclear weapons are the most destructive weapons on earth, as the petition says. They pose a threat so grave, they're an existential risk to all humanity.
In March this year, Cyclone Debbie caused major damage to homes, businesses and farms in Proserpine, the Whitsundays, Bowen and Mackay. At the time, insurance companies and the Insurance Council of Australia assured me they would honour every claim without dragging out the process. More than six months on, there are perhaps thousands of claims still not settled. Meanwhile, people are living in damaged homes and are going to work in damaged workplaces. Then, when they get back to their damaged homes, they spend hours on the phone, arguing with building assessors, engineers and insurers who are putting forward undercooked scopes of work that don't come close to covering the costs of necessary repairs. I'm currently dealing with more than 60 cases where homes and business owners have been dealt a double blow. I've spoken with the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services to ensure that she understands what's happening on the ground and to flag a potential need for intervention. I am now demanding that insurance companies concerned and the Insurance Council of Australia come to the Whitsundays, sit down with the stakeholders and fix this problem—not just talk about it but put measures in place to fix the problem. If they don't, further action will need to be taken and, if that means sending the equivalent of a category 5 cyclone through the insurance industry, they'd better strap themselves in for a bumpy ride because North Queenslanders are sick of copping it in the neck with high premiums and then copping the rough end of the pineapple after a disaster like this. (Time expired)
Last Friday, a remarkable woman left this world. Deborah Margaret Walsh lived a good life that was not long enough, but her years on this earth were full of love, determination and passion. Deb Walsh was a tower of strength and love that stood alongside Gary Gray and enabled his career serving the Labor Party, the community of Brand, the state of Western Australia, this parliament and this nation. The nation owes her a debt for sharing her husband and, indeed, her father with us for so long. The last time I saw Deb, which, sadly, wasn't that long ago, we laughed, chatted and embraced on the Rockingham foreshore at a marriage equality rally. She fought for equality to the end. The three young men who are her sons must always remember this. I know that Riley, Darcy and Toby are very proud of their wonderful mother and her love will live on in them.
If you knew Deb Walsh, you knew there was no escaping a good argument or exceptional food when she was hosting another cracking party for Gary's team. She always welcomed Gary's staff, made us feel at home in their home and made us feel part of her wonderful family. For so many of her friends and family, our world is diminished with her no longer in it, but our world was so much better for having had the chance to share it for a little while with Deb Walsh. Our thoughts are with Deb's family, her sons, her sisters, her nieces, her nephews, her lovely mother, Rosalie Walsh, and especially her best friend, husband and great love, Gary Gray. Vale, Deb Walsh, we will miss you.
A very important matter is about to come before Canterbury Bankstown Council, and that is the issue of the former Bankstown Council's plans for tens of thousands of additional high-rise units to be built across the Bankstown area. This plan must not go ahead. It will have a very negative impact on Padstow, Revesby, East Hills and Panania—tens of thousands of additional high-rise units.
At the recent council election, all councillors who were elected, whether they were Liberal, Labor or Greens, said they were against this plan. Well, there's a very simple solution: get rid of the plan. Start with another plan, because this plan will change the southern Bankstown area in a way which cannot be undone. It will change these suburbs for the worse, for the long run, and it must not go ahead.
It is not the case that this plan is required by the state government. It is not the case that this plan must go ahead. It is entirely possible for this plan to be withdrawn and for a new plan to be submitted, and that is what must happen. It's not about politics. It's not about what political party the councillors happen to be from. It's about the long-term future of our area, and all of the councillors need to step up, withdraw this plan, go back to the drawing board and preserve the character of our area.
Last Thursday in this place, the member for New England quoted the former member for Werriwa and Prime Minister Gough Whitlam. Whilst I'm not going to be anywhere near as articulate or quick-witted as Gough, I feel it necessary to set the record straight and make some suggestions for other policies from the Whitlam manifesto that the government should also implement. The quote was from 26 September 1969, 48 years ago. It was about the certainty of electricity provision for Queensland. Science has moved on, and I know that Gough would have moved with it. He would have embraced the innovation of new ways of power generation. He would have left the planet better for our children and grandchildren and, in his own words, he would have maintained contemporary relevance.
He believed in equity. He believed in properly funded education, not funding the richest schools. He funded universities and believed in infrastructure, in nation building, in health care and in safety nets for our most vulnerable citizens. He passed the Racial Discrimination Act. He believed in section 18C. He believed in our first Australians and their place in our country. He believed in a truly multicultural society. Most significantly, Gough would have made sure that this parliament didn't waste money on a costly postal survey and that we did what we were elected to do and voted on marriage equality. Australia would be better if this government didn't just quote the great man but implemented his policies.
On Saturday I had the pleasure of attending the Somerton Surf Life Saving Club open day and season launch. It was an action-packed afternoon with hundreds of volunteers and members in attendance. Club membership looks likely to reach over 600 again this year. This will certainly keep new club president Warwick Holland and his committee busy, and I wish them all the best for the months ahead.
I would like to thank immediate past president Mark 'Curly' Williams for his support. I worked closely with Curly to secure an election commitment for solar panels for Somerton to help reduce their $30,000-a-year power bill. The club made a co-contribution to purchase an even larger solar panel system, and I'm delighted to see the panels up and running.
Reducing power costs means that Somerton can stop worrying about their power bills and instead focus on what they do best: keeping us all safe at the beach. This is what our wonderful young and not-so-young volunteers do over thousands of hours each summer. Senior club members teach younger members the importance of volunteering, beach safety, exercise and teamwork. They also help to keep our community strong by supporting one another. These are senior club members like Robin and Tony Kidney, who founded the Somerton Surf Life Saving Club in 1960. They have volunteers like Bob Hood, who on Saturday was recognised for 50 years continuous service to the club, and he's still going strong. All the best to Somerton Surf Life Saving Club for the season ahead. I thank you for the wonderful work you do for our community.
Last week, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman released its annual report for 2016. The report further revealed the extent of the failure of the Turnbull government's second-rate NBN. There has been a 160 per cent increase in complaints to the TIO. There were four times as many complaints made in regard to the telecommunications industry as there were in regard to the banking and finance industry.
Launceston had the dubious honour of having the highest rate of NBN complaints in Tasmania, and, frankly, I am not surprised, given the prevalence of the run-around between NBN Co. and retail service providers. My office is inundated with complaints about homes left without usable internet or landline connections and the lack of coordination between wholesaler and retailer. We saw a prime example of service failure in Launceston recently which was publicised in the local newspaper, with an unacceptable outage of services faced by Wiseguise Pizza, local entrepreneurs who, like all businesses, need a reliable connection in order to run their business.
It's just not good enough that you have businesses that rely upon telecommunications services to sustain their operations suffering from service failures and a run-around as to who is responsible. We all know that vulnerable people like our elderly rely upon the connection provided by telecommunications providers for a range of things, including life-saving medical services. The TIO report is a damning indictment on the federal Liberal government and their failed NBN— (Time expired)
The Liberal National coalition government has committed to vastly improving the health outcomes for rural and regional Australians. The Assistant Minister for Health, David Gillespie, is driving changes to facilitate these improvements. On Saturday, Assistant Minister Gillespie announced the appointment of Emeritus Professor Paul Worley as Australia's first National Rural Health Commissioner. Professor Worley's first priority will be to develop national rural generalist pathways to provide training, recognition and appropriate remuneration for the complex demands on doctors working outside of the major cities.
We need more trained medical practitioners and specialists in rural and regional areas, and yet it has been shown that graduates are most likely to stay and settle in regional Australia if they study and train in the regions. The City of Greater Shepparton in the heart of my electorate of Murray is perfectly poised to provide this training. In April this year, the Assistant Minister for Health, David Gillespie, announced that Shepparton had been selected as a regional health training hub. This needs to be progressed to develop a full end-to-end medical school. And this will also embark with Shepparton's $168 million new hospital, which is getting built very, very soon. The new emergency department will have 36 treatment spaces and nine extra beds for short stays, and this will double the current emergency availability. We need an end-to-end medical school for the City of Greater Shepparton to train our locals and keep those doctors in the regions.
On Friday, around 60 pensioners joined the member for Jagajaga and me at a community forum to discuss the government's changes to pensions. Concerns about the government's plans to axe the energy supplement were top of the list for many in attendance. If the Turnbull government had its way, on 20 September this year, the energy supplement would have been axed from 1.7 million Australians. Axing the energy supplement would hit more than 24,000 people right across the ACT. That's 24,000 people here in the ACT, and 1.7 million right across the country. Axing the energy supplement to new pensioners would mean a cut of $14.10 per fortnight to single pensioners, or $365 a year. Couple pensioners would be $21.20 a fortnight, or around $550 a year, worse off. That's a lot of money—$550. For many pensioners who are already living marginally above or below the poverty line, these small sums will make budgeting each week even more desperate.
The forum also discussed a range of issues, from the role of carers, pension indexation, age discrimination, the NDIS and Medicare to aged care and concerns about increasing the pension eligibility age to 70. But, as I said, the energy supplement was the main concern for those in attendance. Axing the energy supplement was first proposed in the 2016 budget, but, so far, it hasn't passed through the Senate. It's another unfair cut from the out-of-touch Turnbull government. (Time expired)
Yesterday morning, before I flew to Canberra, I put on an advanced bomb suit, the same type that our service men and women use in explosive ordnance disposal teams across the Middle East. But the bomb suit wasn't to prepare me for this week in parliament; I was visiting a Brisbane small business called Explosive Protective Equipment or EPE. They supply protective equipment to our defence forces, and their technology is so advanced that they've received a grant just recently through our Defence Innovation Hub. In layman's terms, they're looking at how to connect AMULET ground-penetrating radar to unmanned robotic vehicles so that our Defence Forces can better detect IEDs—improvised explosive devices—without putting people at risk. This has the potential to save lives being lost to some of the deadliest weapons in some theatres of war. I learned about the importance of this type of work in my recent visit to Iraq and the Middle East with the Defence parliamentary program. Not everybody know this, but Australia is actually a world leader when it comes to the technology and the capabilities to defeat or mitigate the impact of IEDs.
I want to congratulate Explosive Protective Equipment and wish them all the best with their work. This work will make a very real difference around the world. This business also symbolises some opportunities for Brisbane and Australia. The business has grown from two to 23 people in just a few years. A more prosperous defence industry creates more highly-skilled jobs, and that's why this government has made defence industry a major plank of our economic plan. (Time expired)
I recently met with members of the Bangladeshi community who live in my electorate and in the electorate of my next door neighbour, the member for Rankin. We're working on this issue together.
I met with Adjunct Professor Adil Khan, Professor Reza Monem, Mr Azharul Karim, Dr Asad Khan, Adjunct Professor Iyanatul Islam, Dr Mazhar Haque and many others. They presented us with a petition calling on this House to do all it can to persuade the Myanmar government to establish a United Nations-led or independent investigation into allegations of genocide and human rights violations, to stop genocide or killing of innocent people immediately and to ensure the rights of the Rohingya minority. The member for Rankin will table that petition soon.
We know that this is a catastrophic humanitarian crisis. Over half a million Rohingya refugees have fled their homes in Myanmar. Most now camp near the Bangladeshi city of Cox's Bazar on the border with Myanmar. The atrocities committed against the Rohingya community in Rakhine State are almost beyond our comprehension. It's crucial that there is unimpeded humanitarian access to the camps in Bangladesh, and that regional partners, including Australia, work together in response to this crisis to ensure that the Rohingya population has a safe and secure place to live in peace.
Labor has made a formal representation to the Prime Minister and the foreign minister to do everything in the government's power to respond to this escalating crisis. I look forward to working with the member for Rankin and the foreign minister to make sure that we can do all we can to get this sorted. I reiterate this request to the government.
I rise to speak on Relay For Life, the largest cancer fundraising event in the world. Relay For Life brings communities together to recognise and celebrate those who have overcome cancer or who are undergoing treatment, as well as the people who care for them.
As teams relay through the night, there's a chance to reflect and remember those we have lost to cancer. The event raises vital funds for Cancer Council research, prevention and support services. Relays are held all around the country throughout the year, with more than 134,000 participants raising over $24 million each and every year for the cause.
In my electorate of Barker relays are held on the Limestone Coast, in the Murraylands, in the Riverland and in Bordertown. Today I want to pay particular tribute to the Riverland Relay For Life event, held this past Saturday in Berri. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the event; with an electorate of the same size as some European countries, it's difficult to be everywhere!
With 11 teams participating, the Riverland event raised a whopping $35,000. I wish to pay particular tribute to Nancy Murdock, one of the key organisers who brought this event together. Nancy was also the team captain of Angels of Strength. This team raised a staggering $12,745. A big congratulations to all those who participated and who donated to such a successful event in the Riverland.
A few weeks ago, a group of esteemed and highly-qualified community members sat around the meeting table in my electorate office in Logan City, and in the member for Moreton's office in Sunnybank. They were doctors, professors and professionals—experts in their fields. Brought together by Dr Mohammed Islam, they share a common message of concern over the plight of the Rohingya people in Myanmar and in Bangladesh. They brought with them a petition signed by 2,000 residents from the member for Moreton's community, my community and the surrounding areas. In their words, and in the words of the United Nations and Human Rights Watch, they consider what is occurring there to be an atrocity beyond comprehension.
We in Labor have expressed our deep concerns through the shadow foreign affairs minister, Senator Wong. What is happening there is horrific and inexcusable. The member for Moreton and I took this petition to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and received a briefing on the government's response to this humanitarian crisis in the region. I thank the foreign affairs minister and her office for facilitating that meeting urgently and for the opportunity to discuss humanitarian assistance, fact-finding missions, the continuation of the arms embargo and other relevant issues like international cooperation and resettlement. Labor wants to see the government continue to take these meaningful steps. I thank the member for Moreton. I thank Senator Wong. I thank the leaders in our communities, who raised these issues with us and who do so much every day not only to support their loved ones but to bring peace and compassion into our part of the world. I table the petition.
The petition read as follows—
The petition was unavailable at the time of publishing
I rise today in response to statements made in the state parliament by the member for Frankston, Mr Paul Edbrooke, about both me and the small-business minister. Mr Edbrooke, instead of listening to Young Street precinct traders, had the nerve to get up in state parliament and claim that only one shop had closed in the precinct due to the recent, delayed Young Street works. He claimed that the traders, traders' advocates and I were lying when we noted the 26 precinct businesses that have had to close their doors because of the Young Street precinct works. He also made a further false statement, saying that there are only 35 businesses in Young Street and that I, therefore, am saying that over 75 per cent of those local businesses have closed. This is a nonsense, because he is continuing to ignore the many businesses in the side streets off Young Street that have also suffered and closed. He is misleading the state parliament. He asked us to release the names of the 26 traders in Young Street precinct that have closed their doors. We will do so one by one, so the member for Frankston can listen to the traders instead of Liberal members. We already know about Don Cristiano and his Leatherworks. Now I will give a story about Jenna Louise. She says, 'In June this year I had to close my salon doors due to the ongoing delays. While my salon was located on Beach Street, Frankston, the effects devastated my business. With the works happening on Young Street the buses were relocated to three locations, with one of them being Beach Street. There was almost no consultation with any of the owners along Beach Street about the impact of the buses— (Time expired)
Seriously, like all Australians and businesses, I cannot believe that the Prime Minister is blaming Labor for the way in which he has messed up the rollout of the NBN. Businesses and households across central Victoria are struggling because of the way in which this government and this Prime Minister have messed up the roll out of the NBN. I remind the Prime Minister that he came to Bendigo when he was the shadow communications minister and stood up in front of a crowded room of Bendigo and central Victorian businesses and promised that by 2016 they would all have fast, reliable internet. Sooner, faster, cheaper: that was the promise that this Prime Minister made to the people of central Victoria when he was the shadow communications minister. He has failed, because not only have not all of them got access to the NBN; those who have are constantly complaining of delays. Many people have chosen to stay on their ADSL copper network because it is more reliable. We have businesses that have been plagued by dropouts. We have businesses that are only a few kilometres from the CBD that have been told that their only option is satellite. We have had businesses that have had dropouts and delays to the extent that their EFTPOS machines aren't working. This government needs to stop blaming Labor and get on with the job of fixing the mess that it has created with the NBN rollout.
In 1917 Australia was able to briefly put aside the grief and trauma of the First World War for the running of the Melbourne Cup. As it did then and continues to do to this day, the race brought the country together—78,000 people attended the 1917 cup, with veterans gaining free admittance. The five-year-old Westcourt, the 'Marvel from Mudgee', led into the straight and was able to hold off the fast finishing Lingle to win by a short half head. It was an extraordinary comeback after Westcourt finished second in the 1915 cup and later broke down. The famous victory was celebrated and commemorated on the property 'Westcourt' on Saturday, when about 130 people gathered to mark the centenary of Westcourt's mighty run. The event was hosted by Malcolm and Margaret Roth, who went to extraordinary lengths to recreate the magic of that win.
At the recent Mudgee Wine Show, the Westcourt Wines Riesling took out the coveted awards for champion wine of the show and also for outstanding white wine of the show. Legend has it that Westcourt acquired his staying power from grazing on riesling grapes on the property.
Malcolm and Margaret's daughter, Wendy Dobbins, was also instrumental in ensuring the day was such an outstanding success. It featured the arrival of a latter-day Westcourt to trumpet fanfare, the arrival of the Melbourne Cup, a superb calling of the 1917 race by Ian McMaster, and a charity auction run by Bruce McGregor which raised over $7,000 for Lions. The Mudgee Race Club did a superb job in helping to organise it, and one of Mudgee's favourite sons, Ken Sutcliffe, did a wonderful job as the MC. Congratulations, Mudgee, on a fantastic event. This House salutes you, and we salute Westcourt as well.
Last Saturday, 21 October, the Walk Together for freedom took place across 26 cities and regional centres. Walk Together is an initiative of welcome to Australia and a celebration of our country's diversity. As an ambassador for Welcome to Australia, I'm committed to an inclusive, welcoming and just society.
We often hear that Australia is a successful and proud multicultural nation, but what does that really mean in practice? It means valuing the diversity that makes us strong and working towards a future in which all those coming to Australia are welcomed and supported to make positive contributions.
This year, the Walk Together is for freedom—the freedom to belong, to be yourself, and to hope for a better future. In Australia, we know the importance of belonging and how important it is to belong and to feel valued by your community. Belonging to something gives you a reason to invest in it, to participate in it and to protect it. By making people part of our country, we make it stronger and we make it richer.
Those who participated in the march also did so in celebration of this parliament's resolve to defeat a bill that would have made us less welcoming. People with so much to contribute would have been stripped of the opportunity to become active citizens. Australia is welcoming. We're compassionate and diverse, and I'm proud to stand up for that today and every day. I pay tribute to the board and the staff and the partners and ambassadors of Welcome to Australia, who are committed to upholding that vision.
I welcome the announcement over the weekend by the Prime Minister that the federal government is providing $13 million in funding over 10 years to Telethon Kids Institute and the Joondalup Health Campus in my electorate for a comprehensive health study into chronic child health problems. The study will explore the causality of Australia's growing and debilitating chronic illnesses to identify and implement interventions. The Paul Ramsay Foundation will be matching the funding dollar for dollar, which will result in a combined $26 million in funding being spent on the ORIGINS Project, which will follow a cohort of 10,000 children for five years from birth.
The study will focus on how a child's early environment, including the period before birth, influences the risk of a broad range of chronic health problems such as asthma, autism, diabetes and obesity. Researchers will then identify and implement ways to reduce risks for children, placing Australia at the forefront of international long-term child health research.
I wish to acknowledge the work of the Minister for Finance, Senator the Hon. Mathias Cormann, in securing this funding. I look forward to working with the Chief Executive Officer of the Joondalup Health Campus, Kempton Cowan, and Professor Desiree Silva, head of paediatrics, to advance the services available at the hospital as the next stage of expansion is being planned to meet population growth.
We all know that regions are strengthened when government at all levels partners with industry and community to develop integrated plans with lasting impact. Today, I would like to congratulate Towong Shire and the Upper Murray 2030 board for doing exactly this. The Upper Murray 2030 community board comprises skilled, passionate local people committed to delivering the Upper Murray 2030 Vision Plan. This plan was initiated by Upper Murray Business Inc., in partnership with Upper Murray Health & Community Services, Towong Shire Council and, across the border, Snowy Valleys Council. It's a community led project aiming to deliver a detailed and economically viable plan for the upper Murray.
The plan is being delivered under the guidance of the board and involves community engagement to identify and prioritise details. It identifies game-changing projects with potential to build long-term sustainability, and the Great River Road project is one of these game changers. With funding from the federal, state and local government totalling almost $1 million, it will deliver a new touring route along the Murray River from Bellbridge to Corryong.
So I say, colleagues, come to the upper Murray. Come to Victoria via the Snowy Mountains. When we say 'best-practice approach to regional development', this is exactly what we're talking about: beautiful communities, partnerships at all levels and great outcomes.
Order! It being 2 pm, in accordance with standing order 43 the time for members' statements has concluded.
The Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment will be absent from question time this week as he's attending the Future Investment Initiative in Saudi Arabia. The Minister for Health and Minister for Sport will answer questions on his behalf.
My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's second-rate copper NBN is creating a digital divide across Australia, with the one side of some streets getting first-rate fibre, while the other side gets second-rate copper. How is this fair? Will the Prime Minister admit that his second-rate copper NBN is creating a digital divide across this nation? (Time expired)
Few things better demonstrate the incompetence of the Labor Party than the conception of the NBN during that glorious Conrovian era—
Dr Aly interjecting—
when for six years this crack band of managers, these fearless entrepreneurs, succeeded in connecting 51,000 premises to the NBN—in six years.
What have you done?
The member for Cowan is warned!
The NBN right now is doing more than that every 10 days. That's the difference. Getting on with the job and building it.
When they announced that they were going to establish a government company to build a national broadband network, the Labor Party said that it would be the most fantastic commercial opportunity. Kevin Rudd said that mums and dads would be lining up to invest. But he said—he was stern about this, Mr Speaker—that even though it was going to be the best investment ever, the government would hold 51 per cent. He was going to hold back all of that wall of investment enthusiasm, to limit it to 49 per cent. What a train wreck it was: tens of billions of dollars wasted by the Labor Party, leaving us with the biggest corporate train wreck ever undertaken by a federal government. Now, what we've done is we've got on with the job. We've got on with the job. We're playing the hand of cards we were dealt by Labor and we're building it. We're building it for $30 billion less than it would have been under Labor and in six to eight years less time.
You know, I've heard the shadow minister talk about regional Australia. I'm sure when she gets there she'll find it very interesting. Let me tell you: under our construction program of the NBN, regional Australia is getting finished sooner.
Ms Chesters interjecting—
Ms Keay interjecting—
The satellite is up and the fixed wireless component will be completed next year. The reality is we're getting on with the job. Over three million premises are connected. As for the digital divide that the honourable member spoke about, he will be interested to know that whether people are connected by fibre to the premises, fibre to the node, hybrid fibre coaxial or by fixed wireless, the vast majority are ordering speeds of 25 megabits per second or less.
Dr Aly interjecting—
Ms Chesters interjecting—
Ms Keay interjecting—
Members on my left! I remind the member for Cowan that she's been warned and yet she continues to interject. If she continues to do so, she will be ejected. The members for Bendigo and Braddon are on notice.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how the government's energy plan will guarantee reliability so that hardworking Australians and businesses get the affordable and reliable energy they need, including in my electorate of Corangamite?
I thank the honourable member for her question. She understands very well the importance of affordable and reliable energy. So many jobs in her electorate depend upon affordable and reliable energy. The one thing that her constituents know is that Labor's folly with energy has one consequence: more expensive and less reliable energy. The reality is this: the Labor Party has conducted a massive, incompetent experiment on Australian families and businesses with their energy policies—or lack of them.
The Leader of the Opposition wants us to cut our emissions by twice as much as we agreed to at Paris—twice as much, unilaterally. He has done no modelling on the cost of that at all. The only modelling that has been available, which has come from the department, suggests that would involve an additional cost of $66 billion. That is an additional cost in order to meet a target that is twice what we agreed to in Paris. We know that the consequence of Labor is always higher electricity prices and less reliable energy.
What we have now is a recommendation from the Energy Security Board that will deliver affordable and reliable energy and will enable us to meet our emissions reduction obligations. It will deliver affordability, reliability and responsibility. This is not a political proposal; it has come from the experts in the business. It's come from the experts appointed by COAG—which has more Labor governments than coalition governments—chaired by an independent chairman with the Energy Market Operator, the rules maker and the regulator all on that board. This is what they have recommended.
What did the Leader of the Opposition say in response? He called it science fiction. Then he called it nonsense. This shows no respect whatsoever for people whose intellect and experience makes them the best qualified in the industry. It's no wonder that one group after another is endorsing our National Energy Guarantee. The head of Bloomberg New Energy Finance said:
It solves a whole bunch of problems … in an incredibly elegant way.
From ACCI, from AIG, from the Minerals Council, from the BCA, from BlueScope and from BHP—from right across the board—we've seen support for this energy guarantee. Labor should back it and back the efforts of the experts.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Today the Prime Minister's hand-picked NBN CEO, Bill Morrow, said about the NBN:
It's too early to tell whether or not it's a success or a failure.
In the fifth year of the Prime Minister's mismanagement of his the second-rate copper NBN, when no-one else is to blame, is this really the best the government can do? Why isn't the Prime Minister doing anything to fix the problems that are plaguing the NBN on his watch?
Mr Albanese interjecting—
He's being constructive. He's being constructive right now.
The Leader of the House and the member for Grayndler will cease interjecting.
I thank the shadow minister for the question, which I'm delighted to have the opportunity to answer. I think it is timely to remind ourselves how we got here. The Prime Minister has rightly spoken about the murky land of Conrovia. But there is another land where there was, briefly, responsibility for the NBN: the land of Albonia.
I caution the minister.
The member for Grayndler briefly had responsibility for the NBN. It was during that downfall phase of the Rudd government, which was like that scene in the bunker in the movie Downfall, when Kevin Rudd was bringing together his loyal band of supporters. He was handing out battlefield promotions and the member for Grayndler got responsibility for the NBN.
The member for Grayndler on a point of order?
None of us are from the land of nitwits. He's certainly not a wit.
The member for Grayndler is warned and will resume his seat. I'm discounting for provocation, that's true.
During his brief period as minister, as members would recollect from discussions in the House last week, in the four years between Kevin Rudd announcing the new NBN and Labor scuttling out of office, in the seat of Dobell the number of services on the fixed network in those four years went from zero to zero. Unsurprisingly, in his brief period as the minister, the member for Grayndler was asked some questions about how the Labor Party was administering the NBN. He said this in a press conference: 'You mightn't like the answer. We are rolling out the NBN as fast as it can be rolled out.' That's what he said: 'We are rolling out the NBN as fast as it can be rolled out.' Just a couple of months later they exited office with barely 50,000 premises able to connect. We now have well over six million premises able to connect and over two million that actually are connected. So when the shadow minister presumes to contrast this government's record of delivery of the NBN with Labor's shambolic and hopeless record, I say to her that we didn't want to start from where we did, but we have been getting on with the job, and over six million premises are now able to connect. That's very important.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer advise the House how the National Energy Guarantee provides certainty for hardworking Australians and businesses? How does the government's commitment to guarantee affordable and reliable energy support business investment and secure better days ahead for our economy?
I thank the member for Goldstein. Like all of us on this side, we remain optimistic about the Australian economy and the better days ahead that we are focused on securing. That is the emerging national and international consensus. The better days ahead are coming true. We're seeing it in the global economy as the global economy turns, and we're seeing it in the jobs figures that were released last week. Jobs growth in Australia today is now running at more than three per cent a year. That is 15 times the rate it was growing under the Labor Party back in 2013, when they left office. We have also just experienced the strongest growth in full-time jobs in a 12-month period in the 40 years of the labour force survey—some 316,000 full-time jobs created in a 12-month period. With 20,000 jobs created in September it was the 12th consecutive month of jobs growth, and that is the longest consecutive run of monthly jobs growth in 23 years.
I see that as evidence of better days emerging ahead, as we talked about in May, but those opposite can't even bring themselves to congratulate Australian businesses and the Australians that went out there and got a job in the last 12 months. They prefer to talk down the economy and look for every single black cloud on the horizon, rather than seeing that, as Deloitte said today, the clouds are breaking apart for our economy and we can welcome that. Chris Richardson from Deloitte said today that Australian jobs growth was a thing of beauty. That's what he said. He has gone on to reinforce the need to increase business investment to ensure Australian jobs growth remains strong and leads to higher wages. We take that seriously. That's why our Enterprise Tax Plan has already given tax cuts to businesses with up to $50 million in turnover, covering more than half the Australian labour force. The Labor Party not only remains opposed to those tax cuts, which they will reverse if they are elected—taking tax cuts away from small business—but also stands in the way of the tax cuts that will assist the other half of the labour force by ensuring greater investment in our economy through business.
But certainty is required for business investment, and that is what the National Energy Guarantee is providing. The National Energy Guarantee provides certainty for businesses to invest in greater energy supply to ensure more affordable and more reliable energy for Australian businesses so they can continue to invest in their businesses and create even more Australian jobs. The National Energy Guarantee means more and better paid jobs—and Labor remain opposed.
My question is to the Prime Minister. We are now in the fifth year of this government and for years the Prime Minister has made a choice, first as communications minister and now as Prime Minister, to build a second-rate copper NBN instead of a first-rate fibre NBN. When will the Prime Minister stop blaming everybody else and finally take some responsibility for the system he's been in charge of for years and years?
Mrs Sudmalis interjecting—
The member for Gilmore will cease interjecting.
Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—
The member for McEwen is warned. The Prime Minister has the call.
The Leader of the Opposition and his communications spokesman—neither of them understand the technologies for the NBN at all. Let's deal with some facts. Had the coalition continued with fibre to the premises, as proposed by Labor, it would have taken six to eight years longer and $30 billion more. That means people who had no broadband would have been waiting for many years longer to get it and the cost of providing it would obviously have been much higher because the capital cost would be greater. The big advantage of fibre to the premises is that it can carry a higher line speed. That's the deal. That's the proposition.
Let me make this observation. NBN now knows what Australians are prepared to pay for. Seventy nine per cent of people on fibre to the premises order speeds of 25 megabits per second or less, 87 per cent of those on fibre to the node order speeds of 25 megabits or less, 77 per cent of those on hybrid fibre coax order speeds of 25 megs or less and the same pattern is true with fixed wireless and fibre to the basement. So the whole premise of the fibre-to-the-premises argument by the Labor Party has been comprehensively disproved by what the public are prepared to do and use. It was a folly the way the Labor Party set it up, and we are sorting it out.
Opposition members interjecting—
I caution those members who have been warned. It might be only Monday, but they will not defy my earlier warnings. They know who they are. And I say to the member for McEwen, who is the second Deputy Speaker—I mention him most days—that I think today is a good day for a rostered day off. The member for Indi has the call.
My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Minister, on 14 September you told parliament in question time that about 200 asylum seekers found not to be refugees would be moved into another detention centre in PNG. There are now eight days until the Manus centre closes. Can you provide an update on how many asylum seekers will be left behind after 31 October? What will happen to them? And will the government continue to provide these asylum seekers, in line with UN convention, with appropriate medical and health care, torture and trauma support and security services?
I thank the honourable member sincerely for her question. I appreciated her question in September and I appreciate the opportunity to provide her with an update today in relation to the situation. As she is aware, both prime ministers O'Neill and Turnbull announced this year that the regional processing centre in Nauru would close on 31 October. We are able to do that because we haven't had a successful boat arrival in over 1,100 days. We're seeing the population in detention dwindle dramatically and appropriately. It is not as quick as we would want, but we've been given this difficult situation and we're in the process of cleaning it up.
What we've said is that we have the ability to transfer some people to the East Lorengau transit centre. At the moment, in the regional processing centre the population is 606. The non-refugees that the honourable member speaks of number 141. We have the ability in the new facility at Hillside House to accommodate 198 people who have been found not to be refugees. At the moment, as I said, within the regional processing centre there are 141, so those people on our proposal with the PNG government will move into Hillside House. There is the ability for the refugees—that is the balance of the 606—to move from the regional processing centre into East Lorengau and into another facility that we've set up there. So there is that capacity, and we want to do it as quickly as possible.
As the honourable member knows, the Prime Minister was able to negotiate an arrangement with the United States which will see in the order of some 1,200 people moved from Manus and Nauru. Our priority is for women and children to move off Nauru as quickly as possible. And, noting there are no women and children on Manus, nonetheless we've already had the first uptake of 53 people between Manus and Nauru and are working with the United States to make sure the people can move out as quickly as possible.
What we need to do in all of this is make sure we don't get new boat arrivals, because those new arrivals would be relocated to Nauru. They would be held there, and we've been very clear about the fact we don't want people under any circumstance to come to Australia if they've sought to arrive by boat, because we aren't going to allow those people—
The member for Indi on a point of order?
Yes. My question is about relevance, particularly medical, healthcare, torture and trauma services.
The member for Indi will resume her seat. The minister.
I was coming to that point. The services that the member provides—
Opposition members interjecting—
Nothing was provided by Labor. You put the people there. I'm not going to be lectured by Labor. The honourable member has a much more distinguished record in this area and has the ability to ask these questions sincerely. The services she speaks of will continue to be provided out of the East Lorengau centre, and there will be transport arrangements from the new centres to transport people on a regular basis to East Lorengau to receive the services. (Time expired)
My question is for the Minister for the Environment and Energy. Will the minister update the House on action the government is taking to put downward pressure on power bills and how our guarantee of affordable and reliable energy will help hardworking Australians and businesses get ahead? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
I thank the member for Brisbane for his question. I know that he and his constituents have been paying the high price of the Palaszczuk government's electricity tax. It's been those government-owned generators in Queensland that have been bidding in at artificially high prices to line the coffers of the Labor government and put this hidden electricity tax on the people of Queensland. That is why he, like others on this side of the House, welcomes the efforts of the Turnbull government to ensure we rein in the power of the networks, passing legislation through the parliament last week to abolish LMR; the work we've done with retailers, which is saving millions of Australian families hundreds of dollars a week by getting a better deal from their retailers; and the work we're doing with gas, intervening in the market to ensure Australians get access to gas first before it's shipped overseas.
And the National Energy Guarantee is another step in the right direction. Indeed, the Grattan Institute has said it's the last piece in the jigsaw puzzle of climate and energy policy. It's been welcomed by the biggest employers in Australia, like BlueScope and BHP, the manufacturers, the irrigators, the grocers, the energy companies themselves, the BCA, the Australian Industry Group, ACCI and the like, and COSBOA—right across the board.
I'm asked, 'Have there been any alternative approaches?' We know that the Labor Party—the party of cash for clunkers, the citizens' assembly, the CPRS, the ETS, the EIS and the $15 billion carbon tax—had four different positions last week. On Monday, the Leader of the Opposition went out and did a doorstop and said—and I quote—that the clean energy target was their position. The member for Watson didn't get the memo. Last Thursday, he went on Sky and said, 'Bipartisan agreement is in the long-term interests of the country and we're not rushing to oppose the National Energy Guarantee.'
Then the member for Sydney, the deputy to the Leader of the Opposition, did an interview on Thursday. She was asked, 'What is the Labor Party's policy?' She said, 'Our emissions intensity scheme is our preferred model.' Then the man of the moment, the member for Port Adelaide—who put out a book where he accepted the Labor Party had 'sent mixed signals' and 'made mistakes in the past'—was asked in an interview on Sunday, 'What are Labor's plans?' He said, 'The only thing we're committed to is a 50 per cent renewable energy target.' That is four different positions in one week.
The Labor Party is flailing around, looking for a position. Well, you called for bipartisanship; you called for the advice of the experts. The Energy Security Board provided it, and it's the key to lower prices and a more reliable system. It's time you got on board. (Time expired)
My question is for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister promised Australians that his second-rate copper NBN would be fast, affordable, sooner. Given we now know his second-rate copper NBN is slower than Labor's, has doubled in cost and was not delivered when he promised, when will the Prime Minister take any responsibility for the fact that his NBN is in fact slower, more expensive and late?
I call the Minister for Urban Infrastructure, representing the Minister for Communications.
I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to look further into the comparative records of the Labor Party and the coalition when it comes to rolling out the NBN, because it really is extraordinary that Labor keeps coming up and hitting their head against a brick wall on this particular topic. I think it is instructive to have a look at what Labor promised in the first NBN corporate plan, of 2011 to 2013. By 30 June 2011, there were to be 223,000 premises passed. What was the actual number passed? Ten thousand five hundred and seventy-five. That's less than 10 per cent. By 30 June 2012, there were to be 496,000 premises passed. How many premises were actually passed? Ninety five thousand seven hundred and ninety-nine. By 30 June 2013, there were to be 1.7 million premises passed. They were really building confidence. Actually, it was 282,000. That is, on any assessment, a dismal record of rank incompetence.
It's also very instructive to look at what the NBN committed to when the coalition came to power and what has been delivered. What was committed by 30 June 2015 was 1.093 million. What was delivered was 1.165 million. By 30 June 2016, what was committed was 2.632 million. What was delivered was 2.893 million. By 30 June 2017, 5,442,000 premises were committed to be passed or covered; 5,713,000 premises were actually delivered. That is a very consistent record under the coalition government of consistently delivering what has been committed to, compared to the record under Labor of consistently, and by a very wide margin, failing to deliver on what was in the business plan.
Very few people on that side have worked in business. But many of us on this side have. We know that if you saw that kind of performance in the business world you'd be out, you'd be sacked, you'd be gone. That's what all of you deserve when it come to NBN.
My question is to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture, Water Resources, Resources and Northern Australia. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on actions the government is taking to ensure energy is reliable and affordable for hardworking farmers and regional communities like those in my electorate of Maranoa? Is he aware of any alternative approaches?
I thank the honourable member for his question. The honourable member is very aware of how we're making sure that the people in Augathella or Birdsville—we've got a new optic fibre out to Birdsville as part of the coalition's telecommunications—the people in Dalby, in Dirranbandi, how we're making sure that their power remains reliable and affordable. It's vitally important.
One of the key components that the member for Maranoa would be aware of is our belief in base-load power, especially base-load power from such things as the three coal-fired power stations in the member's electorate, at Millmerran, Tarong—there are actually two power stations at Tarong—and also at Kogan Creek. We believe in base-load power stations because we must get base load onto the grid to keep the power and the lights on. This is despite the fact that the Queensland state government is currently gouging the system and pulling dividends out of the system in such a way that we saw $4.1 billion in borrowings come off its accounts, basically by gouging Ergon and making sure that the poles and wires, paid for by the people, pay off the incompetence of the state Labor government.
In this process we're making sure we stand behind the blue-collar workers in the member for Maranoa's seat. We do not believe that blue-collar workers are politically incorrect. We believe that blue-collar workers deserve the respect of a job. Those blue-collar workers at the Yarraman timber mill and the Charleville goat abattoir, the blue-collar workers you find in Oakey, in the pork abattoir at Kingaroy, the blue-collar workers who are chasing gas all through the system and making sure that money goes back to the towns.
You asked if there are any alternate policies, and there is one. The Labor Party believes in 50 per cent renewables. The member for Maribyrnong, who has his back turned to me again today as he always has, who has his back turned on blue-collar workers, the member for Maribyrnong who does not stand behind blue-collar workers and turns his back on blue-collar workers—his policy is 50 per cent renewables, 45 per cent emission reduction target and zero net emissions by 2050. He's been rather silent on this policy. I think the question is whether the member for Maribyrnong, the leader of the Labor Party, the party that once upon a time believed in labourers and didn't turn their back on labourers, wants to come to the dispatch box and once more re-announce his belief that blue-collar workers should be put out of a job; whether he once again can turn his back on blue-collar workers and instead of looking after blue-collar workers he returns to his eternal pursuit of crystals for negative ions and turmeric lattes and looking after all the people of Balmain that nobody— (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Industry Conveyancing Australia employs over 90 people in my electorate. It's less than five kilometres from the CBD and needs very fast internet to share 3D files. Is the Prime Minister aware that because of his incompetent handling of the NBN, the business has been allocated a satellite connection, when its neighbours just 650 metres away can get fibre? Given that we are now in the Prime Minister's fifth year of mismanagement of the NBN, isn't it clear that the Prime Minister—
The member for Bendigo's time has concluded, and there was no question. The member for Sydney, on a point of order?
Mr Speaker, there was plainly a question in there. The question was—
Government members interjecting—
Members on my right are delaying question time.
The question was in the second paragraph: is the Prime Minister aware of the different treatment of these businesses? Is he aware?
Yes. The member for Sydney has made her point of order. I've listened to her carefully, and that is correct. I will allow the Prime Minister to address that very part of the question.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The last words before she ran out of time were 'isn't it clear', and it is very clear that the Labor Party have abandoned any pretence at presenting a policy on energy. Last week, the recommendations of the Energy Security Board were being condemned out of hand.
Ms Butler interjecting—
The member for Griffith is warned.
'Nonsense,' the Leader of the Opposition said. 'Science fiction,' he went on to add, indicating perhaps his taste in literature. But we have no questions on energy now. They've lost interest in that. As to the NBN, I'll say to the honourable member: the particular case—
Ms Chesters interjecting—
The member for Bendigo will cease interjecting. She's been interjecting continually through the answer. I've allowed the question. I listened to the member for Sydney, and she was right. The Prime Minister is answering that part of the question that was asked. If the member for Bendigo insists on interjecting directly at the Prime Minister continuously, she'll leave the chamber. The Prime Minister has the call.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. What is very clear about the NBN is that we inherited a complete mess from the Labor Party—just as we did on energy policy, I might add. And, as with energy policy, we are fixing it, turning it around and cleaning it up. Now, with the NBN, the honourable member raises a particular case. We'll take note of that, and we'll make sure that they get an answer from the NBN.
Ms Chesters interjecting—
The member for Bendigo will leave under 94(a).
The member for Bendigo then left the chamber.
My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry, representing the Minister for Employment. Will the minister update the House on how the government's commitment to guaranteeing an affordable and reliable energy supply is critical to generating a stronger economy with more jobs? How does a fragile energy market jeopardise the prosperity of our economy?
I thank the member for Boothby for her question. The member for Boothby will remember that, last week, it was announced that the Turnbull government had presided over 371,000 new jobs in the last 12 months. A lot of people might have thought that that was hard to improve upon. That was such a stunning number. How do you get more jobs out of the economy? Well, there is a way. You can solve the energy issue, which is exactly what this government is trying to do—which I note that the opposition have given up on today. They have completely given up on energy. The issue that our constituents raise with us everywhere we go is affordable power and reliable power. Labor have not asked one question about it today. Instead, they've given up on energy, but this side of the House hasn't.
We know that, if we can bring about affordable and reliable energy, it will create even more jobs than the 371,000 that we announced last week. It's good for investment. It's good for jobs. It's good for growth.
As recently as today, it was revealed that AEMO has intervened in the South Australian energy market five times in the last six weeks to keep the lights on in South Australia—five times in the last six weeks, and it's only spring. Imagine how fearful older people in their homes, businesses and hardworking Australian families are—imagine how concerned they are—about the approaching summer.
So what we're calling on the South Australian government to do is get on board with this government's Australian National Energy Guarantee. The National Energy Guarantee has the capability to solve the energy crisis in this country by increasing supply and capacity in the market, driving down prices and, therefore, as a consequence, ensuring more reliable supply and more affordable prices for businesses and households. We don't want the Premier, Jay Weatherill, or Tom Koutsantonis standing on the platform forlornly as the train pulls out.
The Australian public are not interested in people playing politics on energy prices in Australia. They're not interested in the Labor Party wanting to play the old politics of negativity and division. What they want is to see, at COAG in November, the state and territory governments getting on board with this government's attempt at solving one of the most significant issues facing households and businesses every day. We don't want the snake-oil salesman, the Leader of the Opposition, pretending to be bipartisan, offering support, when in fact all he wants is a political fight. On this occasion, the Labor Party needs to support the households and businesses of Australia. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's latest energy policy. On 1 July, electricity prices for the average EnergyAustralia household in New South Wales increased by nearly 20 per cent. So does the Prime Minister seriously expect people in New South Wales to thank him for a lousy 50c-a-week saving they might get in three years time?
Well, people in New South Wales will certainly not thank the honourable member opposite for his efforts to impose on them the South Australian solution, which of course is to have the most expensive and the least reliable electricity in the country. The reality is that the Labor Party's failures in energy have created the problems we face today. The honourable member opposite, who asked the question, first said to Barrie Cassidy that Labor had no idea that allowing the export of gas from the east coast could result in higher prices and tight supply. He said, 'No warnings'—it came as a bolt out of the blue, apparently. But then, when it became obvious that this ridiculous position could not be sustained—because not only had the warnings come from the Public Service, from the Department of Energy, but they'd come from the Energy Market Operator—he had to then turn around and make a belated confession.
The rise in the price of gas was entirely a consequence of the Labor Party's failure to apply any level of business competence to the management of national energy policy. Despite warnings to the contrary, they allowed gas to be exported from the east coast without any effort to protect the domestic market.
Now we have addressed that challenge. Gas is now flowing. Today, when I was with Senator Seselja and the minister for energy at Viridian Glass today, we heard Rob Sindel, the chief executive of CSR, noting the benefits that are flowing from our action on gas, and noting that wholesale spot prices have been coming down since our actions. That is an example of delivery of real action to deliver a drop in gas prices that of course is going to be important to ensure the viability of so many businesses.
The honourable member makes up figures—what was it? Fifty cents a week or something? He can make up all the figures he likes. The reality is this: he knows that we have a policy recommended by the Energy Security Board—independent; expert—which says that they expect there to be a 20-to-25-per-cent reduction in wholesale costs over the period, and that would be reflected, they estimate, in a $110-to-$115-a-year reduction in electricity bills for retail customers. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services. Will the minister update the House on how the government's National Energy Guarantee will support hardworking Australians and businesses and drive investment and jobs growth in the economy? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
I thank the member for Durack for her question, and I know she works hard each and every day to deliver for those members in her community. She knows that you've got to get the policy settings right. You need to make sure that you drive investment in your community in order to deliver a strong economy. And that is exactly what we're doing on this side of the House. That's why we had the good news last week that the coalition government had been able to deliver more than 371,000 new jobs in the last 12 months alone. But we know that there are threats to this jobs growth. If we are not able to have affordable and reliable energy, we will not be able to continue to deliver the jobs that we need in Australia. That is why we on this side of the House are delivering the National Energy Guarantee that will fix the broken energy policy that has existed in this parliament and in this economy for too long.
Mr Keogh interjecting—
The member for Burt will cease interjecting.
It will guarantee reliable energy, by delivering the right level of dispatchable base-load energy at the appropriate points in time. As a result, Australian businesses will be able to have confidence that they can keep the lights on, that they can continue to employ and that they can continue to invest. It is important for both domestic and international investors to have the confidence to invest here in our economy and boost jobs.
The member for Durack has asked whether there are any alternatives, and she is right to ask that—there are. The Labor Party over there have got an energy thought bubble—an energy thought bubble comprised of reckless renewable energy targets that they combine with billions of dollars in subsidies and taxes that will mean higher taxes and less reliability for Australian families and Australian businesses. Labor wants Australian consumers to pay for their $66 billion subsidy, and, while they are happy to slug Australians and Australian employers with higher energy prices, they have forgotten that one of the core responsibilities of government is to deliver reliable and affordable energy, to keep the lights on and to keep the economy running. Labor have no plan whatsoever to do anything on energy, unless, of course, the wind is blowing—and the wind is certainly blowing over there!—or unless the sun is shining. They will cost Australian businesses and Australian jobs if they put in place their energy thought bubble. The National Energy Guarantee, which we will deliver, will deliver for all Australians. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Thanks to this Prime Minister and legislation being debated in the parliament today, someone earning $60,000 is guaranteed a tax hike of $300 a year. Yet the Prime Minister can't even guarantee they will save a lousy 50c a week on their energy bills in three years' time. Why is it that the only guarantee this Prime Minister can make is that, thanks to him, working Australians will always have less?
Australians know that Labor governments can be guaranteed to deliver higher energy prices and less reliable energy. The Labor Party's track record when it comes to border protection, when it comes to the NBN and when it comes to energy reveals astounding incompetence. The Labor Party have demonstrated both at the federal level and at the state level, particularly in South Australia, that they cannot be trusted with energy policy and that their incompetence, the combination of ideology and idiocy, results in less affordable, more expensive energy and less reliable energy. So the lights don't stay on, the air conditioners don't stay on and the hospitals don't have their plant running.
The Labor Party's failure to look after Australia's energy security is one of their great failures in government, and it goes hand in hand with all of those examples of Labor incompetence, whether it's failing to defend the integrity of our nation's borders, whether it's their incompetence with the NBN, wasting billions of dollars in sheer mismanagement, or whether it is putting our energy security at risk. The Labor Party cannot manage—they are incompetent—and that has been proved by them again and again.
My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister outline to the House the importance of affordable and reliable energy for Victoria's rural and regional hospitals, such as Horsham hospital? Is the minister aware of any threats that undermine the delivery of services at regional hospitals?
I want to thank the member for Mallee, who's been a passionate advocate for Horsham hospital, Kerang hospital and West Wimmera hospital services in areas such as Nhill and Jeparit. But one of the things he knows as a practical farmer is that if you can't keep the lights on you can't run a hospital service; you can't take care of people. There are two fundamental approaches to electricity affordability in this House: on one side is a constant push for downward pressure on electricity prices, and on our side it is to increase electricity reliability. Whether that involves the abolition of Labor's electricity tax, its carbon tax, whether that involves pushing to overturn the approaches in South Australia and Victoria which have created massive electricity instability and price hikes, or whether that involves opposing Labor's new $66 billion electricity tax, our side is consistent. We believe and we practise policy which pushes down electricity prices.
By comparison, there's a very different approach, a very different philosophy, a very different belief on their side of higher electricity prices and higher electricity taxes. This is why we have seen, in Victoria, Horsham hospital hit with a potential $500,000 increase in its electricity prices this year as part of a $44 million increase in electricity prices for Victoria's hospitals, this is why we've seen a $370,000 hit to the West Woomera hospital service, and this is why Kerang has been hit and the Bendigo region has also been hit. What we see is an outcome of deliberate Labor policy. They intentionally took action to close down the Hazelwood Power Station in Victoria and to blow up the Northern Power Station in South Australia, and the outcome of that was higher electricity prices.
On this side, what we've seen is not just the abolition of the last electricity tax, not just opposition to the next electricity tax but the Prime Minister's work and the energy minister's work with the National Energy Guarantee. These things are about making sure that you can keep the lights on for the homes, for the pensioners, for the community centres and, in particular, for the hospitals. When you rip $44 million out of the hospital service by placing massive high electricity taxes on them, you are hurting hospital services in Victoria. The significance is real and the opportunity cost is profoundly important. At the end of the day, there are two fundamental approaches: one is that we have an approach of downward pressure on electricity prices; the other is that they have a $66 billion electricity tax. (Time expired)
My question is to Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that, under his government, power prices have never been higher, pensioners will lose their energy supplements, weekend workers lose their penalty rates and low- and middle-income families face a tax hike, and the only benefit that anyone can look forward to is a lousy 50 cents a week in three years time?
I've dealt with these issues in many answers before, but there is one set of statistics that I can confirm, and that is that, in the last 12 months, 371,500 jobs were created in Australia, of which 315,900 were full time. That does compare with another 12-month period: the last 12 months when the Leader of the Opposition was employment minister. During that time, there were 129,000 jobs created, of which only 32,900 were full time. Nearly three times as many jobs were created in the last 12 months as in the last 12 months when he had responsibility for employment.
My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on action the government is taking to protect Australian families from criminal gang members and individuals who pose a national security risk? Is the minister aware of any inadequate approaches?
I thank the honourable member for his question. I want to thank him for his support, and all the members on this side of the House for their support, for what we're doing in clamping down on criminals who are committing violent offences against Australian citizens. We've ramped up the number of visas that we've cancelled for noncitizens—people who have committed serious crimes against Australians. The number is up by 1,200 per cent and it includes, importantly, 40 visas on national security grounds. So, significantly, 40 people who would pose an extreme risk to the Australian community have had their visas cancelled and either have been deported or are in the process of being deported.
The government will look for more ways in which we can strengthen our national security laws—ways in which we can strengthen our border security—to keep Australians safe. That's what the Australian public wants and that is what this government delivers.
Now, the government will always look at new approaches and listen to new ideas about how we can strengthen those laws, and I want to praise the member for La Trobe, who was a former counterterrorism officer in Victoria. He's working on a committee at the moment, looking at ways in which laws can be strengthened. To his great credit, he has proposed an intervention order regime to help de-radicalise extremists. I was interested to read an article in the Herald Sun of October 18 this year, where it detailed support for that scheme by the Police Federation of Australia chief, Mark Burgess, who represents 60,000 police officers. He supported in principle this intervention scheme. The way in which it would operate is that the order would result in extremists being banned from accessing radical content online, from interacting with other extremists and from going to specified places of worship.
You'd imagine, Mr Speaker, that there would be widespread support for such a proposal. However, there is not—but there is one person in this House who I fear I will embarrass by naming him in this debate. It's the case that this individual doesn't like his name being mentioned in Hansard during the course of question time. It's my old friend the member for Blair. Remember him? He smiled—that's his first facial expression during this question time. Well done to the member for Blair for that mild reaction! He has opposed this change. This was his quote in relation to the member for La Trobe's suggestion. He said:
This is real nanny state stuff, this is almost totalitarian intervention into people's domestic and family life without the individual … committing any act.
Mr Speaker, at the next election, if you want a weak approach to border protection and if you want a weak approach to national security, go with him—go with him, is my advice. He is the weakest link in the chain and he's the weakest link in the opposition. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. When asked about the decision to contract out the announcement of $15 million of government grants to One Nation, the Prime Minister said:
… grants of all kinds are approved in the usual way …
Is it also usual for the government grants to be announced by non-government members and senators, in this case with oversized cheques bearing large photos of the heads of One Nation Senators Hanson and Roberts? And if there is now a coalition agreement with One Nation, will the Prime Minister table a copy of that agreement right now? (Time expired)
I refer the honourable member to my earlier answer, which he obviously noted. All government grants are approved by the appropriate ministers in the normal way.
My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Will the minister update the House on action the government is taking to further strengthen the security at Australian airports? Why is proactive action needed to keep Australians safe?
I would like to thank the member for Banks for his question. I note the member for Banks's keen interest in all matters relating to national security. As you would be aware and I'm sure all members are aware, the government takes the safety of all Australians as its utmost priority. One area of public policy in which the Prime Minister himself has indicated there is never a cause for set and forget is in relation to transport security. As a government we are working to be eternally vigilant to make sure we can protect Australians from those who seek to do us harm.
I want to ensure the Australian travelling public—
Opposition members interjecting—
I'm surprised those opposite are seeking to interject during a conversation on national security. I'd encourage the member for McMahon to quiet down for a second and appreciate the comments I am making in relation to the security of people as they travel through Australia's major airports. The Office of Transport Security is working with the government on new and emerging threats. One of those threats is that of the insider threat. I announced over the weekend a new measure dealing with nine of Australia's major airports that focuses on the insider threat. When we talk about the insider threat, we're talking about those two have privileged access to parts of an airport where they may have the opportunity to seek to do us harm if that is their ambition.
Members will recall amendments to the Aviation Transport Security Act that passed the parliament earlier this year. I acknowledge the member for Grayndler, who engaged constructively at that time in relation to the measures we took under those amendments to the Aviation Transport Security Act. The new regulations that came from those amendments dealt with improved access control, random screening for explosives and also additional airside security training.
There are in the order of 140,000 people who have what we call ASIC—aviation security identification cards. That allows them, through their various roles at our airports, whether they're baggage handlers, engineers or involved with catering, to have access to secure areas of our airports. The vast majority of those people, I must emphasise, are there to do the right thing. They want to do their job. They want to go home safe. They want to keep us safe as we go about our travels. There is a capacity, though, for those who would seek to do us harm to do so. What we have introduced is random and unpredictable explosive trace detection tests both at screening points and in the workplace, so there's a capacity for random checks of ASIC holders as they go about their jobs. There is an opportunity for additional training in security matters to make sure that all ASIC holders are aware of their responsibilities to be vigilant in the workplace. These measures are aimed at keeping Australians safer. They will be progressively implemented over coming months. We expect full implementation at our nine major airports by January 2019.
More broadly, I indicate that the Inspector of Transport Security is also undertaking a review into 173 regulated airports. He will report back to me by Christmas. We are taking action to make our strong system even stronger. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Building the south Rockhampton flood levy would protect 1,200 homes and reduce insurance premiums for Rockhampton households by up to $400 a year. Rockhampton council, the Queensland Labor government and federal Labor have all committed to funding it. Will it take another devastating flood for the Prime Minister to commit funding to build the levy and protect Rocky homes and businesses?
I thank honourable member for his question. I think it is quite a change to actually get a question on water policy. I think it's the first one I've ever got. It's amazing that they would give it on something in Central Queensland. In Rockhampton we have put $130 million on the table as well as the money for the feasibility study to construct Rookwood Weir, and the Labor Party have done absolutely nothing. They have completely and utterly deserted the people of Central Queensland. It's amazing what happens with the Labor Party when they are so completely incompetent in the construction of water infrastructure.
We want to help Queensland out. We've got so many proposals out there for Nathan Dam, Nullinga Dam and Rookwood Weir, and the Labor Party just does not want to engage in water policy. You know why they don't want to engage in water policy? It is because of the Greens. No, they're fighting for the frogs up in Queensland, the Labor Party!
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The question was about the Rocky flood levy. Answer the question or sit down.
The Deputy Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for Blaxland can raise a point of order, but he will not give directions on what anyone should do in this place if he wishes to stay in here. The member for Blaxland is warned.
I must say he's rather terrifying. We can go on and we can see in Central Queensland the member for Capricornia, with the Yeppoon flood plain and the roads, including the Bruce Highway. She's fighting for Rookwood Weir. The issue is, of course, with the levee bank. Do you want to hear about the levee bank?
Opposition members interjecting—
No, they want to yell. The levee bank, of course, is a very divisive issue because you have two lots of people. You have the people inside the levee bank, who want the levee bank, and then you have all the people outside the levee bank. You should go up to Central Queensland and talk to them. They're not so keen on the idea. So the member for Capricornia's doing the diligent work in assessing where the balance of good is—whether we flood more people outside the levee bank or save the people inside the levee bank. In the meantime, you can reduce some of the water going to Rockhampton by building the Rookwood Weir.
But why does the Labor Party always turn its back on blue-collar workers? That is the question that so many people in Central Queensland want to know the answer to. Why is it, with the extra $1 billion of income that would come from the Rookwood Weir, they have said nothing in support of those blue-collar workers? Why is it that, on the back of the thousands of jobs that would come from the Rookwood Weir, they have said nothing for those blue-collar workers? They never stand up for workers and always stand up for the inner suburbs. When we go up to talk about the Rookwood Weir, guess what they want to talk about: Jackie Trad. That's what they want to talk about: Jackie Trad and the Cross River Rail. That's about as close to as they ever get to Central Queensland.
Ms Butler interjecting—
The member for Griffith is warned.
So we'll stand up for the coal workers of Central Queensland, we'll stand up for Rookwood Weir, and you keep fighting for the wind chimes, old trout.
My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Today is the 75th anniversary of the Battle of El Alamein, and next week we will see the 100th anniversary of the Battle of Beersheba. Will the minister update the House on what the government is doing to commemorate these two significant events?
I'd like to thank the member for his question. I know of his deep and abiding interest in the Battle of Beersheba. Today marks the anniversary of the second of three major battles that occurred around El Alamein in Egypt between July and November 1942, where the Australian forces suffered almost 6,000 casualties over a period of five months. The Battle of El Alamein proved to be the turning point of the war in North Africa, where Rommel and his panzer army were repelled and the Axis forces were subsequently driven from the continent.
Earlier today, 23 veterans of the campaign attended a reception in their honour, and later today they will participate in the Last Post ceremony at the Australian War Memorial. I know the opposition will be represented at that as well. It will be an honour to welcome these veterans to the War Memorial on the 75th anniversary of the Battle of El Alamein. To give you an idea of the mettle of these men, one of my constituents, Max Hammond, was going to come to the War Memorial today, but unfortunately—he's in his mid-90s—he had a heart attack two weeks ago. But he came into my electorate office today and wanted to apologise to the government because he wouldn't be there. Obviously, the message that I gave back was that he didn't need to apologise. It is we—all of us, and every Australian—who need to thank him and all those veterans who served in North Africa.
Next week we will also commemorate the centenary of the charge of the Light Horse at the Battle of Beersheba in what now is Israel. It was one of the great cavalry charges. The Australian Light Horse attacked the enemy lines defending the town of Beersheba. About 800 Australians from the 4th and 12th Light Horse regiments were involved in the charge, suffering 31 deaths and 36 wounded. They captured more than 700 Turkish soldiers and secured a vital water source for Allied troops in the Middle East. Some members of this parliament will travel to Israel next week to commemorate this significant battle and the service and sacrifice of the Australians who participated. During the Centenary of Anzac period, I ask all Australians to pause and reflect on the service and sacrifice of the Australians and all those who have served. Lest we forget.
I thank the honourable minister for his answer. As we reflect on the courage and the sacrifice that secured the freedoms we exercise in this parliament, 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.
Again we see this government talking about cutting taxes when it's going to increase taxes on every single working Australian earning more than $21,000. In fact, what this government is going to do over the forward estimates is raise $8.2 billion through this measure, which is an increase in personal income tax. This is $8.2 billion which will not be in the pockets of those working Australians. In fact, over the decade, this measure will raise $43.8 billion. This compares to the medium-term implications of the 2016 tax cuts, which the Treasurer loves to boast about, which will cost the budget $16.3 billion. So the government is reducing tax by $16 billion, increasing it by $43 billion and claiming to be the party of low tax. But, as we say, this is a government that believes in low tax for some and higher tax for others, because the tax increase will apply to everybody earning more than $21,000.
The Labor Party has an alternative plan. It is a responsible plan but one that is focused on those who can better deal with the tax rise. Nobody likes a tax rise. Nobody runs to increase taxes lightly or quickly. Our plan actually raises $4 billion more than the government's proposed rise over the decade but exempts those earning less than $87,000 by keeping the deficit levy in place—because we are still in deficit after all—for those income earners earning more than $180,000. This will ensure that we have a responsible plan but one that is focused on those who can better—not easily or happily perhaps, but better—afford to pay it than those who are on $21,000. This government wants to tax people on $21,000 a year more. Many of those people will be earners of penalty rates, which this government is cutting. Here we have a government which is, on one hand, increasing their taxes and, on the other, reducing their earnings by cutting their penalty rates.
This is all in the name of the sophistry and the misleading statements that this government insists on making about the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which is fully funded and which will continue to be fully funded. It is highly irresponsible for the government to run that scare campaign when, in fact, what it's doing, for no good purpose other than their political convenience, is scaring those who rely on the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
As I said in my remarks previously, another bill in this package abolishes nation-building funds, which the Labor Party opposes. It is not necessary. The government wants to take the money from those funds and put it into the NDIS. We oppose that.
This is again this government seeking to divide and conquer—divide those Australians, who all support the NDIS, and somehow claim that there's a test: if you don't support abolishing those funds, if you don't support the increase in personal income tax for those earning more than $21,000, somehow you're against the NDIS. That is of course wrong, inappropriate and misleading.
So the Labor Party will oppose these pieces of legislation. When it comes to the consideration in detail, I will move detailed amendments. I have already moved a second reading amendment which goes to this government's wrong priorities and points out that it is simply wrong to increase tax on those earning more than $21,000. We'll oppose the legislation because this government has its priorities wrong, and we have a better alternative plan.
The government did not say to the Australian people at the last election that they would increase tax for those earning more than $21,000. It wasn't in their manifesto. It wasn't in the policy speech. It wasn't a promise they made. They announced it on budget day this year. They're very brave after an election. They could have shown the same willingness to engage with the Australian people about tax that this side of the House has shown.
We've said to the Australian people that we'll reform negative gearing. We've said to the Australian people that we'll reform capital gains tax. We've said we'll keep the deficit levy in place. We've said we will limit tax deductions for managing your tax affairs. We have been clear about our plans. We don't mind fighting an election, more than one election, on our plans, because we want a mandate to do these things.
The government treat the Australian people with contempt. They sneak through their plans. They knew the fiscal situation before the election, but they did not have the honesty that's required with the Australian people. If the government are so committed to increasing the Medicare levy for those who earn more than $21,000, take it to the next election, argue your case, justify your position and see how we go with our competing tax plans. We're more than happy to have our plans out there, announced very early—not snuck in a couple of days before an election but out there very clearly, years in advance of an election—for the Australian people to be aware of, to debate, to analyse and to consider their position on.
Here we have a government which are so committed to reducing corporate tax and committed to increasing personal income tax, shifting the tax burden from one segment of the economy to the other. They can argue that, but be honest about it. Don't spout that you're low tax when you're increasing tax. They're increasing tax on some. We know that they want to reduce corporate tax, and they want to pay for it by increasing the taxes on ordinary Australians earning $21,000. Those are their priorities, and they're entitled to them. They're entitled to that view—but just be honest about it. Say, 'We want to reduce the tax paid by Australia's biggest companies, and to pay for it we're going to increase the tax on Australians who can least afford it.' If that's your view, as warped as it is, at least be honest about it, because that's exactly what's happening, as has been outlined earlier by me in relation to the Parliamentary Budget Office analysis.
We'll oppose these bills. They're the wrong bills. I commend the second reading amendment that I have moved to the House. I'll also, as I said, be moving detailed amendments.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for McMahon has moved as an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form 'that the amendment be agreed to'. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.
Only the coalition government is taking the necessary steps to fully fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I rise to speak in support of the Medicare Levy Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017 and related bills. The NDIS is the biggest reform of disability services in Australia's history. It is also reform that will be life changing for so many Australians with disability, their carers and their families. At full scheme, more than 460,000 people living with disability will have individually tailored and funded packages. The scheme provides participants with the support they need to undertake everyday tasks so that they can participate in their community and in social and economic life.
The NDIS is not just transforming the lives of participants. It also has opportunities and challenges for providers. As the assistant minister, I travel throughout Australia, and I've had discussions with many providers and many stakeholders. I'm very conscious of the impact of such a large reform. As the Treasurer, the Hon. Scott Morrison, said when introducing this bill, we know that Australians support this change. As Australians we believe in looking after our mates, our country and those who need our support. This bill ensures that they have that support.
A fully funded NDIS is fundamental to the future of more than 460,000 Australians living with significant and permanent disability. Funding for the scheme must come from somewhere. The money tree which had surplus fruit on it from the Howard era was overpicked by Labor and subsequently died many years ago. This was a metaphorical tree which Labor saw as their saviour to fund the NDIS. However, as we know, Labor are far from good horticulturists, let alone fiscal managers.
This bill will increase the Medicare levy rate by half a percentage point to 2.5 per cent of taxable income from 1 July 2019. The supporting bill will make consequential amendments to other tax rates which are linked to the top marginal rate and the Medicare levy. This will not only provide certainty for people currently living with severe disability and their families but will also provide assurance for all Australians that the support is there if they should require it in the future. Despite a lot of promises, the previous Labor government failed to fully fund the NDIS, leaving a substantial annual funding gap of almost $4 billion from 2019-20, a gap which grows each and every year. We have all heard Labor claim that it 'clearly identified enough other long-term savings to pay for the NDIS'. But referring to 'other long-term savings' is simply not good enough. Australians deserve better. In Senate estimates, when asked whether these measures could be listed in detail, Treasury's response was, 'The short answer is no.' The fact is that Labor never quarantined savings to help fund the NDIS. Its so-called savings were spent several times over and instead used to get back to surplus. We all know that that never eventuated either.
The additional increase in the Medicare levy will apply from 1 July 2019 and is expected to generate $3.6 billion in 2019-20 and $4.3 billion in 2020-21. Importantly, low-income earners will continue to be exempt from the Medicare levy and will not be impacted by the increase. As a universal insurance scheme, an increase in the Medicare levy ensures that all Australians, where able, contribute to the NDIS. The increase represents about $1 a day for the average income earner. For example, a person with a taxable income of $80,000 would pay an additional $400 a year to ensure they are fully covered by the NDIS into the future. From 2019-20, one-fifth of all revenue raised by the Medicare levy will be credited to the NDIS savings fund special account once it is established by legislation currently before the parliament, where it will be protected for meeting the needs of people living with disability. This account will hold NDIS underspends and selected savings across the government. Put simply, by placing these funds into a locked moneybox of sorts, no-one can query the fully funded status of the NDIS.
Let me put into perspective the current funding gap for the NDIS: $55.7 billion over the next decade—more than Labor's 2009-10 budget deficit. As the Treasurer said in his second reading speech on this bill, now it is time to rectify that shortfall. It is imperative that the coalition puts the NDIS on the correct course to full funding. Let me not stray from the misinformation that exists in the camp of those opposite who purport that hardworking, low-income Australians will be worse off under this levy increase. Low-income earners will continue to receive relief from the Medicare levy. Low-income thresholds for singles, families, seniors and pensioners will all remain. Blind pensioners and Australians entitled to full and free medical treatment under the DVA gold card will also have their Medicare levy exemptions remain.
By deciding to increase the Medicare levy rate from 1 July 2019, the coalition government is asking Australians to contribute according to their capacity to fund the NDIS. Fundamentally, this is an insurance levy and anyone paying it today may also be someone who needs the assistance of the NDIS sometime later in their lifetime.
I segue now to some of my meetings and experiences as the assistant minister responsible for the NDIS, which I believe will highlight the importance of a fully funded NDIS, one which will ensure these positive benefits become accessible to those living with disability throughout Australia. As I travel around our vast country, visiting and meeting NDIS stakeholders, what quickly become apparent are the benefits this scheme will bring to those living with disability and their families. By assisting people to be independent, learn new skills and participate in activities they would never have thought possible before, the NDIS is truly life-changing.
Take for example an 11-year-old boy who is now happier and developing a stronger relationship with his family as a result of the NDIS package which he received last November. The package this young man receives has not only enabled him to increase his capacity to learn, but now he has shown more independence and is showing off a new confidence that he had not displayed until now. The father of this NDIS recipient speaks highly of the scheme and the plan his son receives, stating that, prior to the NDIS, the services received were inconsistent, and even daily continence products for the child resulted in extra burden on already-tight family finances. The NDIS has turned the lives of this young boy and his family around, and they look forward to a happy, independent life ahead.
Another success story is that told by Graeme, the parent of a child with a disability who also lives with a disability himself. This unique example highlights the views of someone who oversees the planning of the NDIS plans and who receives a plan himself and whose own child is benefiting from his own plan as well. Graeme spent six months as chairperson of NDIA's staff participation network, a forum open to staff who are NDIS participants or are a parent, family member or carer of a participant. The network provides valuable advice to influence the NDIA's operations. As an NDIS planner, Graeme experienced a huge, constantly-changing environment, starting in the NDIS trial site in Western Australia. Graeme believes that he had to accept that resilience was key to ensuring that he and the organisation learned the best way to do things and deliver for others. By accepting change and adopting changes, Graeme knows that good leadership is essential if we want to roll out a seamless scheme focused on achievements and participant success. Having been involved in all facets of the NDIS, as a planner, as a participant and as the father of a participant, Graeme is inspired by the stories and achievements of other participants who are benefiting from the NDIS.
I urge all members of this House to support this bill. To deny this bill success is to deny those who are less able to support themselves, through no fault of their own, often life-changing NDIS plans. This bill is critical to providing certainty, for NDIS participants, for their families and for their carers, that their needs will be met. It will also ensure that the scheme remains available for all future participants.
The longevity of the NDIS can only be ensured by the sustainability of its funding. For those living with significant and permanent disability and their families and support networks, the NDIS presents an opportunity in often-challenging lives. That is why Australians support this change and support this levy. The quintessential Australian trait of looking after one another can be seen by extension through the NDIS. Life's cards are not always dealt fairly. To those living with disability and their families: I implore you to stand proud and know that this government will provide the quality care you deserve, not only for today but for tomorrow and for your future. I commend this bill to the House.
The big lie at the heart of this legislation is that this rise in the Medicare levy is necessary to fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We've just heard from the member for Ryan, and she quotes the Treasurer, who, according to the member, said, 'We look after our mates and those who need our support.' Well, the coalition has shamelessly sought to guilt Australian wage earners into accepting an unnecessary and unjust increase in taxation by stating that, without it, people with disability will somehow suffer from a supposedly underfunded National Disability Insurance Scheme. The coalition is exploiting the Australian people's decency. It is conning Australians by preying on their willingness to assist those in need, and for that it deserves condemnation, because the fact is that this tax rise on seven million Australian wage earners is not needed to fund the NDIS. The funds are already there. It is just that the coalition has other plans for the money, because this government's priority is not people with disability; it is not Australian wage earners; it is corporations and banks.
Over the next 10 years the coalition plans to take $40 billion from Australian wage earners with this tax rise, while at the same time giving $65 billion to banks and corporations with a tax cut. Think about that for a minute: the Australian wage earner hands $40 billion to the government and the government adds that money to its big pile of revenue. Then the government goes to the same pile of revenue, takes $65 billion out and gives that to the banks and corporations. That $40 billion is not funding the NDIS, it is funding a corporate tax giveaway. Abandon the $65 billion corporate tax handout and there will be no need for a tax rise on Australian wage earners. But we know from bitter experience that this government's focus is not on Australian wage earners; it is on looking after the big end of town.
The coalition remains wedded to the failed ideology of trickle-down economics, which contends that if you tax corporations less they will have more money to invest and that the benefits will trickle down throughout the economy. In theory it makes sense: if you tax corporations less, they'll have more money, they'll invest more and there'll be more jobs. It's a theory that has been played out in the United States for the past 40 years in real life, and it has failed. It has made a very tiny percentage of people very, very wealthy. But it has condemned vast swathes of the American people to insecure work and lower wages. It is a theory that has gutted the once-mighty American middle class, who formerly enjoyed secure work, high wages and the best living standards in the world. The American dream has become little more than a memory for millions of Americans who are now what are called the 'working poor'—people who have jobs but who don't earn enough to live well. Trickle-down economics is the cane toad of economics: it sounds good in theory but in practice it is devastating, and once introduced it is difficult to eradicate.
This unnecessary tax rise on Australian wage earners and the accompanying tax cut for corporations and banks is part of this insidious agenda. Why on earth would any Australian government seek to inflict on Australian wage earners an unnecessary new burden on their spending power? Wages in this country have been flat for more than a decade. Flat wages have helped keep inflation and interest rates low, but they have also meant that Australians' purchasing power has steadily declined in the face of rampaging power and utility bills and staggering rises in the cost of housing. Australians are at breaking point. The government's Medicare levy increase will increase the tax burden on Australians earning as little as $21,000 a year. These include people who have just had their Sunday penalty rates cut, and students and graduates, who face higher tuition fees and earlier and steeper repayments of their student debts.
I genuinely shake my head at those opposite, especially those like the Nationals—like the member at the dispatch box—who, like me and many of my Labor colleagues, represent those people earning low incomes. Those opposite think that this all makes sense—that they can keep wages flat, that they can increase taxes on wage earners, that they can cut penalty rates, that they can rein in pensioners' incomes, that they can hobble students with higher fees that must be repaid sooner and that they can wash their hands of the enormity of the affordable housing crisis—that they can do all this while at the same time backing $65 billion in corporate tax cuts. I genuinely shake my head that those opposite think the road to national prosperity lies in screwing down Australian wage earners and pensioners, and redirecting public funds to the wealthiest Australians and to banks and corporations.
The measures in this legislation would see a wage earner on $55,000 a year pay an extra $275 in tax a year. A wage earner on $80,000 would pay an extra $400 a year. These measures to raise revenue from Australians earning less than $87,000 a year come just months after the government handed revenue back to Australians earning more than $180,000 a year. So they're taxing people who earn less more and they're giving money away to those who earn more—take from those with less, give to those with more. It is the antithesis of Australian culture. Labor will seek to amend the government's measures to inject some fairness into them and we oppose them in this House.
You should have left some money there in the first place.
I'll take the member's interjection. I didn't quite hear it but I'll take it and put it on Hansard. Labor proposes that the 0.5 per cent Medicare rise apply only to individuals earning more than $87,000 a year. And we will also seek to re-establish the framework that will allow the reintroduction of the deficit levy on individuals earning more than $180,000 a year. Independent research from the Australian National University shows that twice as many households will be worse off under the coalition's plan than under Labor's plan. The only winners will be the corporations and the banks.
Labor's measures are not only more fair; they are better for the budget bottom line, resulting in $4 billion more for the budget bottom line over the decade. The government claims this legislation is about funding the NDIS. We have established that it is not and that the NDIS is being used as a mask, a smoke screen, for corporate tax cuts. The government has, to its great discredit, claimed that Labor's opposition to these measures means we are somehow not fully committed to the NDIS and that is both laughable and obscene. Labor created the National Disability Insurance Scheme to meet the needs of nearly 500,000 Australians living with disability. It was created following extensive consultation with people with disability, families, advocates and sector stakeholders. We know how important a fully functioning, properly managed, properly rolled out NDIS is to improving lives.
The NDIS has been funded by both Labor and coalition governments, which have signed bilateral agreements with the states that contain the Commonwealth's commitment to full funding. As pleased as I am with the bipartisan support for the NDIS, I do take issue with the quality of the rollout under the government. My office deals often with constituents and stakeholders who are having trouble with issues such as packages being put in place without consulting with current services or carers to ensure that allocations match the client's needs, access to services, communication.
Earlier this year, the ABC reported—after a six-month freedom of information battle—that the NDIS had stopped processing thousands of applications, that critical staff were untrained and that NDIA staff were unable to access their own website to update information or keep clients informed. Of 550 local area coordinators put in place to roll the NDIS out, only 54 have done face-to-face training and another 150 have completed an online program. For the rest, it was learn as you go. This lack of training and experience has led to misunderstandings and changed plans with worse outcomes.
On top of this, the rollout has critically damaged smaller niche agencies that meet specific needs within the sector. They've neither had the financial resilience nor the staff to keep up with the constant changes in compliances, processes and IT. So for many smaller agencies with a smaller pool of clients, this has resulted in doors closed or services merged into larger, less personal and more corporate amalgamations. This loss of expertise is a gaping hole, and challenges ongoing options for people with disabilities and their carers. Last week was Carers Week, and the 75,000 carers in Tasmania deserve our thanks and our ongoing support for the tireless work they do for their loved ones, and we should be making life easier for them, not harder.
On top of this, we've seen a huge growth in church based community organisations. They often offer excellent services with committed staff, but they are limited in what they can offer. For example, CatholicCare, formerly known as Centacare, is not prepared to run sex education programs or to offer alternatives to pregnancy. It can have a significant impact on young people with disability in regional and rural areas if their only option is CatholicCare.
I recently attended a forum in Tasmania organised by the Health and Community Services Union, which represents members working in disability. At the forum a report was presented that had been prepared by the UNSW Social Policy Research Centre, following an extensive survey of workers in the disability sector. It's fair to say that workers' views about the NDIS under this government are underwhelming at best: 24.6 per cent agree that the NDIS is positive for participants, 14.6 per cent agree that families of participants are happy with the NDIS, 15.7 per cent agree that the NDIS is better than the previous system, 55.9 per cent report not having enough time to do their job, 72.2 per cent are worried about the future of their job and 52.6 per cent disagree that the NDIS has been a positive change for them as a worker. The most common concerns that workers reported to researchers were about the adequacy of resources being provided to people with disability under the NDIS and the impact of that on the quality of services. They conveyed the frustrations of clients and families about delays and inequitable and impersonal planning processes. Importantly, workers expressed deep concern about the effect on quality and safety of the use of casual and agency staff, and many were highly stressed about their pay and working conditions, including unsustainable workloads and time pressures, including unpaid work, and poor job security.
When clients are unhappy, when families are unhappy and when the workers who deliver services are unhappy, that should serve as a wake-up call to the government that the NDIS, while a vital program, is missing the mark. Complaints about the scheme have soared 700 per cent over the past year. Reports to the Ombudsman leapt from 62 in 2015-16 to 429 last financial year. The watchdog received 188 grievances in the three months to 30 June this year—more than it received during the scheme's first three years.
The tragedy is that the government was warned beforehand that this trouble was looming, but it did nothing. It should have listened to the member for Jagajaga, who knows more than perhaps anybody else in this place about social security and disability services. It should have heeded the warnings that she gave that the government was underprepared and wasn't approaching the NDIS nearly seriously enough.
The government's answer is to inflict a tax increase on the Australian people, saying that's the only way that the NDIS can be fully funded. But that's not true. The money is there. We know the money is there because the government wants to give that money and more to corporate Australia through a tax break. The resources exist. We just need a government that is prepared to put people with disability ahead of corporations and banks.
I speak today in support of the Medicare Levy Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017. Every day, we meet local heroes who are dealing with a huge range of difficulties. One of the most touching is to meet a person with a disability who inspires and impresses with their attitude to life and their determination to make a difference. Among my local disability champions is Brad Rossiter, with his prosthetic legs and his kidney and pancreas transplants. He and his wife Lorrae are the founders and co-chairs of the Eurobodalla Renal Support Group. Brad is a star for kidney health awareness and diabetes awareness and a champion for organ donor registration. He's a recipient under the NDIS. Lauren Ball, only 11 years of age and already with a lung transplant, attends Huskisson Public School. Her aim also is to raise awareness for organ donation registration. Jackie Kay, from her position in a wheelchair, is the chairperson of It's Heaven Inclusive Tourism and Hansa Sailing Systems, and she is the first advocate for Sailability Shoalhaven. Luke Stojanovic and his mum, Kim, helped to raise over $77,000 towards the brain injury unit at Liverpool Hospital. Luke was a devil-may-care motorcycle rider who had the misfortune to have a very serious injury. He was hospitalised for many months. It's been a difficult journey for his whole family. They had to learn sign language. He had the use of only one hand and was told he would never be able to speak again. He's a cheeky young man with a great sense of humour. Last time we met he spoke, carefully. Clearly, it was taking an enormous amount of concentration, but he was speaking. He was speaking about his next quest. He's fired up and ready to fundraise again to get a disability access point for people to get to the water in beautiful Jervis Bay. 'Big Red' Brent Peter Kelly, is the one, would you believe? He keeps telling you: 'I am the one'. Brent's presence at any event is unforgettable, because he's so enthusiastic and loves life. He was at the launch of the NDIS in both the Illawarra and the Shoalhaven. He said in his opening comments: 'I just want to say thank you. I want to thank you, the Australian taxpayer, for paying the NDIS. I couldn't go out shopping and I couldn't go to the pictures.' His mother told me: 'Now I can have some time to do craft and meet my friends for coffee, and know that Brent is happy.' They are great fans of the NDIS.
Each time I meet a person with a disability or one of their carers I'm both inspired and humbled by their tenacity and their strength in the face of adversity. They are the reason for my absolute support for increasing the Medicare levy paid by taxpayers to increase the amount to be allocated to the NDIS. This is a government initiative begun under the previous Labor government and with bipartisan support. The NDIS should continue to have this support as it will help all those in our community in need of supported living. The NDIS is one of the largest social and economic reforms in Australia's history and is the best way forward to provide support for people with a disability, their families and carers in Australia. Eventually, the NDIS will support a better life for around 460,000 Australians under the age of 65 with a permanent and significant disability. It will help their families and their carers.
The NDIS represents a significant shift in the delivery of services for people with a disability, from the old ad hoc welfare model to one of empowerment and participation. It all began on 1 July 2016. It was a gradual three-year rollout across Australia. Conceptually, the existing Commonwealth and state based services are supposed to continue until eligible people start to receive their support from the NDIS. At times this continuity doesn't happen, it's hoped that people with disability will continue to live more independent lives, engage with their community, and enter the workforce for the first time or return to work while also receiving the services and equipment they need. Essentially, the NDIS is designed to give people choice and control so they can get the help they need when and where they need it to live an ordinary life. We know the greatest gains in people's wellbeing and independence come from living in a community that's accessible, inclusive and welcoming to those with a disability.
While the NDIS represents a significant and historic change to the landscape for disability, it remains only part of the story. Not all people with a disability will be eligible. There are 4.2 million Australians living with a disability. Governments and communities will continue to have a role in supporting people who are outside of the eligibility criteria. In just three months, up until June this year, the scheme grew by over 15,000 participants with an approved plan. More than 6,000 young children have entered the system via the early childhood intervention approach, which is available for littlies under six. I have to say at this point that I have a dream to try and resolve. In the regions, getting children to a point of assessment can be difficult and at times there's a waiting list, causing delay and frustration for the affected child and their parent, grandparent or carer. How good would it be to have a roving assessment team from the NDIS that could go to a child's home or school? It would be wonderful if that could happen.
Every person who has a compassionate heart knows the NDIS currently suffers from being underfunded. Every person with a compassionate heart knows that the pathway to alleviate this is to increase the Medicare levy by the tiny amount of 0.5 per cent. Recently the Prime Minister visited Yumaro, where we demonstrated a brilliant place for disability employment and celebrated 100,000 NDIS plans having been established.
It would be a rare thing indeed for any new program to come into being without a few teething programs. We all aspire to perfection but acknowledge that all rollouts, particularly from government, will have a few hiccups. We must have systems in place to address the bumps as they occur. The Commonwealth and New South Wales governments and the NDIA are working together to make sure that the NDIS stays on track.
It's well recognised that the NDIS will also be a major driver of new jobs and career pathways for the disability services as well as creating employment opportunities in the community. In New South Wales, it's expected that the number of jobs in the disability sector will grow from more than 24,000 to well over 48,000, some part time and some full time due to the different nature of demand. The bilateral agreement for the full scheme rollout was signed by the Commonwealth and state governments on 16 September 2015, giving certainty to people across New South Wales that this landmark scheme is on track and on its way.
Around 20 per cent of Australians have some form of disability. That's one in five. That's more than four million of us nationwide and more than 1.3 million in New South Wales alone. The NDIS targets people with permanent and significant disability who need help with the kinds of everyday tasks that each and every one of us takes for granted. To be eligible for that program, you have to have a permanent significant disability; you have to be less than 65; you must be an Australian citizen or permanent resident or a New Zealand citizen who holds a protected special category visa; and you have to be part of the area where it's being rolled out. One aspect of concern relates to the change from disability to pension age. In fact, if a person who meets the age requirements of the scheme joins the NDIS before turning 65, that person can choose to stay on the NDIS for life if necessary.
Everyone who enters the NDIS will first need to get the plan, the big plan. The first plan is the participant's entry point to the NDIS and the start of their ongoing relationship with the scheme. In addition, the plan will identify the reasonable and necessary supports required to meet the immediate needs of the participant and start to identify and achieve their goals. Once access to the NDIS is confirmed, the participant or nominee will be contacted by someone from the NDIS and then also pass that on to the NDIA to have an actual planning conversation. Most people's first plans will be completed over the phone. Sometimes it is not so; they'll go and have a visit, although the phone seems to be the major one. Everyone will have the same access to supports and services irrespective of how their planning conversation takes place. Once an NDIS plan has been established, it'll be reviewed periodically and, if circumstances change or it needs a further review, it can be requested at any stage.
We have heaps of people with disability in New South Wales—as I said, over 1.3 million as determined by the 2015 survey of disability, ageing and carers in New South Wales, compared to the more than four million nationally. Both of those figures are likely to be a great deal higher this year. There will be a significant and predicted growth in services required to meet demand, with an increase of more than 64,000 participants. Already there is an identified need for an extra $3.4 billion in services, as well as the increase in the level of annual expenditure, which is estimated to grow from $3.4 billion to $6.8 billion by the end of 2019.
This is why we absolutely must have bipartisan support to change the Medicare levy. Including all the people with specific needs and helping them to have a better quality of life, as well as helping the quality of life of the carer, is an essential moral and political responsibility. I ask every Australian to question the motives of those in opposition when this policy of a universal Medicare levy was okay while they were in government but isn't okay now. Why, when we know how hard life is for those with a disability, would we play with the source of funding to make the program more universally accessible? To quote the Treasurer:
Sustainably funding our most important programs—such as the National Disability Insurance Scheme—is real, tangible change, not just an empty promise or hot air. It's real, and it will be real to the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Australians who will be impacted by this scheme in a positive way.
We also know that Australians support this change because they believe in looking after their mates, no matter what their own individual means or circumstances are.
In our nation, we are most generous when people are going through the worst of times—flood events, bushfires, road tragedies and, more recently, idiot behaviour in city areas that puts people at risk. We gather around, we send support, we donate financially and we are at our best. Disability is not a transition occurrence, so the funding cannot be a transition arrangement, nor can it be an ad hoc appeal to the generosity of Australians. We look after each other as a country. We don't look to our ability to see how much we can do. We instinctively help as best we can. This is an essential part of our Australian character, our values and our community mateship, and it is that character that is the basis of knowing the general Australian population's support. Again I quote the Treasurer, the Hon. Scott Morrison:
It is that character that I have seen demonstrated around the country in response to our call for Australians to support their mates who live with a disability and the families who live with those Australians, and care for them, along with their workmates, their friends, their associates and those they randomly come in contact with on the street and in public transport. It is about the empathy and the care and the passion that Australians feel for their mates, particularly those who suffer with a disability.
Just last week at the launch of friends of Paralympics sport I met Dylan Alcott. He's an amazing athlete with his most recent achievements being gold medals in singles and doubles tennis. I can't play this game at all well, let alone in a wheelchair. He's such a bright and vibrant young man. Dylan thinks many people have major low self-esteem if they have a disability. One in five, as I said, has a disability, and we've got a long way to go to make that less of a problem.
Acknowledging the need for all Australians to help with the increased need for funding is another way of raising awareness for those with a disability. Australians place a great deal of faith in our government's range of essential services. No-one can truly prepare for the hardship or cost of these responsibilities.
I heard a few comments regarding the extra 0.5 per cent of Medicare not being needed to fund the NDIS. What government, particularly a Liberal coalition government, likes to increase taxes unless there's an absolute need to do so? Are the current and new Labor MPs unaware that the original NDIS did not include those people with mental health issues, that these people were added in during the final months of the Labor government in 2013? We absolutely must—and in my notes I've underlined 'must'—enable access to the NDIS for those suffering mental health issues. I mention this particularly as just this weekend we had yet another regional suicide, reflecting the absolute need for mental health investment as part of the NDIS.
So I say to those considering this weird idea of not voting for the very sensible solution of increasing the Medicare levy to fund the missing dollars for the NDIS: have a chat to your local disability constituents. Ask them for their opinions. Look them in the eye and tell them: 'I'm not voting for this. I'm not going to vote for this extension of the levy. I'm not going to ensure certainty for your funding, so you can't change your wheelchair next time you need one.' I'd be very surprised if you could do that.
Labor, get on board. You expanded the system to make sure mental health was part of the disability spectrum. It needs to be funded, so get on board, help fund it and give certainty to every single one of those people with a disability who are depending on that vote—absolutely depending on that vote—for certainty for their planning for the rest of their lives.
I'm not really sure that the member for Gilmore really understands how government programs are funded, but anyway. Today's debate is not about whether the National Disability Insurance Scheme should be fully funded but about how it is to be funded. We all want to see the NDIS in full operation as soon as possible, properly funded and transforming the lives of, ultimately, millions of Australians. I've already seen it transform the lives of many of my patients. The relief that their families feel knowing that their children with severe disabilities could be cared for long after they are gone is almost palpable.
The bills before us today, we shouldn't forget, are the Turnbull government's plan B for guaranteeing future funding to the NDIS. Back in February, the Treasurer's plan A—the plan that no longer dares speak its name—was to make the NDIS's funding contingent on the parliament agreeing to unfair cuts to family tax benefits, paid parental leave, Newstart and the energy supplement. No cuts, no NDIS, we were told. It was like something developed by the local schoolyard bully. That plan met with such universal public outrage that it barely survived a single 24-hour news cycle. Now, of course, the Treasurer is amongst the most fulsome of NDIS supporters. The would-be poacher has turned gamekeeper.
The NDIS was devised, approved and negotiated with all the relevant stakeholders, including the states and territories, by the Gillard Labor government. I will never forget the strength that Julia Gillard showed in getting this done, and we should be grateful for her commitment to the most disadvantaged. I remember meeting her at a lunch organised by the member for Fowler some considerable time before she became Prime Minister, and even at that time she told me she was committed to getting funding for those most disadvantaged people with disabilities in our community.
Labor remains unswervingly committed to the NDIS, and Labor is as deeply committed to the NDIS as it is to the preservation of Medicare. Those on the conservative side, including a couple of now former state premiers, haven't always been so unreservedly supportive and committed to it.
The Productivity Commission has recently reaffirmed that the NDIS is the most significant social reform in a generation. It's an essential part of Australia's social safety net, and when it's fully operational it will be something we can all be truly proud of. The community recognises that. Seemingly no-one, not even the Treasurer, wants to see public faith in the NDIS undermined by corner cutting or underfunding. The government has recommitted to fully roll out the NDIS by 2019-20, even though the Productivity Commission, like many others, believes that that target can no longer be met. However, it is, hopefully, committed too to addressing the failings identified in this month's Productivity Commission report.
The NDIS is, of course, by any measure a massive undertaking. It will provide individualised services and support to at least half a million Australians with a permanent or significant disability, and that also does not include the families involved in caring for someone with a severe disability. That's an increase of about 16 per cent on the base number that the Productivity Commission used to calculate the cost of the NDIS for the Gillard government. The core feature of the NDIS is that participants will have a significant say in identifying the form that support takes and in choosing how their needs are met. Access to NDIS services is not means tested, and, like Medicare, it will be available to all Australians irrespective of their wealth or income.
To the extent that the scheme is not funded from designated sources, it remains a cost to the Commonwealth budget. The state and territory governments pay about half of that. The Commonwealth will be liable for the rest, hence this package of bills. The annual cost of the NDIS, when it becomes fully operational, is estimated to be close to $22 billion. It will be the biggest contributor to expenditure growth over the next four years and will reach about one per cent of GDP by 2020-21. About 70,000 extra disability support workers will be required. That target also is at risk of not being met. No-one on this side of the House underestimates the enormity of the task, and no-one here expects the government to get it all right the first time round.
The trouble with this government is that it blows so hot and cold on the NDIS, as it does with so many other aspects of public policy. That includes things like the debt and deficit, energy policy, education funding and an endless list of others including the NBN. You can't be confident that another U-turn isn't about to happen. It's still into the blame game and torn between its commitment to make the NDIS succeed, which I think we all want, and its free-market DNA, which tells it that any public enterprise is a mistake.
By the time the NDIS is fully operational, it will be close to a decade since the Productivity Commission conducted its inquiry into disability care and support and the heads-of-government agreement was entered into to establish and fund the NDIS. The Productivity Commission, as mandated by the heads-of-government agreement struck by the Gillard government with the states and territories—excepting Western Australia—has only recently completed a full review of the scheme, and not all the news is good. The states have withdrawn funding far in advance of federal funding for many programs.
I am constantly being contacted by my paediatric colleagues about the withdrawal of state funding for children with severe disabilities long before NDIS funding is available. Most recently my paediatric colleague from the Fairfield-Liverpool area, Dr Duc Van, has contacted me, very concerned about children being diagnosed with severe disabilities having months, sometimes even years, to wait before they can access NDIS funding and early intervention, yet we know these programs are the only ones that really work for these kids. So there is a gap, and that needs to be addressed. I've certainly approached the ministers involved, Jane Prentice and Christian Porter, about this.
Labor believes it's unusual to fully guarantee in advance the funding of any government policy or program, yet both sides of politics have done so in the case of the NDIS because it is so important. Even the recently enacted Medicare guarantee legislation, another Turnbull government face-saving measure, does not fully fund Medicare or the PBS. It merely makes more visible whatever level of funding happens to be determined by government from time to time. The NDIS is universally funded, and it's up to the government to provide the funding.
Labor fully funded the NDIS based on the information available to it in 2013, and the coalition government understands that. The coalition, for its own political purposes, says the scheme was underfunded. On the information available, it was not. We will disagree with the government, but we will support additional funding. However, here comes the crunch. The government wants to increase the Medicare levy on all Australians by a further 0.5 per cent as of 1 July 2019, a date selected because that's when the government had hoped the NDIS would be fully functioning. That appears to be wishful thinking at this stage.
Labor would also prefer to fund the NDIS by raising additional revenue rather than by cutting either the NDIS itself or other government programs. Where we differ from the government is that, given the current economic conditions, we believe now is not the right time to raise additional revenue by an across-the-board increase to the Medicare levy.
Labor also opposes the government's proposal to close the Education Investment Fund and use the balance remaining in that fund to support the NDIS. The Education Investment Fund forms part of a special government account to provide dedicated ongoing capital funding for tertiary education and research infrastructure. It was established by Labor in 2009 to address chronic problems in ensuring that the physical assets that sit on our university campuses are properly maintained and modernised where necessary. The need for such funding is felt most acutely by Australia's smaller regional universities. Abolishing the EIF is short-sighted and a false economy. Australia's tertiary sector is already reeling from what has been an ongoing, if not entirely successful, assault from this government to its baseline university funding. I remain unconvinced of the alleged merits of this proposal.
The government's case is not assisted by either absence of alternative government capital support or its 2016-17 budget decision to renege on its commitment to proceed with the creation of an Asset Recycling Fund for universities. That would have picked up around $3.5 billion of uncommitted education investment funds and deployed them on new government infrastructure, including in the education system. Again, like Canberra weather, it's hot one day, freezing the next.
Let me return to the main matter in contention: how best to raise an additional $4 billion to fund the NDIS. The government must rethink its plan to increase the Medicare levy by 0.5 per cent. According to the Parliamentary Budget Office, the proposed across-the-board increase in the Medicare levy will be one of two major contributors to the government's personal income tax take rising from 11.3 per cent to 12.5 per cent of GDP between 2016 and 2021.
Labor believes that the added cost of the NDIS can be met without making life any more difficult for those on modest and middle incomes. We recognise that low- and middle-income earners are already struggling to make ends meet. The government's plan was announced in the Treasurer's budget on 9 May, and Labor's approach was announced a short time after. Labor would retain the budget repair levy on those earning more than $180,000 a year and restrict the proposed Medicare increase to those earning over $87,000, which is not a high income by any measure. Labor's plan keeps some pressure off low- to middle-income earners while providing a further significant source of funding for the NDIS. The government is more about extricating the Treasurer from his failed attempt at blackmailing the parliament into passing his omnibus bill back in mid-February.
Six months after budget night, we're still to hear a sensible reason for not adopting Labor's approach or some variant of it. The Treasurer's second reading speech was, as usual, short on constructive ideas. It was a rendering similar to Sir John Falstaff but with twice the bluster and half the wit. Indeed, while calling for Labor's cooperation, the Treasurer, running hot and cold, yet again, and blustering, yet again, spent a good portion of his time falsely claiming Labor was abandoning the NDIS. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Labor does endorse raising additional revenue, but not from the poorest. Put the NDIS on an even more secure footing before it's fully operational. We won't give this government political cover for a tax increase that will fall most heavily on middle Australia, the very group that has not had a tax cut from this government in four long years and can't expect one in the immediate future. I've already dealt with the Treasurer's claim that the coalition has been a consistent supporter of the NDIS. His specious argument that somehow Labor left office with the scheme unfunded and his claim that he wants to take the politics out of the debate are completely laughable.
Labor is being neither inconsistent nor obstructionist in not supporting an across-the-board increase in the Medicare levy. Labor had the political ticker to introduce the Medicare levy and raise it in small, manageable steps in 1984, 1993, 1995 and 2013. Labor recognises that social reforms and better health outcomes come at a price. So too do the voters. Like us, they want those costs shared equitably. Whenever Labor has raised the Medicare levy it has acted on the back of measures that ensure the least well-off and those not so well-off are protected. That's how the accord and the social wage concept functioned during the lives of the Hawke and Keating governments. That's why there are the carve-outs that the minister referred to in his second reading speech.
When Labor voted to increase the Medicare levy across the board in 2013, it was just after we reduced taxes on low- and middle-income earners. Labor had just trebled the size of the tax-free threshold and the groups that benefited most from that were those on low to middle incomes. The current Treasurer may not have adopted a similar approach this time simply because there wasn't enough time between his plan A sinking without trace in late February and the budget in early May. In all probability, the Treasury would also have warned that further increasing the tax burden and the Medicare levy on middle Australia at this time would dampen economic growth quite severely.
The Treasurer argues that low-income earners don't need to be protected from his further 0.5 per cent increase in the Medicare levy because they are already carved out of the system. Not true. It's only true for those at the very bottom of the income distribution graph. As ACOSS submitted to the Senate economics committee, most of those with taxable incomes above $22,000, or $37,000 in the case of families, would pay the extra 0.5 per cent flat tax on all of their income. Labor's plan protects all of those earning more than the princely sum of $22,000 annually.
Middle Australia simply isn't up for another hike to the Medicare levy. Private debt is at record levels and, as we all know, the cost-of-living pressures are bearing down hardest on ordinary working Australians. We can dispense too with the superficially appealing argument that because all Australians can access the NDIS, irrespective of income, each should pay the same proportion of their income to fund the scheme. We have a progressive tax system, not a proportional one. The government's plan doesn't even try to rework the tax scales to protect the most vulnerable. This is a bad measure by any account.
The independent Parliamentary Budget Office only a week or two back reported on the distributional effects of this government's continued failure to index the income tax scales. Not only that, the cost-of-living pressures are already disproportionately affecting those on lower to middle incomes. In four years of office, this government has not once cut marginal tax rates applying to those with an income of $80,000 or less. That stance is set to continue for the foreseeable future. Over the next three years, if there is no adjustment to the taxation scales, the middle 20 per cent of income earners will see their average tax rate rise very significantly. This government is helping fund the NDIS by further fuelling the impact of budget bracket creep. (Time expired)
I rise this afternoon to support the Medicare Levy Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017. We must, in this place, look beyond partisan politics and think about whom it is that this bill will help. This bill is about putting Australians with a disability and their families first. The scheme will transform the lives of around 460,000 Australians who are living with disability, and their families.
Before I get into an exegesis of the bill, I want to send a huge shout-out to the Wide Bay Swimming Association athletes who represented Wide Bay at the New South Wales multi-class swimming championships. Keasha Wilson, who is an S14, got one personal best, two silvers and one bronze, and she got a Queensland record for the 50-metre butterfly. Jackson Hughes got one personal best, four golds and one silver. He's also an S14. My own daughter Sarah Wallace—she's an S7 swimmer—got four PBs, three golds and two silvers. I want to give a shout-out to their carers: Keasha's carer, Carol Holmes; Jackson's carer, Danny Hughes; and Sarah's carer, Leonie Wallace. I congratulate the Wide Bay Swimming Association for their inclusive swimming policy. It's the first time that the Wide Bay Swimming Association has sent a team to a multi-class swimming competition anywhere in Australia and they should be congratulated. It is people like those who make up the Wide Bay Swimming Association, and the Keashas, Jacksons and Sarahs of the world and their carers, that this bill is all about.
I'm also a member of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and, in that role, I have seen the difference that the NDIS has made in the regions where it has been rolled out and the eagerness with which regions, such as the Sunshine Coast, are waiting for it to be rolled out. I've heard in particular about the impact the NDIS rollout is having on the mental health care of many of its recipients and also the families who look after them.
Disability does not discriminate by postcode, occupation, health or wealth. This bill is about fairness. It is about the NDIS as an insurance scheme. All benefit, so all can contribute. Those who earn more can pay more.
Making a significant and dignified difference for nearly half a million Australians and their families will come at a substantial cost. The Commonwealth expenditure on the NDIS for 2017-18 is $5.3 billion and it's projected to reach $10.8 billion when the NDIS reaches its full rollout by 2019-20.
Labor failed to meet that full cost. When Labor left office in 2013, they left a $55.7 billion funding shortfall for the NDIS, beginning with a shortfall of $3.8 billion in the 2019-20 year alone. Labor themselves admitted the shortfall. The then disability minister, the member for Jagajaga, said, in May 2013:
… around 40 per cent of the $5.4 billion will need to be found and we'll need to find that in our Budget.
Former Prime Minister Julia Gillard said, also in May 2013:
Now I do want to be clear, the amount raised from the additional Medicare levy will not fund the full cost of DisabilityCare when it's in full operation.
We now need to fix the black hole and give Australians with permanent and significant disability and their families and carers certainty that this vital service will be there for them into the future. So we are now asking all Australians to contribute.
As announced in the 2017-18 budget, the government will increase the Medicare levy rate by half a percentage point from two per cent to 2.5 per cent of taxable income from 1 July 2019, to ensure that the NDIS is fully funded. This measure is estimated to have a revenue gain of $8. 2 billion over the forward estimates to 2020-21. The government will use all revenue generated by the Medicare levy to support the NDIS and to guarantee Medicare. In particular, the government will credit $9.1 billion over the forward estimates period to the NDIS Savings Fund Special Account when it is established.
The government is committed to fairness and will ensure that the Medicare levy increase is fair. The general principle will be that all of us benefit from the NDIS as an insurance scheme, so all of us should contribute. However, for vulnerable Australians, this government will ensure that they are not impacted by the change. The following people will continue to be exempt from the Medicare levy, in part or in full, depending on their particular circumstances—namely: people who are entitled to full, free, medical treatment for all conditions under Defence Force arrangements or the Veterans' Affairs repatriation health card, the gold card; blind pensioners and sick allowance recipients; low-income earners; nonresidents for tax purposes; and Medicare exemption certificate recipients. The current low-income threshold means that no Medicare levy will be payable for individual taxpayers with incomes under $21,655.
The government has separately increased the Medicare levy low-income threshold for the 2016-17 income year to take into account movements in the consumer price index so that low-income taxpayers continue to be exempt from the Medicare levy. For single individuals with no dependants, the full Medicare levy rate would apply if their income exceeds $27,068. Couples and families will not be liable if their combined income is less than $36,541. The thresholds for couples and families go up by $3,356 for each dependent child. For example, if a couple has three children and is not eligible for the seniors and pensioners tax offset, they would not need to pay any Medicare levy if their combined income is less than $46,609. Couples and families eligible for the seniors and pensioners tax offset will not be liable to pay the Medicare levy if their combined income is less than $47,670.
It is clearly absolute bunkum that the government is not protecting the lowest income earners and most disadvantaged in our community by protecting them from having to pay this additional Medicare levy. Labor used to support an increase in the Medicare levy to pay for this vital insurance. A joint media release from the then Prime Minister, Treasurer and Minister for Disability Reform in May 2013 stated, 'A modest increase in the Medicare levy, $1 a day for the average earner, will ensure we can deliver and sustainably fund disability care in Australia.' At a press conference on the same day, they made a wonderfully clear statement of the principle on which this bill is based. They said, 'We all contribute and we all share. That is what the Medicare levy is all about.'
However, Labor are now opposing the same policy to fix their multibillion dollar black hole. In their usual practice, exactly what Labor's current policy is is not clear, but it seems they support an increase to the Medicare levy rate by 0.5 per cent to 2.5 per cent of taxable income only for individuals on taxable incomes above $87,000. If, as they seem to suggest, the Medicare levy increase were to apply to a taxpayer's entire income once income exceeds $87,000, it would lead to significant effective marginal tax rates immediately above the $87,000 threshold. A taxpayer may incur an additional tax liability of $435 on the first dollar earnt above $87,000.
The government's decision to increase the Medicare levy from 1 July 2019 reflects the fact that Australians have a role to play in accordance with their capacity to ensure this important program is secure for current and future generations. It is about putting Australians with a disability and their families first. This bill is about fairness and about protecting our most vulnerable people. The Labor Party claim to stand up for society's most vulnerable. It is regrettable that they are now opposing this measure. I call upon those opposite and the Leader of the Opposition in particular, as a father of a child with a disability, to put the politics aside. This is not something that we should even be debating or arguing about. This is something that we need to really get behind to provide assistance to our most disadvantaged children and their families and also adults who are suffering from a disability. This is something that is above partisan politics. I urge those opposite to do the right thing—because it is the right thing. If it was good enough for those opposite to increase the Medicare levy previously to initially get this NDIS scheme off the ground, surely it is good enough now to properly fund it into the years ahead. I support the bill and I commend it to the House.
There are 5,000 people in my electorate who live with a disability and have waited their whole life for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The Productivity Commission report released this year commented that early evidence suggests the NDIS is improving the lives of many participants and their families and carers. Many participants report more choice and control over the support they receive and an increase in the amount of support provided. In my electorate of Oxley, I've seen this firsthand with the dedicated work that the carers do in our community. The story of Youngcare is a good example. They were established at Sinnamon Park in my electorate, where they opened their first residency in 2007. Youngcare Wesley Mission Queensland Apartments had a new approach to independent living. The residents have independence to live their lives the way they want and receive dignified and age-appropriate care. Both side of this House need to be committed to supporting organisations like Youngcare with a fully resourced and effective NDIS. In the electorate of Oxley, I am also privileged to represent wonderful organisations like the Endeavour Foundation. I recently met with the CEO, Andrew Donne, and a number of parents who see their children and family members go off to work everyday.
In the electorate of Oxley, I also have great educational facilities like Goodna Special School, Western Districts Special School and Mount Ommaney Special School. I was privileged to visit the Mount Ommaney Special School, along with other service providers, with Assistant Minister Jane Prentice a number of weeks ago. P&C President Liza Raggatt, Pat Tyrell and Susan Christensen, the principal, were generous to host a round table to discuss the issue of the NDIS rollout and, in particular, the issue of transport accessibility to transport students to services. At this round table, I listened to what parents go through every single day—the love, the care, the attention they give to their children and simply wanting them to lead normal lives, attend schools and fully participate in society. I commend them for their work. I know from listening to these parents and carers how important, how critical, the NDIS is.
Labor under Bill Shorten, the person who did so much to deliver this national reform under the former government, and every member of this House—in particular, every Labor member—is 100 per cent committed to rolling it out. This was a Labor initiative—a program implemented by the previous Labor government. I know from talking to people what Medicare delivered to this nation—that groundbreaking reform led by a former member for Oxley, then social security minister, the Hon. Bill Hayden. Medicare transformed the lives of thousands of Australians and, to this day, is world-known for delivering quality health care regardless of income or where you live.
But the key to this debate is how we fund it. The contrast is clear: the coalition will make low- to middle-income workers pay for it; Labor will make those on incomes over $87,000 pay. This government proposes a tax hike on people earning as little as $21,000 a year. This will affect seven million workers across the country. In my electorate, it will affect 45,000 of my constituents. For example, a young tradesman living and working in Redbank Plains in the electorate of Oxley earning $55,000 a year will be hit with a tax hike of $275 per year. A mid-career professional—the highest average earning occupation in my electorate—earning around $80,000 a year will face $400 extra in tax per year.
We all know stagnant wages, falling living standards and record levels of underemployment all mean that low- and middle-income Australians are less able to pay more tax than they have in the past. The effect of these measures, combined with the removal of the deficit levy by this government, is an increase of the marginal tax rate for low- to middle-income Australians and a tax break for those income earners at the top. I've said it before and I'll say it again: it doesn't make sense, it simply is not fair, and it runs contrary to the principle of progressive taxation.
Labor's plan is better and fairer. Labor will increase the Medicare levy for individuals earning more than $87,000 a year and keep the deficit levy on those income earners earning more than $180,000. Labor's plan would see the budget bottom line better off by $4 billion. As we've heard, independent research from the ANU's Centre for Social Research and Methods has shown that twice as many households will be worse off under the coalition's plan than under Labor's fairer alternative. That's twice as many households that will be worse off. This was confirmed by the independent PBO report, which showed that middle-income Australians will be worse off under government policy.
We know that the Australian Council of Social Service have stated in their submission to the Senate inquiry on these measures that it is their view that those with an ability to pay should be making fair contributions to the NDIS, and they agreed that Labor's proposal was more progressive than the government's. We've always said this: governments are about making choices. Governments have a crystal-clear choice. We can ensure that the NDIS is funded. We on this side of the House want to make it fairer—fairer for those people who can afford to pay it to ensure those who are living on middle to low incomes are simply not slugged through the nose with demands from this government that they pay more tax. ACOSS went further in welcoming Labor's policies to make people that can afford these measures pay for them. They supported Labor's holistic measures to crack down on income tax minimisation through reform to negative gearing—which I spoke about in this place last week—capital gains tax, trusts, superannuation funds and multinational tax avoidance.
However, what I find difficult to understand and comprehend is this government tying the repeal of the Education Investment Fund to this suite of legislation. As Disabled People's Organisations Australia rightly said in their submission to the Senate inquiry into these measures, there shouldn't be a trade-off between people with a disability and critical funding for Australian research infrastructure. Universities Australia has said closing the Education Investment Fund, which has $3.8 billion remaining, would make it harder for the sector to create jobs and generate world-class, innovative research. So it seems strange to me, given the government announced a National Research Infrastructure Roadmap earlier this year, that it would touch a measure to abolish $3.2 billion dedicated to research infrastructure. This is a Prime Minister that talks about an innovation agenda—except when it comes to the NBN—but, when he comes into this place, he does the complete opposite. It simply doesn't add up. We know that funding for research infrastructure makes our universities highly competitive in the international tertiary education market. Universities need capital research infrastructure to be successful. As Universities Australia has said:
Without capital funding, the renewal of teaching and research infrastructure needed to equip universities for today's competitive environment will slow significantly. The proposal to abolish the EIF is compounded by the Government's current proposal to reduce public investment in universities by $2.8 billion.
Australia's university education sector, as I know coming from Queensland, is one of our largest exports. It contributes around $22 billion to the Australian economy. The abolition of this program not only reduces certainty in the sector, as I said, it just makes no sense. And this is compounded by the fact that it's tied to a suite of legislation to make low- to middle-income workers pay more.
It's clear that on this side of the House we have a better and fairer plan to fund the NDIS. This government would do itself a favour to listen to what the community sector is saying and to listen to what middle- and low-income Australia is calling out for. When I visit shopping centres and do mobile offices and street corner meetings, people who are middle- to low-income earners don't ever come up to me and say: 'We've got too much. We're flush with cash.' They talk about the rising cost of the standard of living, they talk about not being able to make mortgage payments and they talk about not being able to get enough money together for their kids to play sport—on it goes, on it goes. We've all heard the same stories.
In my electorate, where there are a number of families doing it tough, I simply cannot look them in the eye and say, 'I'm going to increase your tax share.' At the same time, this government's priorities are to make sure that millionaires get a tax cut. So, on one hand, millionaires get a tax cut and large corporations are looked after, but people on low to middle incomes get a tax increase. So I don't want any more lectures, any more speeches or any more advice from members of the coalition, saying that in some alternative universe they are the party of low tax. We know that they are not, and middle Australia is seeing that.
The bill that we're asked to support today, and that the government is insisting on passing, will fund the NDIS, but at what cost? We have a fairer and more equitable plan to make sure that the NDIS delivers what it should. The government should not be increasing the tax burden on those most vulnerable Australians.
As I said in my opening remarks, the NDIS is incredibly important to the lives of people with a disability. But it's critical that it is fully funded. Labor will continue to fund this well into the future. However, we'll ensure that low- to middle-income earners aren't hit with an unfair share of the bill to fund the NDIS into the future.
I rise to speak on the Medicare Levy Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017. Can I say to start with, in response to the previous speaker's conclusion just then, that it is actually not at all clear that Labor has a plan to fund the NDIS? They've changed their minds on their plans for how they might pay for it in the future, not two but I think three times now, by my count. They've crab walked away from every position that they've previously held when it comes to the way that they're going to fund it.
The NDIS is supposed to be a policy that enjoys bipartisan support, and it has done since its inception. This bill finds the way to fully pay, finally, for the NDIS. I guess it's an unfortunate sign of the times that more and more legislation is opposed these days by the opposition on the basis of political point scoring rather than for real policy or substantive reasons. Indeed, we can probably now add the NDIS to a list that, sadly, grows longer every month of commitments that Labor once made about their values and their promises before the election and how they actually vote post the election in this parliament.
The previous speaker talked a little about tax cuts, actually. That used to be a strong Labor belief—that tax cuts led to more jobs, more investment and prosperity. When this government, in this parliament, acted to reduce corporate taxes for small business, and when we voted to reduce taxes for middle-income earners in Australia, the Labor Party said that they aspired to cutting taxes and then they voted against doing so. They changed their minds. Labor opposed it; the coalition did it. We passed small business tax cuts for Australia, and now jobs are being created, exactly as was predicted both by us and by them—when they used to support it.
Similarly, Labor also used to talk a lot about David Gonski and school funding reforms. They used to say that they aspired to increase funding and to move to a system that treated all students the same, on the basis of need. Then the coalition found a way to finally do that in our budget and Labor changed their minds and voted against it. Labor used to talk about finding a bipartisan, expert-led approach when it came to energy policy and the challenges that confront our nation. Recently, that's exactly what this government announced with its support for the National Energy Guarantee, as recommended by the experts on the Energy Security Board, and now it seems Labor will walk away from their previously stated beliefs in that space too. It's a pattern of conduct from Labor that I genuinely hope has caught the attention of Australian families who are interested—indeed, invested—in the success of the NDIS. It used to be a Labor policy to find the money for the NDIS through a policy just like this, an increase in the Medicare levy, and, now that this government announced that in the budget earlier this year, it seems Labor are set to oppose it. They'll vote against giving the NDIS the funding security that they say it deserves.
I remember that time—I think it was a few months ago now—when a very strong delegation of disability advocates came down to Canberra to try to persuade the Labor Party to fully fund the NDIS in exactly this way. The former Labor MP John Della Bosca, from Every Australian Counts, said:
… the increase to the Medicare levy must happen, in order to secure a consistent, sustainable funding stream for the NDIS. That's what we're telling everybody. That's what we'll keep telling everybody until we get a result.
That quote was from exactly the same week that the Productivity Commission released its interim report into its inquiry into the NDIS. That interim report considered whether the rollout of the NDIS was on track and within budget, and indeed the Productivity Commission said, yes, it's on track; it's within budget. And that was, sadly, the week that the Labor Party went completely off track when it came to funding the NDIS. That was the week when it became apparent that Labor had changed their minds and would no longer support that increase in the Medicare levy to fund the NDIS, which was their former position. Mind you, they probably will still ultimately increase the Medicare levy if they ever take office. It just seems that they won't use the funds that they raise through doing that to pay for the NDIS. Chances are they'll fritter it away on something else.
I want to give a very real example from Brisbane about what's at stake, what we are really talking about here, and why this bill matters. In Brisbane, in my electorate, on a quite unassuming street in the beautiful suburb of Wooloowin, there's this unassuming house which you probably wouldn't even notice if you were just driving past it. It's a shared house run by the charity Youngcare, and I was pleased to hear a previous speaker mention them too because they do fantastic work across the Brisbane community in places just like that Wooloowin house. They're a charity that for many, many years has struggled as a small fundraiser to find the funds and build appropriate accommodation for young people with disabilities who have been stuck in the aged-care system in the absence of anything else being available. In 2005, 12 years ago, four mates vowed to change that considerable gap in care provision for young people with high-care needs. They did so when they saw that, at the age of just 33, Shevaune Conry, who has multiple sclerosis, ending up living in aged care. Now Youngcare is at the forefront of the NDIS and has been ensuring that its model of operations as well as its clients are ready for the rollout.
Australia, you see, has a severe shortage of appropriate housing for people with high-care needs, right across the country. At present, Youngcare estimate that there may be 700,000 people living in or at risk of entering aged care because of their disability. It's startling in some senses to think that, in a relatively wealthy country like Australia, a young disabled person's best chance of support and care is in an aged-care facility. For the young people currently living in aged care, the statistics are startling. Forty-four per cent of them, sadly, will receive a visit from friends less than once a year, about one-third of them will never participate in community based activities such as shopping, about one in five of them will go outside of that home less than once a month, and about one-quarter of them are the parents of school-aged children. Almost half are in partnered relationships.
And that's exactly what Shevaune and thousands like her faced. Youngcare was the only place that could provide for her needs 24/7. With the purpose to create brighter futures for young people with high care needs, Youngcare was born and delivered that. Since then, Youngcare and many great organisations like it from right across Australia have provided the care and the dignity that young people deserve.
Recently, I went back to visit Youngcare's Wooloowin share house to catch up with some of the housemates there. I took along this time the Minister for Social Services, Christian Porter, and I was able to show the minister some of the great facilities that the share house provides to the housemates, all of them with disabilities. I caught up again with Nick, one of the housemates there. He showed the minister around his room. Although Nick's confined to a wheelchair, he can control his entire room, from the television to the lights to the bed, as well as all of his communication equipment, all from his wheelchair's computer. Texting family and friends is something that we can often take for granted, but, for Nick, that ability to regularly message his family and friends without having to rely on other people doing it for him was an exciting milestone.
Nick didn't always have his freedom, nor has he always been able to enjoy the facilities at Youngcare. Just like Shevaune, who I spoke about, Nick was shipped around different facilities, including aged care. The common denominator, I suppose, of all of those experiences was that none of them were suited to Nick's needs.
By fully funding the NDIS through this bill, we're giving people like Nick the care that they need and that they deserve. Just as importantly, the NDIS gives power to these clients, which means we're giving them the dignity and the independence that they genuinely deserve. This legislation will fully fund our contribution to the National Disability Insurance Scheme, giving Australians with permanent and significant disability and their families and carers certainty that this sort of service will be there for them into the future.
The scheme aims to transform the lives of almost half a million people around Australia who are living with disability, and the lives of their families. To help fund that scheme, this government is asking Australians to contribute, with the Medicare levy to be increased by half a percentage point, from two to 2.5 per cent of taxable income—but not now, not this year and not next year. We're talking about 2019, when the full scheme rolls out and the full costs are finally incurred by governments participating in the scheme. It will mean that one-fifth of the revenue raised by the Medicare levy into the future, along with any other underspends in the NDIS system, will be directed to the NDIS Savings Fund.
The previous speaker said, 'Low-income earners will pay for this.' But low-income earners will continue to receive relief from the Medicare levy through the low-income thresholds for singles, families, seniors and pensioners. The current exemptions from the Medicare levy will remain in place. Don't get me wrong; good policy should try to spread the costs of a scheme like this as thinly as possible across society, because that's how insurance works. Ask yourself what happens when you set up an insurance scheme that relies much too heavily on just a few contributors. Potentially, in a policy sense, you set that scheme up facing some real risks, possibly setting it up to fail.
Commonwealth expenditure on the NDIS for 2017-18, the financial year we're in, is $5.3 billion. But that's projected to reach $10.8 billion when the NDIS reaches full scheme in 2019-20. As we all know, a scheme doesn't simply pay for itself. And clearly you can't take Labor at their word when they say they might fund it one way, and then they change their minds so many times and say, 'No, no, we're going to fund it this way instead,' and then, 'We're going to fund it this way instead.' When Labor left office, when they were voted out in 2013, they left a $55.7 billion funding shortfall for the NDIS. Labor can try to argue about that shortfall, as they repeatedly do in this place, but they know that it's true. Consistent with the usual budget practices in this place, they only ever really had to account for the money in their budget for the four forward years. They didn't have to explain where the money was coming from in the out years beyond the four-year forward estimates, when the true costs of this scheme would become apparent. That's a usual Labor trick. They do it all the time. They did it on schools funding and all sorts of things. It's just, I suppose, one more thing that this government had to fix up upon assuming office.
One can't help but reflect that we wouldn't be in this position if the proper planning had really been put in place when this scheme was designed. On 1 May 2013 the then Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, said:
Now I do want to be clear, the amount raised from the additional Medicare levy will not fund the full cost of DisabilityCare when it's in full operation.
The Government will need to make savings for that full cost and there will be no free ride for States and Territories. They will need to step up too.
But, in reality, none of those measures were implemented and now this government is stepping in to ensure the longevity of this insurance scheme. This is a big moment for all of the Australian families who are interested in making sure that the NDIS is funded and really works. It will be a revealing moment when the Labor side of politics choose to play politics and they crab-walk away from their previous policy position yet again. It is a revealing moment when the coalition assumes responsibility and does what is necessary to make Australia a better place. Now is the time to finally rectify the funding shortfall for the sake of Youngcare, for their many clients like Nick and Shevaune and for the sake of all the families who wish there was one more Wooloowin House. I commend this bill to the House and I urge the opposition to support it as well.
In this cognate debate, I want to particularly talk about the Nation-building Funds Repeal (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017. Sadly, the Turnbull government's focus in this set of bills is on tearing down nation building, not on building our nation for the future. The Turnbull government has failed to invest in the infrastructure needs of our country. Of course, I'm not just talking about roads and rail, although those are important; I'm talking about the infrastructure that our higher education and vocational education sectors need to become the sectors that they should be for the future so that they can continue to play such an important role in our national economy and in our nation's life.
The Education Infrastructure Fund was a key plank in the previous Labor government's move to transform Australia's education and research capability and address years of underinvestment from the Howard era. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, Australia's international education sector is one of our great success stories. International education and international tourism are our greatest service exports and it's important to focus on what undermining the sector's ability to invest in infrastructure will mean for international trade. The Nation-building Funds Repeal (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017 will close the Building Australia Fund and will close the Education Investment Fund. These funds were established by Labor in 2008. They're managed by the Future Fund, with withdrawals and expenditure being overseen by independent advisory boards against the nation-building fund's evaluation criteria. This isn't the first time that this government has sought to get rid of the Education Investment Fund since it's been in office. The fund has been frozen for a number of years. There was a previous attempt to abolish it in the Asset Recycling Fund Bill 2014, but we were successful in removing those provisions from that bill, which is a very good thing.
As I have gone around the country meeting with universities, they have been very proud to show me examples of their investment in infrastructure that has been partly funded by the Education Investment Fund, the EIF. I have done that, obviously, in the course of my responsibilities as the shadow assistant minister for universities. I have had the opportunity to see the benefit that investment has had for local communities. For example, when I visited Rockhampton recently, the vice-chancellor of the CQUniversity spoke to me about how Labor in government had supported the university to create Queensland's first dual sector institution. The Labor government had supported a proposal by the university to bring together higher education and vocational education through a merger of CQUniversity and Central Queensland Institute of TAFE. They were very proud of the work that had been done in that regard, and they asked me to particularly pass on their thanks to the now shadow Treasurer, Chris Bowen, for his role in assisting with obtaining the support. The education investment funding that contributed to that project was $73.8 million. They leveraged a further $120 million in order to make the project work, because, of course, funding from the Commonwealth can often be supplemented and complemented by funding from other sources—in that case, Queensland government support and other funds. It was a groundbreaking transformation for the university, and it wouldn't have been possible without a significant injection of funds from the Commonwealth's Education Investment Fund and Structural Adjustment Fund.
It helped create the biggest regional university in Australia, with more than 2,000 staff and 35,000 students across 19 locations. It gives people living in regional areas seamless access to a full range of post-school education and training options and allows them to skill up for the workforce needs of the future. Some people used pathways from vocational education into higher education, while degree students in higher education can also access additional trade qualifications to ensure they're employable and comprehensively skilled. This has really been used to better integrate the university into the local community. Key infrastructure projects made possible through the EIF with that particular university include the Rockhampton health clinic, the Mackay city campus refurbishment, the Mackay engineering building, and interactive learning spaces and systems.
Another university that I visited recently is the University of the Sunshine Coast, which showed us the flagship building that they had managed to build through appropriate investment from the Commonwealth and other sources. It's an amazing building. You go into this immersive kind of round virtual reality room, and you are immersed in whatever the images happen to be. At that point we were shown an interactive map, which was 360 degrees around us, of the university's footprint in the local area. This is the sort of new technology that Australian students should have access to. We should have world-class facilities for domestic students. It's also technology that helps to make our universities more attractive to students from outside our country but within our region, students that we want to attract to Australia to continue to build the really important service export that is higher education.
As you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker, higher education and vocational education trade exports contribute more than $22 billion every year to the Australian economy. So continuing to build up the institutions that we have and to make them world class is important if we want to continue to drive that international education spend, and it's important, as I said, for domestic students so that they can have world-class facilities and get the skills, knowledge, attributes and characteristics that you can get through world-class higher education and that they will need for the jobs of the future. We don't want Australians to be in low-paid, low-skilled jobs. We want them to be in high-paid, high-skilled jobs in the future, and that takes investment in vocational education and higher education.
This bill seeks to remove almost $4 billion in funds that were earmarked for investment in education. That's what this bill does. There was another bill before the House recently that also sought to remove almost $4 billion in investment in higher education. That was the government's higher education cuts package—the cuts to higher education of almost $4 billion in fiscal terms over five years. It had fee hikes for students and the reduction of the repayment threshold for the Higher Education Contribution Scheme payments. All of those things were a tax on this country's ability to provide a high-quality higher education system. So is this bill that we're debating today.
Since 2008, up until the Abbott-Turnbull government abandoned the EIF program, around $4.2 billion had been provided to co-finance measures to update and modernise Australia's vocational, higher education and research facilities across 71 projects. I've given the example of CQUniversity. I've talked about Sunshine Coast university. I should also talk about the University of Tasmania. These universities have been able to receive some Commonwealth support in relation to investing in infrastructure for teaching and research. I should also mention the University of Sydney, which is incredibly proud of the work it has done to build spaces that really generate collaboration—genuine multidisciplinary approaches to higher education and to research. You can visit these campuses and see the work that they have done.
Another example is the Advanced Engineering Building at the University of Queensland, which received $50 million as a contribution from EIF funding, raised $15 million from the Queensland Innovation Building Fund, $62 million from its own funds and $2½ million from private philanthropy. This is an iconic building for teaching and research in engineering. I have had the benefit of visiting this facility as well, and it is absolutely wonderful to get to go and see it. I could also talk about the University of South Australia's Materials and Minerals Science Learning and Research Hub. Materials and minerals are so important to our nation's economy and to trade, just like higher education and vocational education are.
There is Swinburne university's Advanced Manufacturing and Design Centre. As a nation we need to move more and more into advanced manufacturing. We need to have a manufacturing sector for the 21st century, and it's been really wonderful to see the work that has been done in relation to advanced manufacturing in Australia. The Leader of the Opposition and I were fortunate enough to visit Incitec Pivot in Brisbane during the week before last to see the advanced manufacturing work that is being done there, by way of an aside. But to return to the EIF: another example is at the University of New South Wales. It has the Tyree Energy Technologies Building, speaking of energy.
All of these are just examples of what can be done when we invest in higher education, vocational education and research infrastructure. It is a very great shame that the government is now closing down the EIF. Universities Australia has said that closing the EIF, which has $3.8 billion remaining in it, would make it harder for the sector to create new jobs, generate research breakthroughs and compete for international students. All of those things, with respect, are absolutely correct, and that is why this government should decide not to pursue the abolition of the EIF and instead to properly invest in education and research infrastructure, to stop attacking higher education and vocational education in this country and to do the right thing and invest in this very important sector for Australians.
It's always a pleasure to follow the member for Griffith, but I just wonder whether she brought the right speech into the House? In the 10 minutes or so that she spoke on this bill—which is, crucially, about funding the NDIS, which those opposite didn't fund when they were in government—all she did was speak about higher education. Not once in her contribution did she speak about our looking to support people with disabilities and their families to lead a better life. But that just shows what those opposite are really all about.
It's my pleasure to rise in this House today to speak in support of the government's Medicare Levy Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017 and related bills. This bill is about putting Australians with a disability and their families first, something those opposite seem to have forgotten. This is what this government cares about and it's why it is putting forward the strategy that is outlined in these bills that will see such needs met in our local communities, including in my electorate of Forde.
What a great time it is to be speaking about this bill, after celebrating National Carers Week just last week. Carers Australia organises and coordinates National Carers Week with the assistance and participation of the state and territory carer associations, and with the primary activities funded by the Department of Social Services. National Carers Week is about recognising and celebrating the outstanding contribution that Australia's estimated 2.7 million unpaid carers make to our nation each and every day.
I would like to acknowledge that carers make an enormous contribution to our local communities, as well as to our national economy. It is a contribution that cannot ever be overstated. Statistics show that, if all carers decided to stop performing their caring roles, it would cost our country some $60 billion each year to replace the work that they do. That is more than $1 billion a week, and the key message raised last week, as we know, was that anyone at any time can become a carer. This is why it's so vitally important not just to raise community awareness among all Australians about the diversity of carers and their caring roles but also to ensure that they and the people they care for are supported into the future. It is why this bill is so important, and it is why this government is committed to delivering that support.
This government has introduced legislation which seeks to bring about the full funding of its contribution to the National Disability Insurance Scheme, giving Australians with permanent significant disability and their families and carers certainty that this vital service will be there for them into the future. In the life of a disabled person and in the lives of their carers, the word 'certainty' takes on a whole new meaning. Certainty is not something that people living with a disability or their carers have experienced on a regular basis, but certainty is something that they long for. To help provide that certainty, to fully fund the NDIS and to know that the funding is there for these people at a very difficult time in their lives, the government is asking Australians to contribute, with the Medicare levy to be increased by half a percentage point, from two per cent to 2½ per cent of taxable income.
The decision will increase the Medicare levy from 1 July 2019. I think it reflects the fact that all Australians have a role to play in accordance with their capacity to ensure the NDIS is secure for future generations and to ensure that we leave our children and our grandchildren with the capability to support some of the most vulnerable in our society. The key message, as I've said, is that we're asking Australians to support this in accordance with their capacity. These changes will impact around 9.9 million taxpayers, who are estimated to pay slightly more tax in 2019-20 as a result of the decision to increase the Medicare levy. However, in 2019-20, people with income within the Medicare levy phase-in income range will continue to pay the Medicare levy at a reduced rate.
I would like to touch on and outline some of the key factors that this funding of the NDIS that we are seeking to guarantee and fully fund in this bill will cover, as outlined in the recent Productivity Commission report. It looks at funding the participants, the supports provided within the scheme for those participants, the quality of the supports received by participants, the proportion of supports in the plan that can be utilised by a participant, the price paid for those supports and the costs associated with operating the scheme. This is an investment in the lives of vulnerable Australians, and I think it is beholden on this parliament—a parliament that has provided bipartisan support for the implementation of the NDIS—to ensure that it is fully funded meet the expectations of the people who will be covered by the NDIS. This is where those opposite let down the people of Australia, because they never, ever fully funded the NDIS. When we look at families who require this support and assistance, we need to be able to tell them that those supports will be there when they need and require them.
It is important to remember that people will be paying the increased Medicare levy but the conditions of the levy won't change. There will still be those on lower incomes who will continue to not pay the Medicare levy or to pay a reduced rate of the Medicare levy, and there will still be the full range of exemptions that currently exist. In increasing the Medicare levy, we are not seeking to include people who are currently exempt from paying it. We are not asking people to give more than they can give, but it is important to ensure that the NDIS is fully funded once and for all. That is the responsibility that this government, through these bills, is taking. It is about ensuring that the government is protecting the essential disability supports that Australians rely upon. With this bill, the government is providing certainty—certainty for people with a disability, certainty for their families and carers and certainty to all Australians who may find themselves in a situation that requires these services—that the National Disability Insurance Scheme is fully funded for the long term. I'd like to say today that in these measures, which I fully support and commend to the House, we are giving Australians with a disability, and their families and carers, that certainty that they so desperately need.
This is always about people—in this case some 460,000 Australians who are living with disabilities and their families, because in each and every case there is a person. That is why this bill is so important and why it is so important that it receive the bipartisan support in this place that the NDIS has received to date. I call on those opposite to honour their commitments to fully fund the NDIS and to step up to the plate and support this bill. I commend the bill to the House.
The fundamental question before the House today is whether we raise taxes on average Australians or whether we raise taxes on the top one per cent. That is the central question when it comes to income tax in Australia: should we slug average earners, or is it appropriate for the top one per cent to pay a rate of tax that they paid for the two years until 1 July this year?
The context in which we are debating this is one in which inequality has risen significantly in Australia and indeed across the advanced world. In his recent book with Mike Quigley, Changing Jobs, my parliamentary colleague Jim Chalmers notes:
All up, the top 1 per cent is wealthier than the bottom 70 per cent of Australians.
He notes there evidence from the Australian Bureau of Statistics of real wage growth three times as high for the top tenth as for the bottom tenth. In his important book Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Thomas Piketty outlines the way in which wage and capital inequality has grown across the advanced world. This has sparked a significant debate in the IMF, in the OECD and among economists of left and right about what to do about rising inequality. In his book Inequality: What Can Be Done?, the late Sir Tony Atkinson set out a range of proposals to tackle this, some radical and some more moderate. He talked about the importance of shifting the balance of power among stakeholders, the role that trade unions play in reducing the rise of inequality and the importance of getting policy right when it comes to tackling technological change, an issue that I know my colleagues Ed Husic and Brendan O'Connor are actively engaged in, among many others on this side of the House. The late Sir Tony Atkinson talks about the importance of minimum wages, about capital endowments, about the progressivity of the tax system and about overseas aid.
Yet in Australia we have the extraordinary spectacle of a government that has its head in the sand on the issue of inequality. In a speech back in August, we saw Senator Cormann suggesting to the Sydney Institute that inequality didn't matter in Australia and that anyone who was debating inequality was, by definition, a raging socialist. Well, you'd have to say that to the IMF, the OECD and the armada of experts who say that we have to tackle inequality. As Greg Jericho pointed out in a piece in The Guardian, it is almost a ritual in Australia for Labor leaders to be labelled:
… either a socialist or "more leftwing than [insert Whitlam or some other figure from the ALP past]".
We have seen the member for Curtin arguing that the Leader of the Opposition is more left wing than anyone going back to Calwell, echoing, of course, the comments of Peter Costello that Julia Gillard was more left wing than Jim Cairns. We have seen this tired trope from the coalition time and time again.
But it is pretty extraordinary to be told that Labor are in company with socialists because of our policy suite. Senator Cormann listed five Labor policies in his speech that suggested that Labor had become the new socialists. The first is the proposal for a top marginal tax rate of 49.5 per cent compared to the 49 per cent that was in place under the Abbott government. As Greg Jericho points out:
I always thought the gap between Friedrich Hayek and Karl Marx was greater than a 0.5% point top tax rate. I guess I was wrong.
Senator Cormann suggests that Labor's policy to limit negative gearing is another mark of 'socialism'. You would have to say that to the former member for North Sydney, Joe Hockey, who in his farewell speech from this place urged that negative gearing be restricted to new-build homes. That's a policy which has received praise from Liberals such as Mike Baird, the former New South Wales Premier; and Jeff Kennett, the former Victorian Premier. So they are presumably fellow travellers.
Senator Cormann suggested that Labor's 'attack on self-funded retirees with its planned ban on limited-recourse borrowing arrangements' is apparently another marker of socialism. You would have to tell that to the government's Murray inquiry into the financial system, which, of course, recommended such a move.
We hear from Senator Cormann that the Labor position on the company tax cut is further evidence of reds under the beds, a surprise to anyone who has been looking lately at the economic evidence on tax cuts and growth put forward by the Treasury themselves, which suggests that the boost to personal income of a company tax cut for the top end of town, funded by income tax rises, is 0.1 per cent. Not per year—total.
Finally, Senator Cormann suggests that Labor's policy to tax income distributions from trusts at 30 per cent to prevent income splitting will somehow see a resurgence of socialism in this country. That is, frankly, ridiculous. Every previous coalition Treasurer but this one has taken tackling trusts seriously. Labor's measures simply build on what then Treasurer Howard did when it came to distributions to child beneficiaries. We saw a former Liberal Treasurer, Peter Costello, have similar concerns about trusts and attempt to rein them in. Indeed, Joe Hockey spoke about the excesses of trusts. The current Treasurer is the only Liberal Treasurer who doesn't seem to think that income splitting is a problem. Frankly, worrying about income splitting isn't socialism; it's just good economics.
We have in Australia a level of inequality not seen for three-quarters of a century and yet we have a government that is unwilling to crack down on rising inequality. If you don't do it for reasons of fairness, do it for reasons of financial stability. The latest Reserve Bank statement on monetary policy sets out at the end a number of key uncertainties for the economy. It says:
… ongoing expectations for low real wage growth remain a key downside risk for household spending. The recent sharp increase in the relative price of utilities poses a further downside risk to the non-energy part of household consumption to the extent that households find it hard to reduce their energy consumption; this is likely to have a larger effect on the consumption decisions of lower-income households.
The Reserve Bank recognises that we need to ensure steady income growth in the middle part of the distribution for middle- and lower-income Australians if we're to ensure good growth in Australia. If you want to ensure that middle Australia does well then why would you slug it with a tax rise when you are giving a tax cut to the very top?
Let's be clear about the beneficiaries of the coalition's decision to reduce the top marginal tax rate for those earning over $180,000. The beneficiaries are adults in the top two per cent of the distribution but nine-tenths of the gain goes to the top one per cent—a group which, according to work by Tony Atkinson and me and Roger Wilkins at the Melbourne Institute, has almost doubled its share of national income over the last generation. The top one per cent have had a very good generation. This is important to recognise for those of us who are in the top five, two or one per cent of the income distribution. The top couple of per cent of Australians have done very well over the last generation. They don't need a tax cut.
But middle- and lower-income Australians have not done well. They have seen much slower wage growth. Wage growth has been much slower for cleaners and checkout workers than for financial dealers and anaesthetists. So why does the government want to raise taxes on cleaners and checkout workers and cut taxes for surgeons, barristers and anaesthetists? If you'd looked at the evidence on inequality in Australia—over dozens of studies, over hundreds of article, over many, many important books—you would know that inequality has been on the rise. It is important that policy address that fact. Yet we have a government that is leaving revenue on the table from multinational tax avoidance. We have seen the coalition refusing to tighten debt deduction loopholes used by multinational companies, a measure that would improve the budget by at least $4 billion over the decade. We have seen them fail to move on tax transparency for the top end of town.
We on the Labor side would like to see the tax transparency threshold for private companies brought down to $100 million. Before we brought in these tax transparency laws, those opposite came up with all sorts of excuses. In one particularly absurd suggestion they said it would increase kidnap risk despite the fact that the security agencies and the police had offered no evidence of that. Now that the laws have come in, we've seen them add to the public debate over which corporations are paying tax in Australia. But the threshold is too high. Raising it from $100 million to $200 million took two-thirds of the private firms out of the tax transparency net. Labor wants to see more transparency, not less.
We want to introduce public reporting of country-by-country reports—reporting high-level tax information about where and how much tax was paid by corporations with over $1 billion in global revenue. We want to see greater protection for whistleblowers, allowing them to collect a share of the tax penalty of up to $250,000.
In this government, we have no serious measures on multinational tax avoidance. We just have them trying to claim credit for laws they voted against. In 2012 the coalition voted in the House and the Senate against laws that tightened tax loopholes for multinational firms. If they'd had their way, the $340 million judgement against Chevron this year would not have gone through, the budget would be hundreds of millions of dollars worse off and net debt would be rising even faster than it is already.
The NDIS was fully funded by Labor. You only need to go to Labor's final budget, in which NDIS funding was clearly set out not simply over the forward estimates but over the long term. It is an absolute lie and an insult to Australians with disabilities and their carers to say that the NDIS was not properly funded by Labor. What this bill attempts to do—under the guise of pretending, incorrectly, that the NDIS was not funded—is increase taxes on low- and middle-income Australians. Labor has a better plan. We would close multinational tax loopholes. We would only raise the Medicare levy for those earning above $87,000 a year. We would reinstate the budget repair levy for those earning over $180,000 a year—because why should the income support cuts be permanent and the tax rises on the top one per cent be temporary?
Labor will always fight for low- and middle-income Australians. Labor will always fight for egalitarianism. It is not socialism to believe that inequality in Australia is too high. Sensible economists across the world are recognising this challenge and looking at ways of tackling it. Indeed, work recently released by the International Monetary Fund found that lowering tax rates for the rich will increase inequality. That echoes a series of studies done over recent years, including work by Tony Atkinson and me, showing that about a third of the rise in top income shares in Anglo-Saxon countries is due to changes in top marginal tax rates. Top marginal tax rate reductions increase inequality in Australia at a time when inequality has significantly risen over the last generation. The so-called trickle-down theory is just that—any benefits handed away to the very top won't flow down to low- and middle-income Australia; at best they will trickle. A better approach would be to look after low- and middle-income Australia. That is what Labor's amendments will do. They are fairer and they are better for the Australian economy.
I thank the member. Before I call the next member, I thank the previous member for briefly touching on the substance of the bill during his speech.
It gives me pleasure to rise before the House today to speak on the Medicare Levy Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017. The National Disability Insurance Scheme has always received bipartisan support. When the Medicare Levy Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 was introduced into parliament, the coalition acknowledged the importance and magnitude of the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the need to fund this program. What defies common sense today is why those sitting opposite do not support the bill before them now. Let me quote the then Prime Minister Gillard's speech to parliament in 2013 to increase the Medicare levy by 0.5 per cent in order to fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme. She said:
Increasing the Medicare levy will raise approximately $20.4 billion between 2014-15 and 2018-19—amounting to approximately 55 per cent of the total cost of funding DisabilityCare Australia over that period.
The opposition knows full well that the current Medicare levy increase only funds half of the current cost of the National Disability Insurance Scheme and it is still in the rollout phase. Currently the National Disability Insurance Scheme is costing approximately $5.3 billion and is projected to reach $10.8 billion when the NDIS is in full operation in 2019-20. As the then Prime Minister toured around the country to meet with the nation's premiers to sign the states up to the National Disability Insurance Scheme, she met with young Australians suffering from various disabilities. I ask: does the former member for Lalor or any current Labor member, as those who once fought so hard for this scheme, want to go knock on those same doors to tell Australians that this system is not funded? The full rollout is not funded. The government would not be introducing this bill to the House if everything was covered.
I return to when we on this side were in opposition. Following the former Prime Minister's speech, the Liberal Party members rose and stated that this parliament has a shared commitment for a better deal for Australians with a disability. Mr Andrews said:
It is important to note that this is also a shared vision of every government in Australia and every opposition in this country. The federal coalition, for its part, has enthusiastically supported each milestone on the road to the NDIS …
So again I ask those sitting opposite: what has changed? Why was it acceptable, under a Labor government, to increase the Medicare levy by half a per cent to cover a little more than half of the costs associated with the trial phase of the National Disability Insurance Scheme? Their amendments at the time to the Medicare levy were applied to not only those who earnt over $87,000 but all Australians who pay the Medicare levy. I mean, the hypocrisy on this bill and many others, and the position changes from this Leader of the Opposition, are just so evident—and I won't list them all; there are too many to list. Now that the Labor Party sit in opposition, they're happy to play politics and to not put the people of Australia first. An increase in the Medicare levy of 0.5 per cent—excluding, of course, those who are already exempt—is a commonsense extension of the 2013 policy, their own policy, that enjoyed widespread support. What's changed?
We know that the opposition keeps stating that they had fully funded the NDIS when they left government. We know that's just not true. The Senate committee heard from Treasury officials about the scale of the funding gap for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Treasury Deputy Secretary Michael Brennan stated that the funding gap is $55 billion, and that the three sources of funding going into the National Disability Insurance Scheme savings account are broadly commensurate with that. Michael Brennan also stated that there were a number of savings that Labor claimed to go towards funding the Medicare levy that were never realised. This evidence puts to bed the claim that Labor funded the National Disability Insurance Scheme. They didn't. And they should now do the right thing and give Australians with a disability the security and certainty they need. It is important that we show Australians similar values to those that the former Prime Minister outlined in her speech—that we show Australia that we fully support this scheme, that we have a united voice and that we properly fund it.
It's not the current government's fault that Labor in government racked up billions and billions of dollars in debt. Remember: when they came in, in 2007, there was no debt—zero debt; not a dollar. And then those opposite racked up billions of dollars in debt. And the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is guilty in that. She was there. She was a member of the cabinet when they approved all those decisions and racked up that debt. And now they come into this place in opposition, and I ask those opposite, including the deputy leader, what are they doing now to support debt reduction? What are they doing now to support the next generation of Australians who will have to pay the interest on that debt and also to pay back the principal. Not only will they have to pay the interest, which is compounding; they'll have to pay the principal.
How about not going ahead with the $65 billion company tax cuts?
One of the members opposite mentions company tax cuts. They supported them when they were in government, and now they come in here and they don't support them. We saw the best job figures in 25 years last week. Those figures show that more people have got into work, and it shows that our plan for jobs and growth is working. But I'm getting off topic.
The members opposite, especially the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, racked up all this debt. The Deputy Leader has done nothing with her Senate colleagues to help get the deficit down. Now she comes in here and says, 'You guys have increased it.' Well, of course we increased it—we only got 29 out of 76 senators. It's very hard to get things through if you only have 29 out of 76 senators. The opposition is totally irresponsible when it comes to this nation's finances. They should be supporting the government with a lot of the issues that we took to the election. They couldn't even come in here and vote for their own savings that they banked at the last election, for goodness' sake!
This insurance scheme gives Australians peace of mind. It gives those Australians that most need it, those with a disability, certainty that it will be funded into the future. We know that those opposite have come to this position of not supporting it, but there are many that would have, from what I understand—the member for Jagajaga and others. But, no, they decided, 'No, let's be obstructionist.' Of all the things that the Australian people hate about parliaments, one is that there is not enough bipartisan support. Once again we see the Labor Party, on this important issue, not supporting the government to make sure that the scheme is fully funded.
Recently I hosted the Assistant Minister for Social Services and Disability Services, the member for Ryan, in my electorate for a chat with mums and dads of particularly those people who have a disability, people from the Woody Point Special School and also other people with disability and kids with special needs in the electorate. We spoke about how this scheme will benefit them, and they raised many concerns about the current system and the lack of support they currently receive. One of the main issues raised was after-school care and holiday care. It was very difficult for them to access these programs with only one special school in that local area. I've got three special schools in my electorate.
Now, with the NDIS, individuals will have the opportunity to access services that were not possible before. Small businesses will be created as the needs for services can be catered for. People will be listened to, and they'll be able to create their own plan, not being told, 'This is what you can and can't access.' It's meant to give these families choice. In my electorate of Petrie I met with families who would greatly benefit from the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
For those who are unaware of exactly what the NDIS aims to do, we know that it gives people a choice so that those people with a disability are able to choose how they best spend that support that comes from government for them in their own lives. The scheme will transform the lives of around 460,000 Australians who are living with a disability, and the lives of their families. For those Australians who may one day need access to it: it will be there for you.
Those who earn more, currently, under this bill, will pay more. Someone earning $200,000 a year will pay $1,000 additional funding. Someone that's earning $40,000 a year will pay half a per cent of that. It's a couple of hundred dollars. I think that many Australians want to support people with a disability. They actually want to be part of supporting this National Disability Insurance Scheme. The members opposite don't want to give them that opportunity. They did when they were in government, but they don't now. They want to say, 'No, no, you don't need to be part of this.'
We know that low-income earners will continue to receive relief from the Medicare levy through the low-income thresholds for singles, families, seniors and pensioners. The current exemptions from the Medicare levy will remain in place. Through our proposed changes to the Medicare levy, low-income earners will actually be better off. A single person earning $26,000 will pay $435 as opposed to $467, saving them $32 a year. I question the member for McMahon: have you read that? Earlier today, he stated that everyone earning over $21,000 would be worse off. But it shows that people earning under $26,000 will actually be better off. For everyone above that, yes, they'll pay a little bit more, but it will make sure that the National Disability Insurance Scheme is fully funded.
What we see from the Labor Party is a continual attack on medium-income earners and high-income earners, as though they do not pay enough. But, the way our tax system works and the way the Medicare levy currently works, those people that earn more currently pay more, and it is the same with this bill that we're debating here before the House. Under this bill, high-income earners will pay more. As I said before, if you earn $200,000, there'll be an additional $1,000 that is paid. If you earn an additional $30,000, it will be a lot less. That's fair. Everyone gets to contribute. Everyone will get to contribute, to make sure that those people with a disability can rest assured that this will be fully funded, not just now or in three years time but in 10 and 20 years time for future generations of Australians with a disability.
But, no, Labor wants to play politics with this—the politics of envy. They want to make sure that those people who have a disability or those people who are on a low income grit their teeth and say: 'It's all the rich's fault. It's all the high-income earners. They're not paying not enough tax.' People on over $180,000 a year currently have a 47 per cent tax rate—they pay 47c in every dollar in tax—but under Labor that's not enough. They want to snuff out all opportunities and incentives for people to earn more. They want to raise it to 49c; they want to take half of everything you earn, if you earn over $180,000.
Those people who are wealthy will pay more under our scheme. For those listening, in my first job out of school I was on the minimum wage, earning about $25,000 a year. Those opposite, the Labor Party, think that just because you're on a low-income wage today in the future you'll remain there, and I say to people that it's not true—you can get a higher income and you can achieve your goals. We want to reward effort in this country; the Labor Party want to keep you down. They don't want to reward effort. They don't want to reward incentives for people to work harder. They want to keep you down.
This bill is fair. It makes sure that the National Disability Insurance Scheme is fully funded. It covers the gap that the Gillard and Rudd Labor governments left—the gaping hole in this scheme. They left that gap and now the Labor Party come in here and plays politics. I say shame! Shame on the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and everyone opposite if they vote against this bill.
I'm very glad that I got to catch the end of the member for Petrie's speech, because I think that here is the fundamental difference between Labor and those opposite. We think that there are a lot of people who earn a lot less than $180,000 a year who work hard too, who are achieving with their lives and who are contributing to society. The measure of a person is not whether they earn $180,000 a year but what they contribute to their family, to their country, to their community and to their society.
This idea of asking people who are earning more than $180,000 a year to contribute a little more has been called by those opposite a 'success tax'. I tell you who I think the successes are: those parents who are looking after their kids with disability in the family home, struggling for them, advocating for them, arguing for them and demanding better services. They're the successes in my eyes, not necessarily people who are earning $180,000 a year. That is a measure of just about nothing. It's a measure of picking the right job. But I tell you that there are a lot of people working in kindergartens who contribute a lot more to society than people who are working in merchant banking.
They're successes in my eyes too, Deputy Leader of the Opposition! Don't put words in my mouth!
Well, don't run them down in this place!
I don't; I visit them regularly!
Order! The member for Sydney has the call.
Thank you. Here we have a package of bills that attempts to jack up taxes on those who can least afford them in order to pay for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which has already been paid for.
Order! The member for Petrie on a point of order?
Don't worry about it, Mr Deputy Speaker.
You've got to make up your mind, mate! Come on! This is the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which has been paid for by Labor once, and now those opposite are pretending that all of these cuts to essential services and tax increases on ordinary Australians are about paying for the NDIS again. What? When you've spent this are you going to make people pay for it again, and maybe again after that? What a ridiculous proposition!
We know from the Productivity Commission that spending is tracking just as we expected for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. What's lagging, though, is the implementation. What we know from the most recent report is that the implementation is being botched by those opposite. We are hearing report after report from families who are stressed, who are describing the difficulties of interacting with a telephone planning service and with a computer system that doesn't work. It's not the costs that are the problem; it's the botched implementation. As they've done with the NBN, as they did with the census and as they did with NAPLAN online, it's botched implementation from those opposite.
The government has capped staffing at the NDIA, preventing people who should be able to access this service from accessing it. They've bungled the implementation of the IT system and clients are having enormous difficulties in accessing it. This means delays in the take-up of the scheme. There's the Nadia project, the virtual assistant that would be making a big difference to people ringing up or using their computer to get information from the NDIA. That's stalled, despite the government already spending $3.5 million on it. So let's be clear: this is not a funding problem for the NDIS; it is an implementation problem.
When we were in government, yes, we did put up the Medicare levy by half a per cent, but you can't put it up by half a per cent one year, and then put it up by half a per cent the next year and then put it up by half a per cent the following year. When does it stop? How often do you have to make people pay for this? We didn't just put up the Medicare levy; we also made some very difficult cuts, including some that were vociferously opposed by those opposite. I remember, because I was the health minister, how we means-tested the private health insurance rebate and had all of those on the other side saying that it was an outrage to means test private health insurance and that they were going to remove to means testing as soon as they were in government, as soon as they possibly could. I'll tell you what: it's still means-tested. I haven't heard a peep from those opposite about getting rid of means-testing private health insurance. In fact, what I have noticed recently is those opposite trying to further constrain spending in the area of private health insurance. They didn't try to do that when we were in government trying to deliver those savings. In fact, they opposed us at every step of the way. The tightening of eligibility for family tax benefit was not easy in the face of the opposition of those opposite. We made a range of savings because we didn't think it was fair that the NDIS should simply be funded by continually increasing the Medicare levy.
You know, the National Disability Insurance Scheme is a magnificent project. This is something that Australia has to be proud of, must be proud of, should be proud of, should be telling the world about. People with disabilities have been advocating for many, many years for such a scheme, and I think it first really came to national prominence during the 2020 summit. Those opposite like to say, 'Whatever happened from the 2020 summit?' The NDIS is a pretty great example of something that hit the government agenda through the 2020 summit. It was picked up and—
The Henry tax reform: what happened to that?
The minister at the table's talking about tax reform. I remember when everything was on the table, but suddenly it's not, hey?
Mr Fletcher interjecting—
The—I don't know, what are you? The communications minister is now badmouthing Cate Blanchett, one of our most distinguished Australians. That's a proud moment for you. Good on you.
We had the 2020 summit that first brought this onto the national agenda. We had the work of the member for Maribyrnong, the then parliamentary secretary for disabilities, who did a very widespread consultation. We had the member for Jagajaga designing, implementing and doing the patient policy work of getting this to the stage where every Australian could expect to be supported in reaching their full potential by being given—not meted or doled out access to the services that they relied on to fully participate in society and the economy, but whatever they needed to reach their full potential, to meet their dreams. Without their patient policy work—the member for Maribyrnong, the member for Jagajaga—and the commitment of the then Treasurer, the member for Lilley, to funding this extraordinary program and the leadership first of Prime Minister Rudd and then of Prime Minister Gillard bringing this home, we would not see this scheme today. It's very important to acknowledge the contributions of all of those people in the development of this magnificent scheme.
But the truth is, you know, that these bills that we are discussing today are not before us because the NDIS needs them. These funding cuts, these savings, these tax increases are before us because of the economic incompetence—the utter and absolute economic incompetence—of those opposite. Do you remember when those opposite used to talk about the debt and deficit disaster? Well, since those opposite have come to government, they have managed to triple the deficit. Then Treasurer Hockey did a deal with the Greens to get rid of the debt cap, and we now have gross government debt past half a trillion dollars.
How proud those opposite must be, having finally addressed the debt and deficit disaster that they spoke so movingly and so tellingly about during the election campaign that I recall in 2010. It is incredible seeing those opposite facing ever-increasing debt and deficit, and what is their response to ever-increasing debt and deficit? A $65 billion big business tax cut and a $19 billion tax cut for those on incomes of over $180,000 a year. I can tell you how you can deal with debt and deficit without slugging ordinary Australians. How about we give up on $65 billion of big business tax cuts, mostly going to multinational companies? How about giving up on the $19 billion of tax cuts going entirely to people on incomes above $180,000 a year? How about we do something about negative gearing and capital gains tax to save $37 billion a year instead of holding people who are hanging out for the National Disability Insurance Scheme to ransom with these rancid bills?
This legislation is here because this government thinks that giving a $65 billion big business tax cut is more important than properly funding the NDIS or protecting ordinary Australians from the sorts of tax increases that are before us. Our alternative proposal protects seven million Australian taxpayers from the Medicare levy increase. Our alternative policy raises more money more fairly by retaining the deficit levy and by applying the increased Medicare levy only to those in the top two tax brackets. This is supported by independent modelling from ANU's Centre for Social Research and Methods which shows that twice as many households will be worse off under the Turnbull government's policy and that our approach will raise $300 million more over the forward estimates and $6.8 billion more over 10 years. By taking this approach we protect Australians on low and middle incomes and we place the greater burden on those who have the greatest capacity to pay.
The tax hikes and cuts in these bills form the centrepiece of the unfair 2007 budget. That budget also included increases in university fees and lowering the HELP repayment threshold to $42,000 a year so that Australian students would pay more for poorer quality education and would repay fees sooner. Budget analysis published in The Sydney Morning Herald showed that for a couple renting, where one partner had left uni and the other was still studying, the effective marginal tax rate is over 97 per cent once they clear an income of just $37,000. That's what those opposite are talking about. They're super keen to give a tax cut to those on incomes above $180,000 a year, but, if you're a couple on $37,000 a year, their measures would see an effective marginal tax rate of 97 per cent.
The member for Petrie talked about people on $180,000 a year—the smallest violin in the world, and worrying about them and the tax they pay. He said it was on their whole income. I presume he knows that it's only on the share above $180,000 a year. But he's not worried about the couple on $37,000 a year. He's not worried about the analysis that was done by the National Foundation for Australian Women that found that women on around $50,000 a year would face an effective marginal tax rate of more than 100 per cent out of the 2017 budget. A woman graduate who works and earns $51,000 a year, relies on child care and receives family payments would actually have less disposable income than a man on $32,000 a year. We hear so much from the Prime Minister about how he and Lucy believe that women hold up half the sky. Well, they don't get half the tax benefits when the government is thinking about making tax changes, do they? They don't get anywhere close to half of the tax benefits.
We know that increasing inequality in this country is a problem. I'm actually gobsmacked that every now and again the Treasurer says, 'Yes, the real problem is that wages aren't growing,' and he is actually right about one thing. The trouble is that everything that he and this government are doing is exacerbating the problem of stagnant wages growth, leading to greater inequality in our country.
The collapse in aggregate demand that is the result of stagnating wages growth is a problem for us all. Those opposite say the solution is trickle-down economics and, if only we put our faith once again in trickle-down economics, we will fix this problem. We say that instead we should restrict negative gearing to newly constructed homes, remove the capital gains tax subsidy on housing, tax at a minimum of 30 per cent family trusts that are used primarily as tax minimisation vehicles, redress the imbalance in the industrial relations system to restore a bit of power to those who are bargaining for greater pay, crack down on multinational profit shifting and reverse the cuts to penalty rates. These are the sorts of measures we should be taking to strengthen our economy.
I'll finish with this. Trying to get rid of the Education Investment Fund is so short-sighted. Those opposite have tried before to do this, and they have turned their backs on the excellent projects that have been funded out of the Education Investment Fund. They tried to do it in the 2014 budget. We fought them off. We will fight them off again because the sorts of projects that were funded through this when the government was still spending money from it were extraordinary. I tell you what: a heap of them were in National Party-held seats, and it is extraordinary that not just the Liberals are turning their back on the investment in higher education but those National Party members who have seen the benefits in their electorates are turning their back on this spending too.
I'm very proud to speak here today on the Medicare Levy Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017. In contrast to a number of my colleagues, my electorate of Dunkley does not yet have access to the National Disability Insurance Scheme, but it is hotly anticipated. My perspective on the funding for the NDIS is therefore somewhat different to some as, rather than looking so much at the needs of existing services in Dunkley, our entire community is looking at the potential that the NDIS has to aid Dunkley constituents. April 2018 is an eagerly awaited time in the Mornington Peninsula. As part of the lead-up, a number of local disability support organisations and providers have hosted NDIS transition forums which have been absolutely packed out due to the extent of interest. I recently had the privilege of speaking at one.
We also have on the peninsula a large number of carers, a number of whom have come to me previously with their concerns, wanting to know who will care for their children, siblings or friends once they are gone. These people are the face of what we are trying to do here and they are the reason it is so important for the NDIS to be a success. This is not a warm and fuzzy social justice crusade. These people need the NDIS and the support that it will provide to their loved ones.
Last week, as many of my colleagues will know, we marked National Carers Week, acknowledging the incredible work that the 2.7 million unpaid carers do in their cumulative 36 million hours of care work a week. There is absolutely no doubt that the NDIS is an absolutely critical program, and I appeal to my colleagues on both sides of the House to back its funding so that all Australians can be confident that, should they suffer a debilitating injury, whether physical or otherwise, they will have access to the support and funds they need and their families won't be made to take on a burden that is inconceivable to many of us.
An example is a recent group I have met with and helped to support. It is a kinship carers group around Frankston who look after a number of children in a kinship relationship. In late September I also attended and spoke at an information forum in Frankston hosted by Mentis Assist, which is based in Mornington. Mentis Assist strives to provide opportunity for people living with mental illness or complex needs to enjoy a meaningful life by strengthening self-identity, personal responsibility and hope. The room in which the forum was hosted was full, attended by Mentis Assist clients as well as families, carers, service providers and interested community members. Mentis Assist representatives as well as those from Victorian NDIS authorities and the Brotherhood of St Laurence, as our local area coordinator, spoke to those gathered, and the information was received with optimism. I was very pleased to be able to be part of the conversation, a conversation that I'm thrilled to continue here today. I bring with me the hopes and anticipation of my constituents as I speak to you all to stress the importance of this Medicare levy amendment to ensure that the funding sustainability and certainty of the NDIS is there when it arrives in Dunkley in just under six months.
Mentis Assist, as a registered service provider, plays a crucial road in supporting people with severe mental illness in my electorate as well as those with psychiatric conditions that inhibit social and economic participation. The services they provide all focus on increasing inclusion, independence, self-responsibility and participation. They are all about providing people with the support they need to address participants' needs and to work towards current and future goals. Forum attendees were reassured their current services with Mentis Assist would be continued until they were approved for a National Disability Insurance Scheme package, of which the access requirements are being assessed as early as now to work towards a seamless and efficient rollout.
I have no doubt that I am not the only MP whose constituents are awaiting the NDIS with bated breath. The NDIS not only began as an ambitious project but it has continued to enjoy bipartisan support and I know all members of this House will be very keen to see that it is a success and that it provides a comprehensive plan to look after some of our society's most vulnerable. This bill is about putting Australians with a disability and their families first. It is an insurance scheme where all benefit so all can contribute.
I met earlier today with the Assistant Minister for Social Services and Disability Services and she made a good point that the NDIS is like going into a restaurant—it caters for individual needs. You get a menu when you go into a restaurant. You say, 'I want this entree, this main, this side.' The NDIS really caters for the individual needs of the participants involved. And the NDIS will indeed transform the lives of around 460,000 Australians who are living with disability, not to mention their families, who invest so much in the care and in the pursuit of success and happiness for their loved ones.
The government is asking Australians to contribute to help fund the scheme to ensure that our fellow Australians—our friends, our families, our neighbours, our colleagues—are taken care of to the extent they need. The Medicare levy increase of half a percentage point asks Australians to contribute according to their capacity to guarantee the NDIS's success and longevity. The current Medicare levy exemptions and relief measures would remain in place, as has been made clear by my colleagues before me; however, we need to be realistic about the costs of the NDIS, hence why I make this appeal to my fellow members of parliament.
The Commonwealth expenditure on the NDIS for 2017-18 will be $5.3 billion and it is projected to reach $10.8 billion once the rollout has been completed in 2019-20.The coalition government inherited a $55.6 billion funding shortfall when Labor left office. Now is the time to rectify this gaping hole and not put the services that the NDIS provides into jeopardy. I call on those opposite to meet the government on this in a bipartisan nature and join with us to support our constituents and all those living with a disability across Australia.
Earlier this month, Biala Peninsula hosted a launch of services in anticipation of the NDIS rollout within my electorate and beyond. Biala is a service provider with over 35 years experience, which has a focus on children under the age of 12 who have a range of intellectual disabilities. It provides core services of group programs, individual therapy sessions, parent programs and support coordination with wraparound services for music therapy, counselling, stay-and-play holiday programs, riding for the disabled and sibling groups. Biala, as a registered NDIS provider, is a critical part of the communication regarding the NDIS—what the NDIS will cover, who will be able to access NDIS funded services and so forth.
Contrasting with the forum hosted by Mentis Assist, there was a degree of concern and nervousness in the room as well as some confusion regarding how the rollout of the NDIS will impact the families who attend Biala. This is why certainty, particularly around funding, is so important. The service providers in Dunkley need to be able to accurately inform our local stakeholders, whether they be counsellors who attended the Biala event, GPs or family or carers, what will or won't be available, which will ultimately come down to the funding available for their programs. Biala in my electorate is fulfilling its responsibilities to our community. Now we as a government need to do our part to demonstrate to Biala that it will be able to operate to the extent that it has told its clients by ensuring the NDIS has sustainable, secure funding that will meet the needs of as many people as possible.
I am here as a representative of Dunkley constituents to ensure the success of one of the largest social and economic reforms in Australia's history. We have secured agreements with the states and territories to ensure a full and thorough rollout of the NDIS to support a better life for around 460,000 Australians under the age of 65, as I mentioned before, including 105,000 people in Victoria. Of course, the NDIS will not be the answer to facilities and services for everyone living with a disability. However, the NDIS is one part of a broader story of governments and communities continuing to have a role to play in the provision of services, including making mainstream services more accessible to those living with a disability.
This is a significant shift in the delivery of services for people with permanent and significant disability. It is a model based on empowerment and participation. The NDIS supports include daily personal activities; transport to enable participation in community, social, economic and daily-life activities; workplace help to allow a participant to successfully get or keep employment in the open or supported labour market; therapeutic supports including behaviour support; help with household tasks to allow the participant to maintain the home environment; help by skilled personnel in aid or equipment assessment, set-up and training; home modification, design and installation; mobility equipment; and much, much more.
If any member of this House has any doubts about the importance of this funding, I ask them to go back to their electorate and speak to the people who are either benefiting from their services or who will benefit from their services. Then return and look me in the eye and tell me if you think this funding is important or not. Without various aspects of the NDIS, Australians with permanent or long-term disabilities risk their condition inhibiting them from living their day-to-day lives. It is important that we do all we can to ensure that people living with a disability can participate socially and economically to the greatest extent possible. We owe it to our fellow Australians to make this possible.
As an example, today I had the privilege of joining with the Tourette Syndrome Association of Australia in running the second meeting of the Parliamentary Friends of Tourette Syndrome. This is the friendship group that I set up last year to draw attention to Tourette syndrome, to raise aware about what it is and to be an example for others with Tourette's, as a person with Tourette syndrome myself, as well as to ensure that those with Tourette's gain the support from government and community organisations that they need. We had a very successful meeting with Minister Hunt. Some of the issues revolved not only around health and education but also around the NDIS and ensuring access to the NDIS for those with Tourette syndrome who need that access.
Tourette syndrome is something that impacts one in 100 children and one in 200 adults, so it is quite a common thing which affects many people, so it is very important to have that NDIS access. Tourette syndrome varies in severity. For people like me, it's quite mild, but it can be very severe for others. In the media in particular, Tourette's is sometimes framed in a particular way. The tic around swearing is often portrayed as being Tourette's. That is one tic that can be part of Tourette's, but only about 10 per cent of people have that tic.
The fact is that Tourette's is a broad spectrum. It can vary from mild to severe, and it can wax and wane. That's why it's important to raise awareness of Tourette syndrome, as was done today with the Minister for Health and other MPs and senators. I was very pleased to have cross-party support from the co-chair, Senator Skye Kakoschke-Moore, as well as attendance from members from the Nick Xenophon Team, the Labor Party and the Liberal Party in support of Tourette syndrome. As I've noted, that is why access to NDIS is so important, whether a person has Tourette syndrome or any other disability and they are in need of support.
I spoke earlier as well, when the Medicare levy amendment was announced in the 2017 federal budget, about the contact that I had had from many Dunkley constituents, and this has not ceased. The NDIS will make a huge difference to people's everyday lives, and the time has come to ensure that that is now. The coalition has devised this measure to help fill the NDIS savings fund special account to futureproof the NDIS and lock in specified funding for years to come. Sustainability is the critical element to this funding model. We are making up not only the shortfall; we are providing a substantial basis for the financial backing of the NDIS, with one-fifth of the revenue being raised by the Medicare levy and any underspends within the NDIS being directed to the NDIS Savings Fund.
The NDIS will change lives. It will change the lives of many of the children who attended the Parliamentary Friends of Tourette Syndrome meeting this morning. But, beyond that, it will change the lives of many children, adults and others in my electorate and across Australia. Now is the time to secure long-term and sustainable funding. In introducing such a prominent reform, we owe it to the nation to ensure it will be here to stay and to get it right from the outset. We know that Australia supports what we are trying to do. We know that those opposite once professed that they supported it also. I urge all members of the House to see that support through and, in support of our mates, to help build this National Disability Insurance Scheme in the spirit of good faith and unanimity, because that's Australians do—we look after one another, and we will continue to do so for generations to come through the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
I rise to speak on the Medicare Levy Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017 and 10 related bills. I thank the member for Dunkley for his contribution. I hear constantly how we on this side should do this and we should be bipartisan. But then I hear those opposite tell us how we think and feel about the NDIS. It is a shameful moment when those opposite use the NDIS as a political football.
I rise to speak on this because, sadly, this government continues to shamefully use people with a disability and the NDIS as a political tool rather than a tool for increased care and equality for Australians with a disability. Labor funded the NDIS while we were in government. This was outlined in the 2013-14 budget, which was a time when I wasn't here. The government's assertion that Labor did not fully fund the NDIS is complete rubbish. Labor has funded it, continues to support it and is committed to continuing the NDIS rollout. I'm proudly a member of the Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS and I have spent many, many hours travelling and taking evidence about the NDIS from people right across this country, and it is quite disgraceful for those opposite to make those comments.
The fact is that the previous Labor government's 2013-14 budget clearly set out how the NDIS would be funded for 10 years, far exceeding the transition period to the fully functioning scheme. The Labor government put forward a suite of savings and revenue measures which paid for the NDIS well beyond that transition phase. Sadly, there has been mismanagement of the savings measures we put in place and continue to put in place, including giving $65 billion in corporate welfare in the form of tax breaks. Some of the measures we put in place to fund the NDIS included the phase out of the net medical expense tax offset and reforms to the retirement income schemes, the private health insurance rebate and tobacco indexation.
The NDIS should not be used as a political football. This government now says that it can fund a $65 billion corporate tax cut but does not have enough money to support the NDIS. What we always see from the Turnbull government are cuts, cuts and more cuts to those who can least afford them and gifts and handouts to the top end of town, and now the Turnbull government wants to increase the Medicare levy. A worker on $85,000 will be worse off by $200 a year. We have an alternative plan, which the member for Sydney went through in quite some depth earlier, so I won't go back through it. We would see the Medicare levy increase for individuals earning more than $87,000 a year and we would keep the deficit levy on those earning incomes of more than $180,000 a year. Those people may not like it, but it is a much fairer system for everybody.
Let's remind ourselves what the NDIS was intended to do: provide support to around half a million Australians with a disability, their families and carers. The NDIS has a broader role in helping people with a disability to access mainstream services such as health, housing and education; access community services such as sports and libraries; and maintain informal supports such as family and friends. I don't see anywhere in the NDIS's charter or purpose the desire to make people who are receiving help from the NDIS feel like a political handball or a burden or feel that their own government cannot prioritise their need over the giving of $65 billion in corporate welfare to big business.
Australia cannot afford to stumble on the implementation of the NDIS. It is indeed groundbreaking. It makes a real difference and creates better outcomes in people's lives—and I should know. The Australian Disability Discrimination Commissioner has said:
Yes—the NDIS is big, it is complex, and it changes everything, but it is the change that we need. And when we think about what life might be like for people with disability without the NDIS, I think it becomes clear that it is the change we cannot afford to prevent.
… … …
If we want real and lasting change for people with disability, we cannot absolve ourselves of our responsibility to make the NDIS work.
As a National Disability Services report states:
The principles on which the NDIS is founded remain compelling and inspiring.
Australia cannot afford to fall down on the implementation of the NDIS or quibble over political point-scoring over who did what or when.
Labor has confirmed that a Labor government would continue to fund the NDIS. So, apparently, has the coalition. It is a lie—an outright lie—to say that Labor will not fund the NDIS, and shame on those opposite in any position of power who mutter those words. It is a lie that is scaring people with a disability and their carers. Bilateral agreements with states and territories prove that long-term commitments are in place. Labor is 100 per cent committed to the NDIS rollout. And this government is scaremongering yet again.
In the Productivity Commission's report, they acknowledged the level of commitment to the NDIS is extraordinary. To the Productivity Commission, the New South Wales Council for Intellectual Disability has stated:
… we have been strong supporters of the development of the NDIS and we continue to see scheme as having a fundamental capacity to improve the lives of people with disability around Australia.
And the Australian Federation of Disability Organisations emphasised their 'unwavering support' for the NDIS, saying that AFDO and its members:
… regularly hear from people with disability and their families about the difference the scheme is making to their lives. People … now have the dignity of appropriate and timely support, the opportunity to be more involved in their communities, the chance to move out of home, the economic freedom of a new job.
These are the kinds of differences the NDIS is making. It is important to keep in mind that the NDIS is making real differences in people's lives and real changes that benefit everybody in our community.
The Productivity Commission again has found that the National Disability Insurance Scheme, at the end of the trial, 'came in under budget'. Based on trial and transition data, scheme costs, it said, 'are broadly on track' compared to the National Disability Insurance Agency's long-term modelling. At this stage, early cost pressures, such as greater than expected numbers of children in the scheme, are being more than offset by lower than expected levels of utilisation.
That is not to say that the NDIS is without creases that need to be ironed out. We all want to see the NDIS fully operational. The NDIS is a program that is close to my heart. In fact, I think it's the greatest example of government providing dignity and protection to its citizens. That's why I will defend it to its end. And full disclosure: I was an early supporter and advocate of the NDIS; I rallied about it; I held my first placard. And my son—who today turns 11—is the beneficiary of it. And I'll shout out a 'Happy birthday!' to my little boy who's 11, who has had his fair share of challenges and triumphs over the disability that he was born with.
Fundamentally though, the NDIS is a once-in-a-lifetime, generational reform package that must be defended. In my own electorate, Afford is a dedicated team of experts in disability support that has operated for more than 65 years. It offers a broad range of support, including community support, shared living, supported and open employment, respite, transition to work, Club Afford social club, Afford Getaways and support coordination.
Let me tell you about one of their clients, who we'll call Dean, who's from Penrith. Finding a place to call home where he was able to live the life he wanted on his own terms was very important to Dean. Prior to the NDIS, Dean's living arrangements placed many restrictions on his freedoms and limited Dean's ability to pursue his own life goals. The inflexibility of the old block funding model made it very difficult for Dean to pursue alternative housing arrangements, as his funding was essentially locked in with one support provider only. After receiving his NDIS plan, Dean was able to take control over the supports he received in a way that he was never able to do under the old model. In December 2016, Dean was able to move out of the group home he was unhappy with and into a new, purpose-built, group home. By all accounts, Dean was instantly transformed into a new man and has continued to flourish ever since. In his new home he was able to do the little things that so many of us take for granted. He was able to choose his own meals, come and go when he pleased, enjoy the outdoors on his own terms, and manage his own mail and money—little things that were out of the question with his old service provider. Dean values being able to have a say in the furniture and routines of the home and continues to develop his independent living skills.
I know firsthand the difference the NDIS can make to the lives of people with a disability and their families. Let me also tell you about Chris. He was born without a disability. He was challenged by a spinal cord injury 38 years ago. Since then, Chris has been determined to remain independent and live on his own. In April last year, he had a setback to his independence and ended up in Royal North Shore Hospital for an extended period of time. He developed major sores, which required extensive surgery. Although he had his NDIS plan, he was unable to leave hospital due to inadequate support. He missed spending Christmas and his birthday at home with his family and began to suffer social isolation. During his time in hospital, three service providers tried to assist Chris, but all three ended their support agreements with him and explained that his case was simply too difficult for them to support. Within two weeks, Afford's NDIS planning specialist arranged in-home staffing and for extensive home modifications to be carried out at Chris's home, including the installation of a hoist, a sling and a suitable bed and mattress. Earlier this year, he was able to return to his home. Prior to the NDIS, if Chris's service provider was not adequately assisting him, it would have been a very, very difficult process for him to apply to be supported by another. Under the NDIS, Chris was able to shop around, speak to and find a service provider with a genuine interest and ability in supporting him back to his home environment.
These people are inspirational. The government should wake up to itself and concentrate on making the NDIS a success rather than taking every opportunity to undermine its future. That is what Australians voted for and that is what they expect. In a dissenting committee report by Labor senators, Labor mentioned—and previous speakers talked about this—the alternative proposal to this bill which would increase the Medicare levy for individuals earning more than $87,000 a year and keep the deficit levy on income earners who are earning more than $180,000. This plan would see the budget bottom line better off over the medium term by $4 billion.
Associate Professor Ben Phillips also give evidence that showed that twice as many households would be worse off under the Turnbull government's plan as opposed to Labor's plan. In addition, Mr Phillips indicated that the Turnbull government's plan might have an adverse impact on workforce participation rates for those on low and middle incomes, relative to Labor's plan. The Parliamentary Budget Office showed that middle-income Australians would be worse off under the government's policy due to their commitment to increase the Medicare levy on middle- and low-income earners.
We often hear how the government calls on bipartisan support. By opposing this measure, we are not saying that we don't want too support the NDIS; we are saying that we should do it in a way that is fair and sustainable. The measures that we've outlined in our amendments and those that we seek for this government to adopt make it fairer for everybody and ensure that the NDIS continues to be the scheme that was envisioned: a scheme that actually helps people. Currently, we have a government that wants to play political football. They accuse us of not wanting to fund the NDIS, which is completely untrue. I am proud to stand up here and to always advocate for a good, strong, solid, working NDIS for every one of those half a million Australians around this country who rely on it—as well as their families and their carers who depend on it—especially after families and carers have left.
Before I begin, I want to wish Emma's 11-year-old a very happy birthday. I also say to the member for Lindsay that I'm very pleased to be able to follow her remarks today. She has personal experience of dealing with disability and I think the way in which she contributed tonight in explaining to everybody the importance of the National Disability Insurance Scheme was very, very well put, so congratulations.
I want to also speak tonight on the Medicare Levy Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017 and the 10 related bills. First of all, I want to send a very, very clear message to people with disability, their families and carers: Labor created the National Disability Insurance Scheme, Labor funded the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and a Shorten Labor government will continue the full rollout of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Full funding of the National Disability Insurance Scheme is secure under Labor and we will not be playing the sorts of political games that we've seen over the last four years from this government. I am also confident that a Shorten Labor government would fix the problems currently being experienced with the National Disability Insurance Scheme rollout. So for this government to try and claim that Labor does not support the NDIS is a disgrace. It is a disgrace and an untruth, and of course it is leading to people with disability and their carers being frightened. It must stop. It is completely and utterly irresponsible.
The National Disability Insurance Scheme has been budgeted for in the bottom line of every budget presented since 2013-14 by both Labor and coalition governments. The bilateral agreements signed with all states and territories contain long-term commitments by all governments—federal, state and territory—to the full funding of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Let's be very clear about this. Before the last election, the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook, or PEFO as it's known, that's conducted independently by Treasury, did not say that there was a funding gap for the NDIS. Treasury were very clear about this. When Labor proposed the NDIS ahead of its creation in 2013, we clearly identified savings in the 2013-14 budget, and these included some very difficult savings decisions. We introduced a means test on the private health insurance rebate, reforms to retirement incomes, changes to fringe benefits tax concessions, tobacco excise indexation and increases to import processing charges, and these are just some of the major changes that we introduced to make sure that we could afford to fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
The figures underpinning these budget measures were developed by the Treasury—led at that time by Martin Parkinson, who is now head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—but the Turnbull government now says, somehow, that the scheme is unfunded. The vast majority of these measures were passed by the parliament, so the money is in the budget. If the money isn't earmarked for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, you might ask, 'What has this government spent it on?' The government says that it can now afford to fund a $65 billion company tax cut but it cannot afford to fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme. So it can find the money in the budget for a $65 billion company tax cut but not enough money for the NDIS. The Treasurer frequently says that the revenue that will be raised through the increase in the Medicare levy in the bill that we're debating today will go into a locked box to help pay for the NDIS. The Treasurer is wrong. Clause 81 of the Constitution says:
All revenues or moneys raised or received by the Executive Government of the Commonwealth shall form one Consolidated Revenue Fund, to be appropriated for the purposes of the Commonwealth in the manner and subject to the charges and liabilities imposed by this Constitution.
That means there are no locked boxes inside the consolidated revenue fund for specific expenditure, whether it's defence, schools, hospitals or the NDIS.
We never have a debate in this country about whether or not defence spending is fully funded, so why should funding for people with disability be treated any differently? As the Australian newspaper reported last year, far from using its proposed NDIS savings fund for the NDIS, the government should use the funds to spend money on anything it wants. I quote from the Australian newspaper at the time:
Scott Morrison—
that is, the Treasurer—
told The Australian that fund—
that is, the NDIS savings fund—
while quarantined, could be used by any future government for any of its spending whims.
'Could be used for any of its spending whims'—that's what the Treasurer said last year. So the money from the Medicare levy rise will go into the consolidated fund. This government's assertion that the revenue raised from increasing the Medicare levy will go directly to fund the NDIS is false. Even worse, the government's false argument is creating needless uncertainty about the future funding of the NDIS.
We shouldn't forget that this government has for years tried to make massive cuts in the social security system—to the disability support pension, the carer payment and the age pension—and tried to justify these cuts by saying, 'That was the only way to pay for the NDIS,' and they, of course, still want to axe the energy supplement to 1.7 million Australians. If the Prime Minister gets his way—and of course everybody over there has voted for this cut—new single pensioners will be $14.10 a fortnight, $365 a year, worse off. That's what pensioners will lose.
Unfortunately, the government continue to play off one group of vulnerable Australians against another. They have no credibility on this issue whatsoever. Of course, there is a legitimate debate for the parliament to have about equity in the tax system and how best to raise revenue for the budget. But there is no debate about the future of the NDIS. Both major political parties have agreed to fully fund the NDIS, and for that we should all be very pleased. The task for the parliament is to determine if revenue and expenditure measures are justified and in the interests of all Australians. And there's of course no doubt that the NDIS is justified. The NDIS will transform the lives of 475,000 people with a disability. That's exactly why the Labor government created it. The question before all of us in this parliament is: what's the fairest way to raise revenue for the budget?
This government's plan to increase the Medicare levy would increase the tax burden on people earning as little as $21,000 a year. It means a worker on $55,000, for example, would pay an extra $275 in tax, while someone on $80,000 would face an extra $400 in tax. That's how much all of the people opposite are going to increase taxes on low-income earners in this country. This is at a time of stagnant wages, falling living standards and record levels of underemployment, all of which mean that low- and middle-income Australians are less able to pay more tax than they have in the past.
Independent research from ANU's Centre for Social Research and Methods shows that twice as many households would be worse off under the coalition's plan than under Labor's plan. Labor's approach is fairer for the budget and fairer for families and individuals. Labor's plan also raises over $4 billion more over 10 years than the government's proposed tax rise, because we would increase the Medicare levy for individuals earning more than $87,000 a year and keep the deficit levy on those earning more than $180,000 a year.
Significantly, the Parliamentary Budget Office has shown that middle-income Australians will be worse off under government policy because of this change to the Medicare levy. The PBO says that personal income tax will hit a 20-year high of 12½ per cent of GDP by 2021 in part because of this across-the-board increase to the Medicare levy as proposed by the conservatives in this bill.
In the remaining time I want to re-emphasise why it is that we need the NDIS and to really reinforce just how important this is. I was the minister responsible for introducing the National Disability Insurance Scheme in 2013. I personally have met thousands of people with disability and their families. I want to finish with one very significant story—a story that had a big impact on me. I'll call the woman I'm talking about Tracy for the purposes of this speech. She has young twin boys, both of whom live with severe intellectual and other disabilities. They don't have any speech. They require intensive assistance for toileting, feeding, dressing and bathing. They need constant supervision.
Tracy, at the time I met her, was desperate for help. She'd had nine case managers and nearly 50 carers in the six years of her children's lives. Under the old system of disability the crisis package she was getting only provided support for one child. The old system was not based on the needs of her children or her family. And the reality was that there just wasn't enough money. So we have set about making sure that Tracy and her boys, and families like Tracy's, are actually able to get the support they need so they can live a better life.
This story highlighted to me then, and highlights to me again as I tell this story to the House, why we need the NDIS. Of course there are a lot of problems. I'm the first to acknowledge that what many people are experiencing at the moment is not good enough. But these problems need to be fixed and there certainly should not be any political games as, together, we go about fixing them. First and foremost, we need more planners and better trained planners. We need to make sure that people with disability and their families have in-depth conversations with the planners—none of this over-the-phone planning. We need to make sure, as the Productivity Commission recommended just last week, that the staffing cap on the National Disability Insurance Agency is lifted so that the waiting times, the poor plans, the lack of planners—all of this gets addressed.
The other really serious problem facing the NDIS is of course the botched IT system. This also needs to be urgently fixed. This is where the problems began in earnest—with the new IT system. It's meant long delays and there are still serious problems with the IT system for people with disability and for providers. It is a mess and it needs to be fixed urgently.
Of course, there are also many examples of people's lives being improved—for example, a mother going back to work because her child is now supported by the NDIS. In another email, a mother from northern Tasmania told me how the NDIS has changed the life of her teenage son, who has learning difficulties. The scheme has given him a level of confidence and independence that, she said to me, was unimaginable before the introduction of the NDIS.
So we all need to come together to make sure the NDIS is as successful as we all hoped it could be. And I just want to reinforce the point again that a Shorten Labor government will continue to fully fund the NDIS. People with disability and their families can be secure in that knowledge. (Time expired)
The National Disability Insurance Scheme is a very important social and economic reform for our nation. For too long, people living with disability in Australia have been treated as second-class citizens. They've faced unnecessary barriers to their full participation in Australian society and the realisation of their economic potential and contribution to the nation. Those barriers have been associated with issues that have held back their living standards—difficulties in accessing transport to get around; difficulties in accessing education to improve their knowledge and their understanding of how society works and their ability to work in paid employment; and support for people living with a disability to ensure that they can participate in the community and, importantly, that those that look after them, their carers, particularly parents who care for children with disabilities, have the support they need to make a contribution to society as well.
The National Disability Insurance Scheme is a very important social reform but it's also a very important economic reform. That's been recognised by the Productivity Commission in the report that laid the foundations for the establishment of the NDIS in Australia. In that report the point was made very well that the NDIS, in providing support for people to fulfil their potential within our community, will generate productivity improvements for the nation and ultimately improve jobs growth and boost economic growth and national incomes for the country. So the economic benefits are there. The NDIS makes sense from both a social perspective and an economic perspective.
I'm sick of hearing this undercurrent theme, if you like, that's developed from some conservative commentators in Australia that the NDIS is becoming a burden, that it's too expensive for our nation to fund and that it can't be funded. Other nations with lower living standards have put in place insurance schemes funding disability. If they can do it then so too can Australia. What is required is the political will to overcome the excuses that people have put in place and ensure that a National Disability Insurance Scheme works and works well.
It's well known that Labor established the National Disability Insurance Scheme when we were last in government. There was a lot of lead-up work that went into the legislation introduced by the shadow minister for social services, Jenny Macklin, when she was the minister, and that lead-up work was done by the Leader of the Opposition, principally, who was the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children's Services at the time. The Leader of the Opposition spent much time travelling around the country, consulting with people with disabilities, their parents and carers, the community organisations and not-for-profits that provide them with support in the work that they do, and dealing with the experts who have written and worked in this space for many years. He consulted with the states, which principally had the responsibility for providing disability support services in our community. He worked with experts, looked at international examples of best practice and formulated a policy that was well researched, well thought out and well consulted throughout the country. Subsequently, the NDIS had the support of the Australian community when it was announced by the Labor Party.
The NDIS was designed to make the system better so that it improved the lives of those living with a disability in Australia. When it was made law, Labor ensured that it was fully funded. We made sure that, in the budget after it was announced and during the announcement period, we fully funded the National Disability Insurance Scheme to the year 2023. Now, many have asked how we funded that. It's all there in the budget papers from the year in which it was established. It included increases to the Medicare levy, it included a contribution from the states and territories, it included changes to fringe benefit tax arrangements, it included increases in the tobacco excise and it included changes to things like import processing charges to raise additional revenue in the budget. It was signed off by Treasury as fully funded and met the commitments of the NDIS through to the period of 2023. So the claim by the Turnbull government that the NDIS was not funded when it was originally proposed by Labor is a furphy. It's simply not true. It's all there in the budget papers from that year, endorsed by Treasury.
To ensure that we on this side were on the money when it came to the proposed funding, we didn't roll the scheme out immediately. We trialled it in several local communities before it was rolled out across the nation. One of those trial sites was in the Hunter region in the state of New South Wales, where it worked very well. It met the guidelines and the budget proposals that were proposed by the Labor government, so that indicated that we were spot on the money when it came to the budget costings that Labor had prepared in ensuring that we were fully funding the NDIS.
When the Abbott government were elected, they began to undermine this notion that the NDIS was fully funded, and we began to seek leaks to conservative media outlets beginning the undercurrent and theme that I mentioned earlier that the NDIS was too costly and couldn't be properly funded. That undercurrent did not align with what Labor had established when we were in government. The reason why the Abbott government began that undercurrent and that theme of underfunding and the reason why they couldn't properly fund the NDIS was that they didn't adopt the budget savings measures that Labor had proposed in the budget when we established the NDIS. They didn't adopt a lot of those savings measures, so is it any wonder there's a funding shortfall when it comes to properly funding the National Disability Insurance Scheme?
At the moment it's proposed that the funding shortfall is in the nature of $4 billion from 2019 onwards, when the NDIS is fully operational in Australia. We could go on forever about who's to blame for this, but that's not going to help people living with disability in Australia at the moment who are facing the prospect of coming onto the NDIS —or, indeed, their families and their carers. They really just want the parliament to sort out the mess and ensure that the scheme that was established works properly. And if there is anything that we can do as a parliament, that we should be able to overcome party differences on, it is on something like this.
I have had cause to meet with many in my community, the community of Kingsford Smith, over recent weeks who've had some difficulties with the National Disability Insurance Agency and the plans that are being put in place for people living with disabilities in our communities. I've sat down with many, many parents who are facing the anxiety and the terrifying thought that their kids won't get the coverage and the support that they need to be able to participate in society. And the promise that was made by both Labor and the coalition was that no-one should go backwards when it comes to this, that all of the supports that are there at the moment should be properly funded and covered by the NDIS. But, having spoken to a number of people living with disabilities in the community I represent, I can tell you that's not the case at the moment unfortunately.
I met with several parents of kids with disabilities who have a terrible anxiety at the moment that the plans that have been drafted for their kids don't adequately meet the current coverage that they have in terms of support services. They're really worried that their kids are going to regress, that they won't be able to participate in their communities. When you're talking about a mother who's just gone back to work because her son who is living with autism has been able to participate in the community because of the support that he's getting, and that support faces the prospect of being removed because it's not properly funded in the plan that's been put together for him, then I can certainly understand their anxiety and their concern. Having the NDIS say, 'Okay, we'll review the situation, but it'll take us two months to review it,' quite simply is not good enough. It's not good enough and it's not the proposal of the parliament by which this was established or the intent of how it was meant to work—the intent of both sides of the parliament, I might add.
So the issue becomes how do we fix the problem? Definitely additional resources are needed. We all recognise that. The government's got a proposal; we've got a different proposal. And through these, we get a good insight into the different philosophies of the major parties in how they come up with providing adequate social services in our community, particularly for those living with disability. The Labor approach has always been one of a progressive taxation system, that those who have the capacity to pay should contribute a bit more than those on lower incomes. We see that through a progressive income tax system. We see that through a fair dinkum company tax system. We see that through our proposal to reduce concessions for negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts, ensuring that there's a safety net of services there that we can provide for people who live with disability or are pensioners in our community.
The Liberal Party and the National Party philosophy is a different one. Their philosophy is one that's colloquially known as 'trickle-down economics': the notion that if you provide tax cuts for the wealthiest and biggest corporations in our community, then they will earn more profit and that will trickle down to those that are in lower socioeconomic positions within society. The problem with that philosophy is that it simply doesn't work. It does not work, and history has shown that. The greatest example of the fact that it does not work is the United States of America. If you look at the incomes, the real incomes, of middle-class Americans, they have not increased since the 1970s. There's been no increase in the middle incomes of people living in America since the 1970s, and there's certainly no prospect of that increasing under the Trump administration. We take a different approach, obviously, but that philosophy of trickle-down economics is what we see here in this bill. It's the philosophy of the Liberal and National parties and the typical conservative approach to economics that we see internationally being implemented in this bill, because the majority of the burden from the increase in the Medicare levy will be borne by low- to middle-income Australians.
The effect of this bill is to increase the Medicare levy from two to 2½ per cent of taxable income from 2019-20 and beyond. Some would say this is reasonable given that this is what Labor did when we were in government, but you need to put it in context and look at what the government is doing in a number of other areas to see that what they're proposing here is unfair. Labor has a different approach.
The government is, of course, providing tax cuts for multinational corporations. The biggest, largest multinational corporations, including the banks and some of those big IT companies like Google and Apple, will get a tax cut under this government's proposal, and it's to the tune of $60 billion over 10 years. The government is proposing to continue negative gearing and capital gains discounts which benefit the top 10 per cent of income earners. Fifty per cent of the benefits of negative gearing goes to the top 10 per cent of income earners, and 70 per cent of the benefits of the capital gains tax discount go to the top 10 per cent of income earners. They have abolished the budget repair levy in their budget papers. They support cuts to penalty rates for people who work on weekends in the hospitality industry, and many on that side of the parliament are cheering on the fact that this will flow on to other areas of the economy through the award system. We've seen massive increases to private health insurance premiums and increases to energy costs at the same time as they're removing the pensioner supplement for energy in this country, all resulting in stagnant real wages. Similarly to the United States, the phenomenon is occurring in Australia at the moment for working-class people.
So that's the theme of the Turnbull government's approach to tax reform. The result is that in the budget, if you're a millionaire, you get a $16,000 tax cut, but, if you're on the average income of about $75,000 a year, you pay an additional $350 a year in tax. Labor thinks that that's unfair and inefficient. That's why our approach is to increase the Medicare levy, when it comes to the National Disability Insurance Scheme, only for those people who are on more than $87,000 a year, and we will keep the budget repair levy in place. Our system raises an additional $4.8 billion over the course of the next decade, so we achieve a better result than the government in fully funding the National Disability Insurance Scheme. But, once again, there is a different philosophy. We don't seek to take that money off low- to middle-income families. We ensure that the progressive nature of the tax system works well and funds the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
In conclusion, Labor is committed to fully funding the National Disability Insurance Scheme, but we want to make sure that this important reform is done in a manner that is fair by increasing the Medicare levy on those above $87,000 a year.
I'm pleased to follow the member for Kingsford Smith in this debate, because I totally agree with what he said. Before speaking on the Medicare Levy Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017, I listened to the contributions made by other speakers from both sides of the House in this debate. I particularly took note of the contribution from the member for Jagajaga. The member for Jagajaga was the minister in the Rudd-Gillard governments who was responsible for the introduction of the scheme and would know as much about it as anyone in this House. I particularly noted her comments, which I endorse and totally agree with, not only that it was Labor that was responsible for introducing the scheme but that the introduction also included fully funding the scheme. Labor has always been committed to the NDIS and continues to be.
The real difference in this debate between Labor and the government is not our commitment to the scheme. There is no question about that at all—albeit I have always doubted the true commitment to the scheme from coalition members. Indeed, I suspect they came on board only because they knew that it would be political suicide at the time to oppose the National Disability Insurance Scheme. But the difference right now is how the scheme will be funded going into the future.
The first point I want to make is to concur with the comments of the member for Jagajaga: the scheme was fully funded during our time in government and it was in the forward projections of the budget. If the coalition government since taking office in 2013 has redirected those funds, used them for other purposes or not adopted the funding mechanisms that Labor had proposed then it's a matter for the coalition government to explain that clearly to the Australian people, not to simply say that the scheme was never funded.
The other point of real difference in respect of this matter is that what we are seeing—consistent with so many other decisions and proposals that come into this place from the Turnbull government—is that low-income Australians are once again being hit with additional costs and being asked to fund this government's economic incompetence. I say 'economic incompetence' because the reality is that this is a government that has come into office, has been in office now for over four years—it's into its fifth year now—and still can't get its budget in order. Last year's deficit was, from memory, $38 billion. This year it's looking like $29 billion, if things go as projected. This government has overseen our national debt hitting half a trillion dollars.
It is because the government cannot balance its budget that it is looking for other ways of doing so, and those ways of doing so include increasing the Medicare levy by half a per cent from its current level. The government is coming into the House and doing that under the pretence that this is all about compassion and that this is about supporting people who are in need and whom we should be supporting. I totally agree that we should be, but that's not what's driving this government's increase in the levy. What's driving this government's increase in the levy is its need to increase taxes in order to balance its budget. There is no question about it whatsoever: this is a tax increase. The government can call it a levy and anyone else can call it whatever they like, but the truth of the matter is that whether it's called a levy or a tax increase it will hit people who are on incomes above $21,000, and it will come out of their pocket.
I have listened to members opposite, who have continuously come into the chamber and tried to paint a picture that the problem we have with the NDIS is that Labor not only didn't fund it properly but mismanaged the whole process. It's becoming a hallmark of this government to blame Labor for everything that is wrong with society today—not four years ago; today. We saw it again in question time today. The Prime Minister in response to questions on one hand would brag about the NBN rollout but then simultaneously say that problems that are associated with the NBN are all Labor's fault. We see from this government that, regardless of the issue, it likes to take credit for matters, but then as soon as something goes wrong it blames Labor, just as the Prime Minister did again today with respect to jobs. He came into the House, boasting about how many jobs were created but then, in the next breath, said that higher power prices are killing jobs in this country. You can't have it both ways and nor can you blame the opposition, which was in government over four years ago, for what is happening in society today. The government has had four years to fix up those issues and it simply hasn't done so.
I said from the outset that Labor has always been committed to the NDIS. It's always been Labor that has introduced social policies in government. It was Labor that introduced the minimum wage in 1907. It was Labor that introduced the old-age pension in 1909. It was Labor that implemented the Medicare system in 1984 after the Fraser government, when it came to office, dropped the original Medibank system that the Whitlam government had brought in in 1974. It was Labor that brought in compulsory super, it was Labor that brought in paid parental leave and it was Labor that brought in the National Disability Insurance Scheme. And what we have seen from this government is consistent attacks to somehow try and dismantle those social schemes, which were brought in to act as a social net for people in this country. And we saw it again only recently when this government turned its back on people who are going to lose their penalty rates.
I can well recall when the NDIS was first mooted. The member for Maribyrnong was the parliamentary secretary at the time. I organised a community forum in my electorate. It was held at Tyndale college. We asked people who had a disability or their carers to come along and talk to us about the problems they faced. I very clearly recall that occasion because a young girl came along who touched everyone in the room that day. She was having to stay home from school—from memory, she was 13 or 14—because she had to care for her sick mother, who had a disability. To see a young person have to forgo her own career and her own future because she loved and cared for her mother was an injustice that needed to be corrected. The member for Maribyrnong and I walked out of that meeting both absolutely committed to doing something about this. To the credit of the member for Maribyrnong, he certainly did. He took it back to the cabinet and, with the help of the member for Jagajaga and other members in this place, the NDIS finally got off the ground.
Few if any people struggle through life more than people with a serious disability or the family members who may have to care for them. For most of my life, I lived across the road from a family who had a person with a serious disability. I watched that young person grow into adulthood. I watched the mother and father sacrifice their lives every single day, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days of the year, year in, year out, in order to care for their son, whom they dearly loved. When they grew much older and couldn't care for him anymore, they put him in a residential care facility and he was looked after there. The sacrifice that was being made was a social injustice that had to be redressed—and Labor did that by introducing the scheme that we did.
What is wrong with this legislation is simply this—and I go back to one of the comments I made from the outset: the real difference between Labor and the government on this matter is no longer the difference about the need for a National Disability Insurance Scheme but, rather, how it's going to be funded. Only last week we saw legislation debated in this place that offered corporates a $65 billion tax cut, yet the government is saying it cannot afford to find the funding to pay for the NDIS scheme. The tax cut that was being put forward last week by the coalition government, as we all know and as has been made absolutely clear time and time again, is a tax cut that in most cases will go to corporates who are paying very little tax right now or to shareholders who live overseas—and, therefore, the beneficiaries will be people who live overseas or in turn invest their money in offshore low-tax jurisdictions. So we have a situation whereby there are opportunities for the government to find the funds if it chose a different source of funding. But the government is saying, 'No, we want to offer tax cuts to the corporates but we'll ask people on low incomes, people who earn above $21,000 a year, to pay for it through an increase of half a per cent in the levy.'
The other issue that this levy paints very clearly is the government's incompetence with respect to the budget. I quoted some figures earlier on in terms of how this government simply can't balance its budget. Last week we had the debate about the closure of GMH. The closure of the auto industry in this country will hit the economy by about $29 billion. It was one of the stupid decisions that this government made, turning its back on the auto industry, which is now going to cost the government tax income stream. Again, these are examples of the government showing its incompetence and therefore having to turn on people who are still earning some wages to try and balance its budget by increasing the levy.
With respect to the people that have a disability in this country, the member for Jagajaga made this point quite rightly. I recently had a constituent come to see me who was on a disability pension. The constituent had managed, after many years, to finally take a break and go overseas, was overseas for just over four weeks—I think it was five or six weeks at most—and came back and found that the disability pension had been cut and stopped because that person had exceeded the four weeks. The person, who I understand now has to go overseas for an essential matter over the coming months, is in fear of losing the pension that was being received because for the next 12 months, having already exceeded the four-week limit, that person cannot travel overseas. This is the injustice that is being done. When the members opposite say that they care about people with a disability, perhaps they should start thinking about people like the person in my electorate who was treated that way.
I understand that the funds need to be found. No-one disputes that. As I said earlier, we had budgeted for the NDIS into the future. The government's changed the rules. It came into office four years plus ago, changed the rules and now needs to find the funds. We accept that. That's why we're saying that, if we were in office, we would only increase the levy for people earning $87,000 or more, because they are the people that can possibly still afford it. This is at a time when last year average wage growth was 1.9 per cent, exactly the same amount as the rise to the cost of living. So wage earners in this country are no better off today than they were 12 months ago. We know that corporate incomes over that same period of time—and the corporates are going to get the tax cut—have never been higher. So the injustice is being perpetrated every day.
So we're saying that, if the government needs to find the funds, at the very least it should look to the people that are going to get a tax cut, because in many cases those people were paying the budget repair levy and they won't have to in the future because this government's going to drop that. At least set the rules so that the people on the lowest incomes, who are probably struggling the most with their cost of living expenses on a day-to-day basis, don't have to pay the levy. That would be the fairness that I believe most members in this place would want for themselves if they were in the shoes of the people that are going to get hit hardest by this tax.
Time does not allow me to speak at length about this, but in closing I say this: the government's attack on the lowest income people in this country is shameful. It's one issue after another, and this levy is just another example of the way this government treats low-income Australians.
I also rise to speak on this cognate debate on the Medicare Levy Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017 and related bills. With my colleagues on this side of the House, I declare that we will oppose this package of legislation. This is a package of 11 bills which gives effect to the government's budget measures to increase the Medicare levy from two per cent to 2½ per cent. The Medicare Levy Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill directly changes the Medicare levy rate, and the remainder of the bills make consequential changes to other taxation rates in line with the increase in the Medicare levy. As I say, we will oppose this bill. We oppose the notion behind it of having a tax hike on the over seven million Australian workers that are earning less than $87,000 a year.
Looking around the room tonight, I see that, other than perhaps the member for Swan, most of those here are a little younger than me. They may not recall that, when we grew up, we saw very few people with disabilities in our communities. It wasn't because they were healthy in those days or they weren't there. The truth is that kids with disability were kept in somebody's back room. They were kept out of society. They weren't involved in our schools, they weren't involved in our sporting clubs and we didn't see them. Other than the good work that was performed in those days by the organisation known as the Spastic Centre in respect of a number of those people, we just did not see kids with disability. I think that's a reflection on the society.
Now we're in a community that embraces diversity and embraces change. But I think the real challenge for us in parliament is to ensure that our legacy is a situation where we embrace young people and people who live with disability into what we would say is our normal life. The truth of the matter is that, if you look at the distribution of disabilities in our community, it follows the same bell curve as the distribution of intelligence. I know that's not the right way to put it, but disabilities will always be a factor in our community. It is important that we engage with and incorporate into our way of life the way we deal with and work with families and people who live with disability. I can speak from some personal experience in this regard given that I have a grandson on the autism spectrum. I know how this impacts on a family. I love Nathaniel, as does the rest of the family, and I know he's probably going to have a challenging life ahead of him. I want the best for him, as I do for my other 10 grandchildren. I want them to go out and reach their potential in this world and feel that their lives are appreciated.
I'm happy to be part of that Labor government, with the member for Jagajaga and the member of Maribyrnong, which championed the issue of the NDIS. I think that that did show a turning point in the way we look at disabilities. We saw engaging with and providing for the inclusion of people with disabilities as something that we should be doing in a modern society. However, we oppose this legislation. We think that this government has really lost its notion of fairness—particularly after it inherited an NDIS position that was, regardless of what's been said on the other side, fully funded. At a time when utility costs are rising and when the general cost of living is higher than wages growth, the merit of putting additional financial pressure on the most vulnerable households and widening the economic gap is questionable.
Labor understands the significant role Medicare plays in funding our universal health system and what it does in terms of funding the provision of disability services. After all, it was a Labor government, under Prime Minister Hawke, that ensured everyone had access to a doctor and a hospital when needed. We're all beneficiaries of our universal health system, and we contribute through the tax system to the extent that we can afford to do so. That's the important aspect—'to the extent that we can afford to do so'. The approach being adopted by the Liberal government in this respect fails to take into account the ramifications of a one-style-fits-all approach to this pretty significant policy position of funding the NDIS and what it will do to those who cannot afford the additional financial burden.
I think the ACT Council of Social Service got it right when they said:
Regressive measures have the potential to impact on low-income households and the cost of living. Cost of living research commissioned by the ACTCOSS over the past three years has revealed the present and widening gap between income and living costs for individuals and households.
We see this day in and day out, and you don't just have to be in question time to acknowledge this. We have very low wages growth, record high underemployment, high cost-of-living pressures and a government that seems to salivate at the prospect of cutting penalty rates not only for those who are subject to awards in the hospitality and retail industries but for those who have made the point that there's no difference between shiftworkers working on weekends and those working at any other time. For those people, the Treasurer comes in and says, 'We need to reprioritise and we're going to give them a tax hike.'
This is a government that's determined to increase income tax for every Australian earning above $21,000 a year while, at the same time, giving a $65 billion tax cut to millionaires and big business—all those overseas corporations. Some of them, by investing in corporate lawyers, pay little or no tax, despite what they write in the newspapers—his own newspapers, that is. How is that fair? How can we simply afford to do it? There's a simple lesson in this: if you can't afford to do it, don't. Don't do it at the expense of battling and middle-class working families, people who are already suffering from the rising costs of living. To put it into perspective, under this proposal, a worker earning $55,000 would pay an additional $275 a year, while someone earning $80,000 would be forced to pay an extra $400 in tax.
I was reading an interesting article the other day in the Australian Financial Review, and I know my colleagues will hate the fact that I'll have to quote from comments made by none other than President Trump. This is the first time I have ever referred to him, so we'll note the occasion. The article's all about President Trump's view in respect of taxation. He was talking about his new tax plan. This is what he said:
The rich will not be gaining at all with this plan.
… … …
If they have to go higher—
this is referring to the taxes—
they'll go higher.
He's certainly taking a different view about the capacity to pay. He's saying that, at the top end of the scale, fair enough, progressive taxation means that they will pay more. What is being advocated in the House today, under the Turnbull government, is, quite frankly, the exact opposite to what is being advocated in the United States on this occasion by President Trump, whom those opposite seem to like to quote pretty often. The Turnbull government proposes increasing tax on vulnerable lower-paid and middle-income wage earners while rewarding those at the top end of the scale. While I don't refer to President Trump's views in this place and I haven't done so previously, that Australian Financial Review article must be food for thought for those opposite. Maybe it says a little bit more about what they appreciate about progressive taxation.
When this bill was first introduced into the House, the Treasurer asserted that the government's position on the Medicare levy meant that it would be following the same practice that was adopted by the Gillard government. What he said was, 'I can't understand what has changed.' Let me tell you what has changed in the fifth year of this government. In 2013, wages growth was at three per cent, whereas now it has flatlined at around 1.9 per cent. We have underemployment and casualisation at an all-time high, stagnation in living standards, a diminishing number of apprenticeships and a housing affordability crisis, and the government's only plan to help battling Australians is to increase their income tax. Those opposite used to lecture us on a budget emergency. Yet, since then, the deficit has gone up by a factor of 10, and the gross national debt is projected to hit three-quarters of a trillion dollars. This is a government that has certainly moved off the notion of budget emergency, and it now wants to give us a new dose of hysteria in respect of an NDIS emergency.
I'm sure that, across the aisle here, they really know in their hearts of hearts that to give corporates, multinationals and big business a $65 billion tax cut with a default position to increase the tax for hardworking Australian families is not the right thing to do. But they are wedded to this notion of trickle-down economics. I suppose that, to some extent, we will wait for election day to work out what the Australian people think about trickle-down economics. It is not that I want to wish those on the other side well, but for the benefit of hardworking Australians and all those that actually need assistance, including low-income workers, I think they should revise their view of trickle-down economics and probably have a look at what Pope Francis had to say about that. He arrived at the conclusion that it has never been proven.
Labor have always taken an approach to fully fund the NDIS. We have a plan that will do that and continue to do that. Under Labor's plan, we will raise $4 billion more than the government proposed tax rise over the next 10 years by increasing the Medicare levy for those earning over $87,000 and by reinstating the deficit levy on those earning more than $180,000. I find it odd that the Prime Minister, when he wants to comment about the deficit levy, calls it a tax on success. I'm not sure what he means for those seven million Australians who would be affected by this bill who earn under $87,000. Does he refer to them just not being successful? Or, going back to a slightly earlier time, are they 'leaners', as Joe Hockey used to refer to them? I remind the government that Labor does not define Australian success by the size of your pay packet or what's in your wallet. A childcare worker, police officers—whom I had the honour of representing—or nurses might not earn $180,000, but they're still pretty successful in my book.
Recent research by the ANU shows that twice as many households will be worse off under the coalition's plan with respect to NDIS funding as under Labor's plan. Labor created the NDIS, and Labor is committed to fully funding the NDIS and supporting families and people with disability. I go back to the position of my grandson Nathaniel. As I said, I want the best outcomes possible for him. I want him to be able to reach his potential, which may be different from other people's views. We owe it to those that live with disabilities to give all the support possible.
When the member for Maribyrnong was elected to the Australian parliament, he was also appointed to the position of Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children's Services. I have known the member for Maribyrnong since my 20s, and I knew that, with that appointment, there was going to be significant change in the disability sector. I knew that the member for Maribyrnong would drive change in this area, would drive significant improvement and would drive a rethink and major reform in the disability sector. And what we're talking about today is the results of the effort from the member for Maribyrnong and also the member for Jagajaga. They had the vision to improve the lives, the potential and the choice for those Australians living with a disability, through a scheme that was actually tailored to their needs. That's what I love about the National Disability Insurance Scheme: it's actually tailored to individual need.
When I was in my teens, my mother worked with the Victorian Autistic Children's Association. We spent many a school holiday volunteering in the op shop there; wandering around the board table, collating roneoed newsletters; and giving parents of autistic children relief from their children by taking their kids away on holidays with us so that their parents could be given some respite. At that stage—and I'm talking here about the seventies and eighties—there was a little bit of respite around, but it was a pretty boutique market then. So that's why it was really up to friends and family to provide those parents and carers of people with a disability with the opportunity for respite, which is what my mother did. That's what we did over our school holidays.
So I've seen the systems that were around in the seventies and eighties, and—I suppose as a very small child and just by hearing from what my mother spoke about—what was around in the fifties and sixties, which was kind of Dickensian. In some parts of Australia in the fifties and sixties there was an outmoded kind of Dickensian view of people with a disability. There was very much the theory that people should be institutionalised and through that process essentially forgotten. How times have changed—dramatically!
Now we've got this fabulous scheme as a result of the efforts, the vision and the hard work. It's a complex scheme; it took a lot of time, a lot of effort, a lot of vision and a lot of hard yakka by the member for Maribyrnong and the member for Jagajaga to come to realise this incredible vision: the NDIS. Now, as a result of that, we have Australians with a disability actually choosing the services that they want, choosing how they want to spend their money, choosing what they're going to be doing on a Saturday night and choosing how many sessions of physiotherapy they go to. They are choosing, in many ways, the kind of wheelchair that they have.
I know that there have been significant challenges in the NDIS. Here in Canberra, we are at the vanguard of it: we piloted the scheme, and so I do know just from talking to constituents and from the many phone calls I've had that there are a range of issues. There's the issue of service providers actually being paid. There's the issue of service providers actually putting their homes at risk as a result of the fact that they haven't been paid. There's the issue of management plans being submitted and then basically just falling into this huge abyss, with people not hearing anything from the NDIA. As you know, Deputy Speaker, management plans are meant to be open to consultation with the carer, the person with the disability and the NDIA so that they can come to a kind of bespoke solution that is beneficial to everyone. And yet what is happening is that people are putting in their management plans for consultation with the NDIA and then basically just getting it back with, 'Thanks very much, stamp, off we go with the management plan.' There's been no form of consultation and no discussing what options are available; it's essentially, 'Okay, send in the management plan and that's the final version.' That has never been the case. Families in Canberra have always known that the management plan is a negotiated document. It's a document to be negotiated with the NDIA, rather than just a cookie-cutter solution.
I know that there have been challenges, particularly at Marymead. Marymead is going through some real funding challenges for those with chronic disability—again, back to respite: providing respite over a lengthy period of time. The NDIA has a range of categories of assessment in terms of the level of disability, but there's a significant shortage of those services that provide respite for families with members with a chronic disability. I know that Marymead has been going through that challenge.
Wayne Herbert, who is a friend of mine and a great member of our community, asked for a second pair of shoes and was told by the NDIA that, essentially, one pair of shoes should do him for the year. I know that there have been challenges for families who in the past have had services that are no longer provided because people have left town because they just don't find the business manageable enough.
Debate interrupted.
Today I rise as a reminder to those on the opposite side of the House that workers who work on weekends and after hours are doing it tough and have been doing it tough since 1 July, when this government brutally sat back and did nothing when penalty rates were cut for up to 700,000 workers in the retail, hospitality, fast-food and pharmacy sectors. They are pay cuts that will continue every 1 July until 2020.
We can see an ideologically driven pattern of behaviour here. On Friday, we saw the closure of Holden and the death of the car industry, with up to 50,000 manufacturing jobs being killed, including those that are or were involved with Holden and every other small business that supported them. There is the renewable energy sector, where the next generation of green jobs have been cut in their prime by the coal lobby within the government. We have witnessed defence projects for South Australia being put on hold right at the wrong time, when they were needed the most, as the government ummed and ahhed about putting its trust in the Australian workforce. We have witnessed WorkChoices by stealth as the government decided to cut the wages of hardworking Australians—another ideological decision. Because of this government, millionaires will have more money in their pockets and low-income workers less. That is the direct result of this. This parliament and the government had the power to stop penalty rates being cut, but the government refused to act.
As the member for Hindmarsh, I'll continue to fight for my constituents who are doing it tough—for example, students trying to pay off HECS debts that have increased due to government policy that is making degrees cost more through massive cuts to universities. This is a double whammy for students at university who are working casual jobs to make ends meet and for their parents who are trying to make ends meet and to help make up the shortfall. Mums and dads are spending valuable time away from the family on Sundays and after hours to make ends meet—now without compensation for doing so.
We on this side of the House will continue to fight to protect rates for Australian workers every day until the next election. We won't let the government get away with its assault on the wages of low-paid Australians. As the opposition, Labor has fought on behalf of workers to stop these cuts from occurring, and we have committed that, in government, we will reverse these pay cuts and make sure they can't happen again. Rest assured, Labor's legislation will reverse the recent decision to cut penalty rates and will also change the laws to protect the overall take-home pay of working Australians as a result of future decisions.
Labor was formed by workers. It cares about workers, not like the PM, who has given massive tax cuts to multimillionaires and multinationals. There is a fix to the problem, but it's up to the public to help sort this one out. We need a change of government, as penalty rates are being cut between 1 July this year and 1 July 2020. Only a Shorten Labor government can stop the rot. We will restore the faith of Australian workers by supporting products made in Australia—we heard the Prime Minister's announcement in South Australia last weekend. We'll restore the faith of the Australian worker by supporting products made in Australia. We in my electorate remember the Rossi boot saga in 2014. I remember it and the constituents of Hindmarsh remember it as well. Rossi boots are proudly made in Adelaide, but Rossi missed out on a Defence contract to supply Australian soldiers with boots. Where did the contract go? It went to Indonesia: the contract for 100,000 pairs of non-combat boots worth $15 million over five years went straight to Asia when it could have been in the western suburbs of Adelaide, producing jobs and helping the economy. Rossi is a business that has been in operation since 1910 and employs around 100 people. It made boots for our soldiers in World War I. It made boots for our soldiers in World War II. It has helped to protect our country during time of war.
So why does the government keep walking away from manufacturing jobs and businesses? Does it want a future where we don't make anything anymore?
The former defence minister, David Johnston, said at the time that the bid from Rossi was over that of the successful bidder. He failed to take into account the taxes raised, the jobs of Australians and the economy. And where is Minister Johnston now? Mr Speaker, can you remember the defence minister saying that he wouldn't trust South Australian submarine makers to build a canoe? What a dreadful statement to make about workers who have some of the finest technology and some of the finest— (Time expired)
I'd like to speak today about the wonderful work that the chaplains do in our schools in Queensland, and, I suppose, to take a little bit of a trip back down memory lane to when I was the parent of young school starters, many, many years ago. And that situation, of course, may be not so much down memory lane but in the present or the very near future for many in this House today and for many of the parents and families around the electorate of Forde. I'd like us to reflect for a moment on what it is to be a parent of a young child in school, and the pressures, struggles and worries that can go along with it—especially for families in need.
Where can parents go to learn more about their child's development? Where can parents go to learn about the resources in their local area or the upcoming events they might be able to attend with their families? Where can parents go to get information on school banking or to learn more about dental hygiene or to participate in a playgroup? Surely there are many places, you might say, but there would not just be one place that could offer all of these things.
Well, in my electorate of Forde, I'm very blessed with two schools where there is just such a place—a community hub, where mothers, fathers, carers and families can come and feel connected. The hubs have been established at Regents Park and Logan Reserve state schools, and they are the initiative of one of our dedicated local chaplains, Marlo Bronzi, who works with Scripture Union Queensland. By teaming up with the school principals, local council and community, Ms Bronzi has developed two wonderful spaces—and I was very glad to see the Logan Reserve facility at firsthand recently—that have enabled families to reach out for help and support in ways that might never have been available otherwise. It is the existence of the National School Chaplaincy Program and the work that the people it employs do that have facilitated that development. And that is the heart of what I wish to speak about tonight: how greatly we should value school chaplaincy in our nation and, in particular, the work being done in my home state of Queensland.
Mr Speaker, did you know that, in Queensland, over three-quarters of the pastoral conversations with chaplains take place with primary students? Chaplains work very hard to support these students in their formative years so that they're better equipped for the future. Did you know that Queensland chaplains spend over 80 per cent of their school break times with students? Chaplains have a genuine heart and desire to reach out to and to help young people. Across Queensland, did you know that, in the average school term, chaplains run 358 breakfast programs, 167 educational support programs, 396 social and emotional programs, 257 spiritual support programs and a further 239 community development events and activities?
Chaplains' support in our school communities is designed to promote social, emotional and spiritual wellbeing for all. So who are our chaplains? They come from all walks of life. In Queensland, 39 per cent of chaplains are male and 61 per cent female. Most chaplains are from generation Y, with 42 per cent aged between 21 and 35. While all our Queensland chaplains meet the minimum qualification standards set by the state and federal governments, 85 per cent of them exceed them, with qualifications at diploma level or higher, across areas such as youth work, human services, education, theology and ministry. We have chaplains at 223 schools in North and Central Queensland and 248 schools in south Queensland, and in many other places across the state.
As school chaplains endeavour to promote individual resilience in our students and in our families every day, they provide opportunities and give important advice to our youngest and most vulnerable, and not only to them but also to the teachers and parents at the school. I had the pleasure of attending the chaplain's dinner at Marsden State High School recently. It was a great night and a very positive reminder of what can be achieved when communities work together. Our schools are among the most important foundations in our society. I would like to thank our chaplains for the wonderful work they do in supporting those in need across our community, and not just the youngest in our community but the parents, teachers, principals and support staff at our schools as well.
This is a speech I'd rather not be giving, but unfortunately I rise today to speak about the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman's 2016-17 annual report and its really damning findings. I could have told them what they were going to find, because my electorate of Macarthur is No. 1 in Australia for complaints, and that's just the Campbelltown area. There are many more complaints from other postcodes in the area as well. The report, which was recently published, is a terrible indictment of Malcolm Turnbull's failed second-rate National Broadband Network.
I say to the member for Macarthur that he needs to refer to members by their correct titles.
It is a terrible indictment of the Prime Minister's failed second-rate National Broadband Network—thank you, Mr Speaker—with countless complaints made in relation to poor service over the NBN and delays in connection to the NBN. The report identifies postcodes which are hotspots for telecommunications response. Sadly, it comes as no surprise to me that Campbelltown is at the top of the list. With 769 complaints lodged with the TIO from Campbelltown and countless others that would inevitably have been lodged from surrounding suburbs within my electorate, the Prime Minister and his Minister for Communications have sorely let down my constituents and many others around Australia. I know their concerns only too well. I hear from my constituents daily when they contact my office and are in need of help because of the Prime Minister's botched NBN.
The complaints and issues vary in shapes and sizes. However, a significant number of my residents have had truly appalling experiences with the NBN. I'm particularly concerned about the way elderly members of my electorate are being treated. They've faced significant hardship at the hands of this government with apparently very little care. Many constituents have completely lost access to their landlines, at times for weeks on end. A number of constituents have medical priorities listed on their accounts with their respective providers and, thus, were never supposed to be left without a working telephone. I recall receiving many responses from the government on the occasions when I have raised my concerns with them which barely fall short of demanding that my elderly constituents—some very elderly—go out and purchase a smartphone. The problems with that are that the elderly do not necessarily know how to use the technology, pensioners cannot afford to simply go out and buy a new phone and areas of my electorate have very poor cellular phone coverage.
It's not just the elderly this government has failed. I have even had local businesses lose out as a result of this poorly managed rollout and the poor technology. What the government fails to appreciate is that, when you accidentally cut a small business's landline and telephone access, you cut all communication with their customers and stop them from performing even simple transactions by EFTPOS, fax, the internet and telephone. Many of the small businesses have had to send staff home because they cannot conduct their business without NBN access. When the government explains to them that this may well be a problem with their provider rather than the NBN, they're left with what is like a ping-pong match, with a ball that bounces back and forth between the NBN and the providers. It is enormously frustrating at times. Sometimes it takes hours to get onto NBN staff or providers.
Local residents and businesses do not know who to turn to when they have issues with the NBN. There's constant buck-passing. It seems to me that NBN Co is intent on pushing all accountability back onto providers and often the matters ends up being referred back to the NBN and to my office. Earlier this year, we were forced to run an NBN forum to try to deal with the hundreds of complaints we were receiving. It was standing room only. We couldn't fit everyone into the large council hall to hear all the complaints.
I think Malcolm Turnbull needs to take a note out of Harry Truman's—
The member for Macarthur—
I apologise. The Prime Minister would do well to take a note out of President Harry Truman's book and erect a sign on his desk declaring, 'The buck stops here,' because it's not getting stopped anywhere else in his cabinet and certainly not by the NBN. I might even start up a GoFundMe page to pay for the plaque. No doubt the Prime Minister would like to have it gold plated; however, I suspect— (Time expired)
I wanted to share an exciting event coming up in my electorate. Next month I'm going to be holding the very first Bonner seniors expo at the Waterloo Bay Leisure Centre. It will be on from 10.00 am to 4.00 pm on 22 November, and what a day it's going to be. The expo will be a fantastic event for seniors, with free entry, free entertainment, a lucky door prize, complimentary afternoon tea and free bus transport for the whole day. There'll be keynote speakers from various government departments and community organisations, who'll be on hand to answer people's questions. There will also be several local small businesses set up on the day for people to browse and discover.
I found many of my senior constituents often don't know about all the services and programs that are available to them or about the community that can help them, so I've invited representatives from the Department of Health, the Department of Human Services, NBN Co, south Queensland Police, Hearing Well Australia, FSG Australia, Carers Queensland, Metro South Hospital and Health Service, and more to come along. We'll let people know what they have access to. I've also invited a number of local aged-care providers, who will be providing lots of great information about seniors care options in the community. This includes Janoah Gardens, Nazareth Care Wynnum, Regis Wynnum, Anglicare Southern Queensland, McKenzie Aged Care, Aveo Manly Gardens and more.
There will also be stalls for the Wynnum and Manly Meals on Wheels, Wynnum Bowls Club, Manly Bowls Club, Sailability Bayside, Mount Gravatt Men's Shed, Port of Brisbane Rotary and many more groups. Tyack Health from Manly West will be holding a session on how seniors can stay active and healthy. Helloworld Travel Wynnum will be providing travel advice for people thinking about taking a trip for their holidays. All up, there will be over 40 stalls, but that's not all. There'll also be a bunch of entertainment on offer throughout the day. First up is a fashion show showcasing all the latest designs from local clothes shop Juicy Secrets and local shoe outlet Bare Traps. Next is a performance from Zumba dance group from the EACH social activity club, whom I have spoken about here before. Finally, students from the Guardian Angels Choir will be singing during afternoon tea.
It's going to be a fantastic day, and thanks to everyone in the community who's helped me make the Bonner Seniors' Expo a reality. Special thanks goes to TransitCare and Community Flyer for providing free bus trips for people attending. I can't wait to see everyone on the day, and I'm proud to support the local seniors community with this very, very special event.
Last week I had the honour of participating in the 137th assembly of the Inter-Parliamentary Union as a delegate from the Australian parliament in company with two colleagues from the other place, Senator Chris Ketter and Senator Ian Macdonald. The IPU was formed in 1889 as a means through which parliamentary democracy could be strengthened and parliamentarians would have the opportunity to learn from one another and work together in the cause of shared prosperity, stability and peace. That work continued at the assembly in St Petersburg, whose theme and general debate topic was 'promoting cultural pluralism peace through interfaith and interethnic dialogue'. Senators Ketter and Macdonald both spoke in that debate and made thoughtful contributions about Australia's hard-won success as a multicultural nation, a place whose foundation is the oldest culture on earth and whose diversity has been and continues to be shaped through highs and lows.
It was refreshing to be part of an international forum whose starting point is the function of parliament as separate from the executive power within a healthy parliamentary democracy. The focus of the IPU on the proper and independent function of parliament was clear in a couple of key areas. There was, for example, a question raised about the fact that a delegate from Cambodia was absent through exclusion as a likely result of her outspoken opposition to the present government in her country. There was also extended consideration of the circumstances in Venezuela, where the parliament or national assembly has been improperly dissolved. Indeed, evidence of human rights violations involving parliamentarians from Cambodia, Turkey, Venezuela and the Maldives has led to calls for the IPU Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians to send fact-finding missions to all four countries.
In terms of detailed work, I was glad to participate in the bureau of the Standing Committee on Sustainable Development, Finance and Trade in place of the member for Forrest, who was previously elected to that bureau but couldn't attend on this occasion. The bureau's discussion centred on parliamentary work to advance the pursuit of the Sustainable Development Goals with an emphasis on development assistance, ocean health, and climate change resilience and mitigation. It called upon participating country delegates to do some homework on the way in which parliaments debate, track and measure progress on the SDGs, and I look forward to taking that up.
I was also grateful for the chance within that forum to speak about the Australian government's commitment of $1 billion under the Paris climate agreement, including $200 million for the Green Climate Fund and $300 million for projects in Pacific Island nations. It was acknowledged that the forthcoming UN climate change conference in New York will be chaired by Fiji, a role for which Australia is providing specific and very welcome assistance.
On day 3 of the assembly, I participated in an interactive session on the UN process for the prohibition of nuclear weapons and took the opportunity to highlight the work of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, or ICAN, which was born in Australia and recently received the Nobel Peace Prize.
Mr Speaker, as you well know, one of the closely contested parts of the IPU Assembly is the selection of an emergency motion. In Saint Petersburg, the debate on this issue came down to two main areas of concern: the first in relation to the ongoing nuclear missile tests conducted by North Korea and the second in relation to the severe humanitarian crisis in Myanmar. On the second issue, two motions were put forward: one being a genuine attempt to call out the scale of the violence and deprivation occurring in Rakhine State, the other being an attempt by the delegation from Myanmar to somewhat muddy the waters and suggest that the circumstances involved fault and harm on all sides. However, as the leader of the UK delegation, Nigel Evans, rightly pointed out, this is not a complicated matter; it's in fact a relatively clear matter of government complicity and neglect in the violent displacement and persecution of the Rohingya people. On that basis, and as delegates from the Australian parliament, we chose collectively to pledge our votes in full support of the emergency motions in relation to Myanmar and the DPRK's reckless nuclear conduct. Ultimately, it was the Myanmar motion that received the most support and Australia was selected as one of the countries involved in the drafting committee to settle the final text, which was adopted.
On the final day of the assembly, delegates elected a new president, Gabriela Cuevas Barron, from Mexico. She's only the second woman to hold that position and, at 38, also meets the definition of a young parliamentarian. The IPU is a valuable forum for promoting dialogue between parliamentarians and for working towards stronger democratic institutions and processes. Australia's participation is well received and welcome, and it reflects well on the work of former delegates, which I acknowledge and which I hope to continue.
I thank the member for Fremantle for being part of the delegation. I normally would have been a part of it, but this time, due to the sitting week last week, I couldn't attend.
Between 24 September and 9 October 2017 I was asked to take part in the presiding members' study tour, which was to focus on mental health. I was accompanied by Senator Rachel Siewert, who was the delegation lead, and Senator Deborah O'Neill from the ALP. Senator John Williams was to join us, but unfortunately he was not fit enough to travel. We were also accompanied by Mr Mark Fitt, as the delegation secretary.
It was a great honour to be asked to represent the government in the four countries where we did our tour. They were England, the Netherlands, Sweden and Canada. Sixteen days is a long time to be out of the electorate, and it's something that I had to think very carefully about. But the topic of our study tour was that of mental health. I'm a big believer in not trying to reinvent the wheel in relation to anything, least of all in relation to mental health. Having been away for 16 days, it's going to be virtually impossible for me to talk about the learnings that we were able to garnish from the many people and many organisations that we went to so I have decided to address these issues over a series of speeches in relation to mental health.
I was given the opportunity, as we all were, to choose our particular topics of interest in this trip, and I chose four main areas of great interest to me. They were the mental health issues in serving military personnel, veterans, emergency service personnel and those suffering from eating disorders. One of the first things that struck me as we made our way around four very different countries was that the most common question I was asked, almost by every single person that we spoke to, who were leaders in their field, was, 'Why are you here?' Because many of these countries, many of these organisations, look to Australia as being the exemplar of how we research and how we treat clinically those suffering from mental illness. It was a constant reinforced moment of pride for us all for these world-renowned leaders in mental health research and clinical treatment to be saying: 'Why are you here? What you do in Australia is fantastic.' So, having said that, the biggest room in the house is the room for improvement, and the day where we think we know it all we should hang up our hats because we can all learn from other countries and other experts and that's what it was all about for me.
Many organisations that we spoke to held Australia's work specifically in relation to headspace as a shining light for the treatment of mental illness amongst our young people. Clearly that was a well-deserved compliment for the work that this federal government is doing and previous governments have done in the past. When we went to London, we went to King's College London and we spoke to professor Ian Everall, who is the executive dean of the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience and he had worked in Melbourne for eight years. He advised us that the clinical treatment of those suffering from mental illness is much more fragmented in the UK than Australia. He also talked about the importance of clinical treatment and research being done together— (Time expired)
West Street at Umina Beach is one of the busiest spots on the Central Coast on a Saturday morning. It's a bustling hub on the peninsula and you can always tell what matters to local residents and businesses by spending a couple of hours there at one of the great local cafes or by standing up on a street corner. Last Saturday, I was there with my team to talk about the coalition's upgrades to local roads including Ryans Road and Davis Street at Booker Bay. These are critical local upgrades but, even so, one issue overshadowed them in many conversations we were having, and the issue, not surprisingly, was energy. It's a fact that businesses across the Central Coast need access to affordable and reliable power. That's why the National Energy Guarantee announced by the coalition government from the recommendations of the Energy Security Board is so important.
The new National Energy Guarantee will deliver more affordable and reliable electricity while meeting our international commitments, give certainty to investors and encourage investment in all forms of power. The guarantee will lower electricity prices, making the system more reliable, encouraging the right investment and reducing emissions without subsidies, taxes or trading schemes. Unlike previous approaches, we are not picking winners but levelling the playing field. Coal, gas, hydro and biomass will be rewarded for their dispatchability while wind, solar and hydro will be recognised as lower emissions technology but will no longer be subsidised. Importantly, the guarantee builds on our existing energy policy, which delivers to retailers offering consumers a better deal, stops the networks gaming the system, delivers more gas for Australians before it's shipped offshore, and the commencement of Snowy Hydro 2.0 will stabilise the system.
It being 8 pm, the House stands adjourned until 12 pm tomorrow.
House adjourned at 20:00
Last week we saw the release of damning figures about customer complaints regarding the NBN. In April we heard the Minister for Communications say that 2017 would be the year of the consumer. Well, I'm sad to inform the House that, as of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman complaints figures of 2016, complaints have surged by 159 per cent, when compared with the previous period. Of significant concern, NBN complaints are growing 37 per cent faster than the number of new NBN services being activated—a pattern not observed in any of the previous years.
I rise to bring to the attention to the House just how dire the circumstances are for a number of residents in my electorate of Oxley. I've held a number of crisis meetings that I've updated the parliament about in the Centenary suburbs and Springfield suburbs, areas that have new families moving in and new small businesses operating but that are being crippled by inferior technology that the government is obsessed about rolling out. I note the minister has just arrived in the chamber; I'm delighted that he's here to hear about the concerns of my residents when it comes to the NBN, because all we hear from the government, time and time again, is that it's all in hand, that it's all under control, that the people of Australia should be grateful that we're rolling out an inferior technology.
The week before last I met with senior citizens at a retirement village in Goodna. Once again, the No. 1 topic of concern was the rollout of the NBN. I bring to the attention of the House constituents like Pam, from Sinnamon Park, who has had problem after problem since her NBN was installed in March this year: the service provider blaming the NBN and NBN blaming the service provider, and it's still unresolved. Another of my constituents, Jean of Westlake, finally had her situation resolved last week. However, this was resolved after seven months, with dozens and dozens of pieces of communication—emails and telephone calls—not answered by NBN. And if that isn't bad enough: I've written to the Prime Minister, I've written to the minister and I've written to the CEO of NBN, with no response. Time and time again my constituents are being let down when it comes to the rollout of the NBN by this incompetent government. The community now has had data presented to them in the report last week. It's now time the government started listening.
It is just such an incredible privilege to represent the people of Goldstein in this place. I know you, Deputy Speaker Buchholz, share that about your community as much as I do. But what makes me most proud is the days you can stand up in the parliament and be able to talk about the incredible community activities that bind the social fabric of our community, and no more than an event that was held last month: the fifth annual Connor's Run, a charity event organised by the Robert Connor Dawes Foundation, in the wonderful electorate of Goldstein. Before I raise any concern, I will say that I, although you wouldn't know it by looking at me, completed Connor's Run this year—all 18 kilometres, the full length, from Hampton Life Saving Club to The Boatsheds, along the Yarra. It's a wonderful day to celebrate the life of Robert Connor Dawes and to celebrate the legacy of the work of focusing on how to deal with the challenges of and support for people with paediatric brain cancer.
The foundation was established by the parents of Robert Connor Dawes after Connor's battle with terminal brain cancer. Liz and Scott Dawes were determined to channel Connor's positive fighting spirit into an event to help raise money to combat childhood brain cancers. Since 2013, Connor's Run has raised over $1.7 million, which supported 63 cancer-fighting projects. In this year alone, Connor's Run has raised over $788,000. This money will be spent on supporting a range of causes, including the Aim Brain Project, which is bringing world-class personalised cancer treatment to Australia and which was supported in this year's federal budget under the Turnbull Liberal-National government. The project will support world-leading technology to help doctors better understand and classify individual tumours. With a clearer understanding of each tumour, specialists can then create better personalised treatments not just based on the placement of a tumour but on the actual molecular build. Other projects being supported in 2017 include the CERN Fellowship, Zero Childhood Cancer program and Brain Cancer Biobanking Australia.
Connor's personal mantra during his ordeal was: 'I will be awesome.' This determination to overcome and be awesome is reflected in the idea of the fun run each year. Of course, it isn't just an 18.8 kilometre run. There is also a 9.6 kilometre run for those who aren't up to the arduous task, as I was, from St Kilda into the city.
I want to congratulate not just Liz and Scott Dawes for their incredible work but also the hundreds of volunteers who supported runners along the track, the organisation and the sponsors who contributed to Connor's Run this year and, most importantly, the thousands of constituents and those beyond the Goldstein electorate who took part. Every one of you has made an incredible contribution that makes us immensely proud.
A couple of months ago, I spoke in this place about a constituent of mine, Michael Luciano. Michael is 13 and has severe global delay, epilepsy and cerebral palsy. It seems that, like a lot of people, his mum and his dad have been put through the wringer by the NDIS. A year ago, the National Disability Insurance Agency approved his NDIS plan, which included funding for a standing frame. According to Michael's physiotherapist, this is needed to help Michael walk again after a hip operation that he underwent last year. A year on, and Michael's mum and dad are still waiting for the standing frame that they need to help Michael to walk again.
In May this year, the NDIA told Michael's mum and dad that they have decided not to fund the standing frame for Michael. They made this decision, they said, because Michael was not able to use a standing frame for more than 30 minutes a day. That seems fair enough. The only problem with that is that Michael's mum and dad tell me that that is factually wrong. They say that he can use a standing frame for a lot more than 30 minutes a day. They've currently got a leased standing frame at home. It's too small for him and doesn't have all the functions that he needs, but I'm told by his mum and dad that he can use it for at least an hour a day, sometimes twice a day. So, it's a simple mistake—one that you think should be able to be easily fixed.
As I said, I've spoken about Michael's case in this place before. In June, I wrote to the minister responsible for the NDIS, Christian Porter, and asked him to intervene to fix it up. I've now got a letter back from the minister, but all the letter does is repeat the claims that were made by the NDIA before: that Michael can stand in a standing frame for only a maximum of 30 minutes. It seems that no-one in the NDIA or in the minister's office has even bothered to read the letter I wrote. I said in that letter what Michael's parents had told me, which is that he can use a standing frame for more than an hour a day. If the NDIA doesn't think that that's right, wouldn't you think that, over the last few months, they would have organised for Michael to be independently tested? It would seem to me that that would be the sensible thing to do, but it hasn't happened. All we've got is this letter saying that the things his parents tell me are factually wrong. That's not good enough. Decisions like this mean that Michael could be stuck in a wheelchair for the rest of his life.
There are more and more cases like Michael's that are starting to come through my door. Families are telling me that there are problems with the NDIS. We've got to get this right. It's a great initiative and it has so much promise. We can't afford to let people like Michael down. So, I urge the government, I urge the minister and I urge the NDIA to please have a look at this again, and please organise some independent testing of what Michael's mum and dad are saying so that he gets the services that he needs.
I rise to speak about two organisations in my electorate that are quite different in character and in purpose. The first of them is the Sunset Soaring Club, which originated with a group of model glider pilots who flew their model gliders on Sunday evenings over 30 years ago. Several times per year they host a 'Sunday morning fun fly'—a family barbecue with some friendly competition to encourage members of all skill levels to enjoy themselves. Just yesterday I had the chance to go and join in the fun at Golden Jubilee Field in Wahroonga. I learnt that one of the reasons that oval is a very good place for model planes is that it has lift from several sources, which means that the planes, once you get them up in the air and cut the engines, can glide for quite a long time. I witnessed a competition, and it was quite striking to see how long some of those model planes could stay in the sky, with, of course, the skilful manoeuvring done by their pilots using radio communications gear.
Another organisation in my electorate is the Eryldene Foundation and Trust—in fact, it is a pair of organisations—which supports the historic Gordon house Eryldene, which is now 103 years old. For 63 years Eryldene was the home of the Waterhouse family. EG Waterhouse was an eminent professor of languages at Sydney university and a noted camellia breeder, but he was also a great architecture enthusiast. He had the house built in 1914, and it is the most intact surviving example of the work of William Hardy Wilson, a prominent early 20th century Australian architect, who was an advocate of the colonial revival style.
These two organisations might seem quite different—indeed, they are quite different in their purposes—but they have something in common. Both of them have succeeded in receiving funding under the Turnbull government's Stronger Communities Program, which provides matching funding to organisations with purposes that benefit the community, lead to better community interaction and serve the community. Both these organisations, in their different ways, obviously meet the requirements of the Stronger Communities Program, and both of them have been successful in securing funding in recent rounds. In the case of the Sunset Soaring Club, it now has a storage shed, near the oval it uses, where some of its model planes and other things it requires for its activities can be stored, and that's of great value. In the case of Eryldene, the roof has been comprehensively refurbished, which is very, very important so that the house can be preserved for future generations. I congratulate all involved with both the Sunset Soaring Club and the Eryldene Foundation and Trust. Thank you for what you do.
Mental Health Week, which took place earlier this month, was an opportunity to acknowledge the prevalence and relative normality of mental ill health; to recognise that all of us will have friends, family and colleagues who at times struggle to cope with life and work and may keep that to themselves because there is still an unhelpful and unnecessary stigma attached to being mentally unwell. That's one of the reasons Mental Health Week is important. It is a reminder to focus on education, awareness and advocacy and a reminder to look after ourselves and one another and be informed about the treatment and support options that are available.
During Mental Health Week I was glad to visit two organisations in my electorate that are working to prevent and address mental ill health. I was very glad to speak at an event held by IFAP, the Industrial Foundation for Accident Prevention, which operates both an offshore and maritime training centre and a workplace safety training centre. IFAP works on the basis that mental health is just as important as physical health, and that's reflected in its training. Naturally, the main driver of this approach is the need to protect and help people who experience, or are at risk of experiencing, mental illness. Research highlighted by the Human Rights Commission indicates that job stress and other related psychosocial factors are emerging as leading contributors to the wider burden of occupational ill health. A total of 3.2 days per worker are lost each year through workplace stress, and Australian businesses lose around $6.5 billion each year. That could be reduced through early intervention and better treatment for employees who are at risk. I'm glad that IFAP is supporting employers and employees alike in the shared cause of ensuring that protecting good mental health is part of a safe and healthy workplace.
Also in the course of Mental Health Week I attended headspace in Fremantle, and I want to acknowledge Annabeth Bateman and her colleagues for the work that she and all the people in the headspace crew are doing to make their centre connected to our community. As members will know, headspace centres form a network across Australia and give young Australians somewhere to turn when they experience distress, panic attacks or unshakeable sadness. All those who took part in headspace events around the country were encouraged to identify one of the things that helps them feel better at times of anxiety or depression. I know for me it's swimming in the ocean. For others it's music, going for a walk or talking with friends. Mike Anderson, a young man I've known for a number of years as a local Labor activist, spoke about his experience with poor mental health through high school, highlighting the refuge, advice and affirmation that headspace provided. He's now part of their youth reference group. We have to go further in Australia to address and destigmatise mental illness. I'm grateful that a training organisation like IFAP is equipping workplaces and workers to be more resilient and responsive and that headspace is continuing to help young people navigate what can be dark and lonely waters.
We often see reports throughout our news media that create the impression that life on this planet is getting a lot worse, that we're polluting the planet and here in Australia we're making it much worse for people to live. Perhaps one of the best indicators of how false that actually is are some statistics released last week by our ABS on life expectancy. They showed that a young girl born in Australia in 2016 will have an estimated life expectancy of 84.6 years. A young boy born last year will have a life expectancy of an average of 80.4 years. Let's go back 125 years. People think if we go back to Mother Nature we won't have all the so-called environmental issues that we have today. People often think Mother Nature nurtures us. But Mother Nature is full of disease, floods, famine and droughts. Under Mother Nature, life was short. It was brutal, nasty and short. In fact, in the last 125 years, we have increased the life expectancy in this nation by an incredible 33.2 years for males and 33.7 years for females. Our previous generations of Australians have bestowed upon children born last year an extra 33 years of life. That is one of the most amazing statistics, I think, as an example of how we've improved our society. Most of us think that life is the most important thing. But to grant each Australian an additional 33 years of life in just over a century is something truly remarkable.
How have we done this? We know how it's not done. We've seen in countries where they adopt totalitarian socialist policies that their life expectancy has traditionally gone backwards. We've seen in countries like Zimbabwe over the last 40 years that their life expectancy rates have grown stagnant or actually fallen. Over the same period of time, in Australia our life expectancies have increased 12 to 13 years. We saw it in the Baltic states—prosperity drives life expectancy. We can truly be thankful our world is getting much better. (Time expired)
I rise today to acknowledge National Week of Deaf People. Specifically, I would very much like to acknowledge the work of groups such as Deaf Australia, Can Do Group—which is in my electorate—and Australian Hearing. One in a thousand babies are born with hearing loss, either total hearing loss or some form of partial hearing loss. Without the support services of groups like the ones I mentioned, families would be left out in the cold.
Some in this place might be aware many deaf Australians utilise Auslan as their main language and outlet for communication. This is an important way for people with hearing loss to communicate with others. Auslan was first recognised by the Hawke Labor government as a language in 1987. Today, I want to highlight the lack of supported interpreter and translation services. Currently, Auslan—shock horror!—is not one of the listed approved languages for translating and interpreting services. This clearly isn't good enough. The matter was exposed as part of a parliamentary inquiry into hearing by the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport. I sit on that committee as the deputy chair. The committee took widespread evidence from constituents and support groups from around the country and presented a report entitled Still waiting to be heard: report on the inquiry into the hearing health and wellbeing of Australia.
While translation and interpreting services remain in place for other languages, including everything from Arabic, Korean and Nepali to Chinese, Greek and Italian, Auslan is currently excluded by the government from interpreter services. This is a huge disadvantage for those facing or dealing with deafness in our society. Imagine if your primary language was Italian and the government did not have Italian interpreting services, that it was not an approved language. This is an outrage, and it needs to be fixed subito—in other words, immediately.
Members on this side of the House also note with alarm that the government attempted to look into privatising Australian Hearing. This effort began with the notorious commission of audit in 2014, despite the committee recommending that Australian Hearing remain in government hands. We remain concerned about the government's intentions relating to the privatisation of Australian Hearing, and we'll be keeping a close eye on this. We don't need further degradation in services to people of the deaf community. So we call on the government to categorically rule this out and to accept the committee's recommendations. I would encourage other members to engage with hearing-related agencies throughout the year, take a hearing test and support those with complete and partial hearing loss in the community.
This year the world celebrates the centenary of Lions Clubs. The Lions boast 46,000 clubs worldwide with over 1.6 million members. Their centenary is an incredible milestone. As I travel around the electorate of Calare, my admiration for our Lions keeps getting greater and greater. In every town and community you will see the Lions making true their motto, 'we serve'—serving their communities, serving in a cause greater than themselves.
Today I would firstly like to pay tribute to the wonderful Lithgow Lions Club. There are about 25 members in the Lithgow Lions, including President John Edwards and members Kim Edwards, Alan Blacklock, Joan Deeley, Heather Fitzgerald, William Neubeck, Barbara Bretherton, Sophie Chapman, Gus Denholm, William Evans, Del Friend, Robert Hillman, George Pilla, Rob Welch, Belinda Welch, Jenny Denholm, Lyn Facchina, Dorothy Gee, Alan Lindsay, Ken Collins, Darryl Fitzgerald, Graham Herbert, Ian 'Macca' McManus, Jean Stamper and Jenny Wilson. The Lions recently manned Lithgow's famous Ironfest in April and they will be at it again this weekend at Portland Spring Fair. The Lithgow Lions have also been helping to raise awareness for suicide prevention in our community. So today we salute the Lithgow Lions.
We also pay tribute to the Cudal and Cargo Lions, including President Richard Hazelton, secretary Lyn Frecklington, treasurer Graham Eslick, Jim Brian, who was awarded the most prestigious Melvyn Jones Fellowship for his service recently, Margaret Brien, Darcy Callan, Helen Coleman, Brigitte Eden, David Farrell, Kevin Frecklington, Craig Kollmyer, Brett Mill, Susan Parish, Janet Price, Brent Twaddle, Russell Wicks and Carolyn Smith. The Cudal and Cargo Lions are renowned for their catering at clearance sales in the Cabonne district, and this weekend they'll be working again at the Australian National Field Days.
Geurie is another fantastic Lions Club which I'd like to recognise, including President Rod Althofer, secretary Peter Perry, district governor and treasurer Anne Jones, Malcolm McLeod, Paul White, Neil Baker, Noel Parkes, Michael Ficard, Geoff Perry, John Mills, Jim O'Brien and Ronald 'Tiger' Paxton. The Geurie Lions are very active in our local community and they work very closely together with the Wellington Lions, including president Chris Hardy, secretary and treasurer Mike Augee, Geoff Clark, Ken Vodden, Vic Devenish, Jim Whillock, Pam Whillock, Russell Nott, Tony Sherwood, Tina Kitch, Dave Eslick, Gabbi Collins, John Whitley, who joined the Wellington Lions in 1963, and John Finn, who is the oldest member, at 89 years of age. He and his wife, Val, were recently at the convention dinner.
To all of our hardworking Lions throughout the Central West, I would like to thank you all for giving up your time to make our communities a better place and for making a real difference to the lives of the people within the communities of the Central West. Today, in the centenary of Lion, we salute our local Lions Club members.
I would like to draw the attention of this place to an Australian Federal Police bravery award awarded to two counterterrorism officers targeted in a frenzied attack by teenage jihadist Numan Haider on 23 September 2014. The officers, whose identities have to be suppressed, were recognised last week with the AFP bravery awards, almost three years after they almost died in the attack.
I want to talk about how it affected the particular officers in a second. But I wanted to draw to the attention of this place that the Coroner's Court of Victoria finding hailed the actions of both officers. Undisputed evidence to the court found Officer B almost certainly would have been killed, and possibly decapitated, had it not been for the actions of Officer A, who killed Haider with a single bullet to the head in order to save his colleague. An internal AFP memo confirmed Sergeant A had displayed conspicuous bravery at Endeavour Hills, Victoria, on 23 September 2014, where, despite having been seriously wounded as a result of a sustained knife attack, he saved the life of an AFP member. The memo said, 'Federal Agent B, for displaying conspicuous bravery at the Endeavour Hills Police Station in Victoria, on 23 September, where he was seriously wounded as a result of a sustained knife attack'. Officer B said he got through it with the support of friends, family and colleagues, as well as the support of the Australian public.
Three years have passed. This was Officer B talking to the Weekend Australian about the after-effects of what happened on that very dark evening:
'It’s etched into your mind, my kids’ faces in the hospital. I remember just as if it was yesterday,' he said. 'Things come back to you … you still get upset. It sort of never leaves you … it will always be there and you’re always reminded daily by the scars.'
It's funny when we have a discussion about counterterrorism in this place. Sometimes I think these two officers think that they might have been forgotten. I know these two officers, and I know them extremely well. I know that, in particular, Officer A, who discharged his weapon, still experiences some challenges, as does Officer B. So, even though we have an article in the Weekend Australian, the nature of the AFP bravery awards is that they'll be held in secret, because, if the names of these two gentlemen were known, they would be targeted; they would be killed.
So I would like to say to those two officers in particular, who believe sometimes that perhaps the public have forgotten the sacrifices they made on that night: 'This parliament hasn't forgotten. We honour what you did and were subjected to on that night, and we will not forget you or your families, regardless of how much time has elapsed.'
A heartfelt contribution by the honourable member for Holt. I give the call to the honourable member for Moore.
Earlier this year I participated in the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program by attending the Army's Combined Arms Training Centre, which includes the School of Artillery and the School of Armour at Puckapunyal in Victoria. The experience provided me with a new perspective of the Australian Defence Force as one of the most successful vocational training institutions in our country.
I was able to participate with our troops and officers in theoretical classes, develop my skills using state-of-the-art simulator technology and undertake practical field exercises, including live firing. It was good to take part in early morning physical training, to share in training activities and sit down to meals with our troops. The dedication and professionalism of our serving personnel in uniform greatly impressed me. It was great to attend the Army officers' course for captains, followed by an inspirational address on leadership in the lecture theatre by Major General Fergus McLachlan AM.
I experienced driving the M1 Abrams tank, a 60-tonne machine producing 1,500 horsepower from its turbine engine, considerably more power than the 500-horsepower prime movers which I'm accustomed to driving. I also experienced the use of the 155 millimetre M777 lightweight towed Howitzer, as well as navigating the vast Puckapunyal military area, travelling in the Australian light armoured vehicle, ASLAV, armoured personnel carrier.
I would like to record my sincere appreciation to Lieutenant Colonel Scott Fletcher, commanding officer of the School of Artillery, known as the 'Firemaster', who made my visit memorable. I thank Majors John Bennett and Benjamin Gray, and visiting Major Jason Dudley of the United States Army, as well as Captain Cameron Gibbins, Lieutenants Ellis, Roksa, Robinson, Linley, Winsor, Donnelly and Sue, and Warrant Officers Windridge and Toby, for accompanying me during the week. The experience was invaluable because it reinforced the need to ensure strong and continued investment in the maintenance and upgrade of our Defence Force facilities, particularly useful in my role as a member of the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Public Works. Whilst the defence budget will grow to two per cent of GDP by 2020-21, and the government will provide Defence with $34.6 billion this financial year and $150.6 billion over the forward estimates, there is merit in continuing to invest in our Defence Force facilities. I have seen firsthand that many Defence Force facilities are in need of upgrade and our military personnel could do with more resources.
In accordance with standing order 193, the time for member's constituency statements has now concluded.
I seek leave to amend the motion relating to endometriosis in the terms in which it appears in the Notice Paper.
Leave granted:
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) one in ten Australian women have endometriosis, a disease in which the tissue that is similar to the lining of the womb grows outside it in other parts of the body;
(b) there is a lack of understanding in the Australian community about endometriosis and the impact it has on women’s lives;
(c) the disease can lead to extreme pain, infertility and other complications related to the bowel, periods, headaches and a variety of other symptoms around the body;
(d) there is a delay in diagnosing endometriosis of up to seven to ten years because the symptoms are variable; and
(e) University of Sydney research has shown that endometriosis costs Australia $7.7 billion each year—two thirds of this is in lost productivity and the rest is in direct healthcare costs; and
(2) calls on the Australian Government to end the silence about endometriosis by raising awareness of the disease and its symptoms across Australia and promoting further research.
My connection with endometriosis began in the 1980s when one of my best friends from high school was diagnosed with this insidious disease. It wasn't until March this year, when I shared my friend's experience at an Endo March high tea with an audience of about 100 Canberrans, that I joined the Endo Warriors. We have many Endo Warriors here today—some from Canberra, some who have travelled all the way from Sydney—to hear debate on this motion. Thank you so much for being here today. After speaking about that event in parliament, I posted the speech on Facebook and I was overwhelmed by the response. The views of the speech went up by the hundreds into the thousands in minutes. Comments flowed in from across the country and from overseas—from New Zealand, from Canada, from Brazil. I heard from hundreds of women and mothers and fathers who bravely shared their heartbreaking stories—stories that seemed to be being unleashed for the very first time. We heard of the misdiagnosis, the myths, the hysterectomies, the endless operations, the lost opportunities, the cost and the dreadful, dreadful pain, and of the daily struggle to take control of their lives.
Each and every one of the people behind me has a similar story. This is one recent story I heard: 'When I was diagnosed in 1981, so little was known about the disease. They called it the nun's disease. My doctor wasn't able to tell me much. I was prescribed testosterone tablets at $100 a bottle. I was told the only cure for endo was pregnancy.' From Katie: 'I work for myself and can't take days off. Having just spent days in agony not working, as I do for every month, for the last 20 years, the questioning by three different people at the pharmacy is embarrassing enough, let alone having to explain that my bowel is attached to my uterus and my surgery isn't until sometime next year.' From Samantha: 'It nearly killed me twice in a matter of months and my entire life has changed because of it. I've had 10 laparoscopic surgeries, one perforated bowel, another three corrective surgeries, a lot of scars, 18 months of hell and what will probably be a lifetime of pain.' From Jenna: 'Now, at 29, I have to have a hysterectomy. The amount of money that has been lost so I can do day-to-day things is astounding.' From Michelle: 'How about not being diagnosed until you are 53 and then it's not just endometriosis but it's grade 4. And in my 30s being told by a male doctor to go home and have vigorous sex to burst a possible ovarian cyst. I am a mess and will be needing a partial bowel resection along with a hysterectomy.
Since that first speech I have shared many stories like these in parliament on a weekly basis. I have shared these stories because they are the most powerful way of communicating the emotional, the physical and the professional toll of this insidious disease—the toll of this disease on the individual, the toll on the families, the toll on the friends, the toll on partners, the toll on the nation. I have shared these stories because I have been confronted and deeply moved by the tragedy of this disease. I've been confronted by the horror experienced by women, with beautiful young bodies, when they see for the first time the scars from their first operation.
I've been confronted by normally fit women with enormous potential being dubbed the sick person in the office. I've been confronted by the erosion in self-confidence and self-esteem that comes from a life of pain, uncertainty, fear, constant interventions and not being taken seriously. I've been confronted by the amount of radical operations inflicted on women, often at a very young age. I've been confronted by the lack of understanding and discrimination that exists in the workplace. I've been confronted by the lack of intimacy in relationships because sex lives are ruined by pain and endless bleeding. I've been confronted by the financial burden when women should be saving for first cars, new furniture for their rental, a deposit on a home, a trip overseas with their family or a holiday at the coast.
I've been confronted and deeply moved by the fact that so many women feel so alone and so frightened. They feel voiceless and powerless. I've been confronted and deeply moved by the courage of these women and their family and friends to share their experiences. I've been deeply confronted by the ignorance that this affects one in 10 women, which is why I will speak again and again on this issue.
After the member for Boothby heard one of my speeches in the chamber, we paired up to establish the bipartisan Parliamentary Friends of Endometriosis. We're looking forward to launching the friends next month. We're looking forward to working with the endo community to deliver change. We're looking forward to working with the endo community to show that they are not alone and to end the silence about endometriosis, this insidious disease, that is affecting one in 10 women in Australia each and every day.
I call for a seconder of the motion.
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Before I give the call to the honourable member for Forrest, I acknowledge the members in the gallery here and welcome them to the parliament.
Today I want to warn all young women to be aware of the symptoms of endometriosis. My daughter was one of those one in 10. I don't want any other young woman to go through what my daughter went through because of the failure to diagnose the disease early enough to prevent life-changing surgery. It took until she was in her 30s before a doctor finally said those words, 'You have endometriosis.'
Kylie had all the symptoms from high school age—heavy periods with extreme pain, short cycles, bloating, spotting in between, pelvic pain, constipation and migraines. After five failed attempts to carry out a pap smear test she visited a gynaecologist, who made her feel as though she was overstating her symptoms. She was married by then and had continuous problems with contraceptives and sexual function—the bleeding spoken about—but was told that she was normal and to just have a baby. Even though she knew she wasn't imagining the symptoms or making them up, she believed she just had to toughen up.
Her symptoms continued to worsen over time. Changes to her bowel and bladder emerged. She developed a fistula in her bowel. A second gynaecologist did exploratory surgery. A third gynaecologist recognised the images from her last day surgery and was concerned about the possibility of irritable bowel syndrome, so did his own exploratory surgery. He was the first one to say to her: 'I'm so sorry. No wonder you are in so much pain. You have the worst case of endometriosis I've ever seen. Unfortunately, it's been so aggressive it has attached itself to your bowel and is strangling it.'
To Kylie the scans looked like dozens of cobwebs overlapping each other attached to her insides. Multiple consultations and tests followed, as did medically induced menopause, her hair falling out in clumps and multiple surgeries to remove both tubes and an ovary. By March 2014 she was working with a colorectal surgeon and her gynaecologist, who conducted a bowel resection to remove what was affected by the endo.
Post op Kylie developed an infection at the drain site that camouflaged other very serious internal complications. She was rushed into emergency with excruciating pain, a skyrocketing temperature and faeces excreting through her urinary passage. She had surgery in Perth and spent 11 days in intensive care, and we nearly lost her. She had peritonitis, septicaemia, a lower bowel infection and a burst appendix, and her heart went into fibrillation when a PICC line was being inserted. She had 1,500 internal staples, 15 tubes inserted, three external colostomy bags, one of which was an ileostomy, and that jigsaw of scars on her body. Her weight fell to under 40 kilos. She subsequently spent weeks having three bags changed every day at our local Harvey Hospital by some wonderful caring local nurses. The first attempt to reattach her bowel and remove the ileostomy was not possible. She went into the surgery hoping it would be gone but woke up post-surgery still with the ileostomy. It was just the latest test of her mental and physical endurance.
Do I have to tell you what it felt like to sit beside her bed for 11 days, willing her to live and telling her just to breathe—'Breathe, sweetheart. Just breathe, Kylie'? Do I have to tell you how much pain she's been through? Do I have to tell you it shouldn't have come to this? I say to every young woman: take these symptoms seriously. Get a second or third opinion, if necessary. I say to GPs and gynaecologists: I know the complexity of the diagnosis, but please take seriously every young woman like Kylie who presents to you with these symptoms, young women whose instincts and symptoms are telling them there is a problem.
I'd also like to say how proud I am of my daughter. She suffered immeasurably. But, through it all, she never gave up, even when she was at her lowest in that intensive care bed, when we didn't know whether she would survive or not. One day she could not even lift her head off her pillow to kiss her father's hand as he left her bedside—that is how low she was. But she wanted so desperately to live. She fought to live. I am proud of her unfailing courage, her internal personal strength and her sense of humour.
It is not over for Kylie. It is not over for you women sitting here today. There is no cure for endometriosis. Like the member opposite, I'm very pleased to be an endometriosis ambassador. I urge every young woman to take these symptoms seriously and for every GP and gynaecologist to do the same.
I am pleased to be following on from the member for Forrest and, indeed, the member for Canberra. I thank the member for Canberra for bringing this motion to this House so that we can raise awareness about endometriosis. Endometriosis is a hidden women's health problem, generally because women tend to suffer in silence. We have already heard accounts of this. It is, after all—and many will be familiar with this—often defined as just period pain and part and parcel of our menstrual cycle. Or my favourite way for it to be described is, 'It's just a woman's lot and you just need to deal with it.' But when period pain is so excruciating it leaves you debilitated, having to take time off work, resorting to heavy painkillers and spending days in bed, for those who need to stay home, we have to recognise this isn't just the plight of menstruation anymore. This is something more serious.
One in 10 Australian women suffer from endometriosis. It is a health issue that causes significant pain, as we've heard. If it goes untreated it can often lead to infertility and to more serious complications, which we have just heard about from the member for Forrest. For all too long endometriosis has been dismissed by GPs and doctors in Australia, as I said, as just as heavy, painful period pain. It is a common condition where tissues similar to the lining of the endometrium which normally lines the uterus are found in abnormal sites around the body. It can be diagnosed only by undergoing a laparoscopy or biopsy. When women are eventually diagnosed or seek additional health attention in relation to endometriosis it often follows a long and arduous road of misdiagnosis, pain, anxiety and, more often than not, silent suffering.
Adding to this 'women's lot' syndrome are the many cultural and religious attitudes towards women's menstrual cycles. You can find a situation in this instance which almost ensures that women of culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds find it harder to speak let alone have the courage to seek medical advice. I have a very large number of culturally and linguistically diverse women in my electorate. This is a very pertinent issue for them. I'm very concerned for those who are unaware or too embarrassed to seek help from their local GPs and, more importantly, I'm concerned for those women who don't feel their female menstrual health is important enough to seek medical advice. So I am always grateful for the great work that women in my electorate do to help each other on a raft of issues, endometriosis awareness being one of them.
I want to pay tribute to Dr Umber Rind, who established a medical practice in my electorate that focuses primarily on women's health so that refugee and migrant women in particular have a safe space to discuss their issues. Raising awareness, diagnosing and treating endometriosis tackles cultural and religious taboos associated with menstruation head-on and ensures that the women in my electorate seek help and understand that, left too long or untreated, endometriosis can lead to infertility—and this is a more serious issue for CALD families in particular, who place a significant importance on starting a family. My refugee and migrant constituents are more often than not from a low socioeconomic background. IVF treatment may not be an option they can afford, lending itself to a whole host of other psychological health issues associated with not being able to have children. Dr Rind and her staff help women talk about these issues and encourage them to seek help.
I also want to acknowledge this new generation of younger women from CALD backgrounds, such as Dr Rind, and others, who are shifting taboos about women's health. I want to acknowledge in particular another young woman, Nelly Skoufatoglou, the English edition editor of the Greek Australian newspaper Neos Kosmos, for her work in using her personal experience of endometriosis to raise awareness. Nelly has been vocal about her experiences with endometriosis in ethnic media and social media in an attempt to debunk any myths around this condition and highlight the importance of treatment and, importantly, recognition, specifically in the core communities. In an article published earlier this year, Nelly talks about her journey with endometriosis—her eight years of silence suffering numerous misdiagnoses, several GP visits, specialists and surgeons. She talks about the effect this has had on her day-to-day life: the pain, the bleeding, the exhaustion, anxiety, tests, hormones, antibiotics, frustration, failed relationship after failed relationship, and her secret fear of losing her sanity. This is a courageous young woman who knows that the only way to change perceptions about this silent disease is by going public with them. Raising awareness is important because there is no other way to encourage women to seek advice and to speak up about this very silent condition.
I thank the honourable member for Calwell for her valued contribution. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
I'd just like to acknowledge the member for Canberra, my colleague who has done so much work on this issue—and we are working closely together to help end the silence on endometriosis. I see we have Endometriosis Australia over here, and a lot of supporters as well. Welcome, ladies; thank you for being here.
I am very pleased to speak about the important work that is being done in this area and the work that will continue to be done over the coming months and years. Since the member for Canberra and I founded Parliamentary Friends of Endometriosis Awareness earlier this year. the response I've received from the community has really been quite stunning. It has galvanised my resolve the see this women's health issue better understood, better diagnosed and better treated.
The number of women close to me, whether they're friends or colleagues, who have approached me to talk about endo since the member for Canberra and I put this on the agenda is really quite stunning. The prevalence of this issue is beyond anything that I imagined. I am shocked and saddened that so many women have suffered in silence and so badly for so long. Some of the experiences that have been shared with me are truly heartbreaking and these are the sorts of things where we will be working to make sure they don't happen in the future. Despite the fact there has not been enough research into this disease, we have estimates that it afflicts one in 10 Australian women, and 176 million women worldwide. Anecdotally, if the number of women I personally know who are sufferers is any indication, I can confirm that this figure is not far off the mark, and it could well be higher.
So, what is endo? Endometriosis is a disease that causes the cells that line the uterus to grow as lesions in other parts of the body within the pelvis, causing inflammation, severe pain and scar tissue. These lesions can stick organs together so that women have to have parts of their bowel removed, their ovaries removed, surgery to their bladder or even a full hysterectomy. When I talk about the pain of endo, I mean pain that is so severe that women can't get out of bed to go to school, to university or to work. This may be pain during their period, but it may be pain that lasts longer than that; it may last throughout the month or throughout the year. When women are suffering pain in such a constant manner it becomes chronic pain, and that is when we have very severe complications that are much more difficult to treat.
Women often delay consulting a doctor for years for their condition, in part because we fail to educate women about what is normal in terms of period pain. Also, we fail to educate them as to when they need to seek medical assistance and investigation. But when they do seek medical assistance and investigation, we know that there is often a delay of eight years before they get a diagnosis, which is just far, far too long. Commonly, women see health professionals like physios or bowel specialists and all sorts of other specialists before they finally get to a gynaecologist to deal with their pain. When they do see a gynaecologist, unfortunately, things don't necessarily get better. They are subject to multiple surgical procedures and are told things that, as we now know, are a bit of an old wives' tale—such as, if they just have a baby, things will get better. We know that is not the case.
On 9 September this year, the member for Canberra and I attended the Endo Active Conference in Sydney, which is an initiative spearheaded by the irrepressible Syl Freedman. Syl has done much to raise awareness of this condition and works with groups like Endometriosis Australia and the Pelvic Pain Foundation to support women with endo and to educate us all.
The lack of community and medical knowledge about this terrible condition has made it very difficult to deal with. For too many years, women have suffered in silence. They've suffered interrupted school and university education, struggled to hold down a job and struggled to have babies and start families. The cost to the lives of endo sufferers, their families, the health system and, indeed, the economy overall, must be huge. This is why we need more research and an increased understanding of this disease and how to treat it. This is why the member for Canberra and I are doing our small part to end the silence on endometriosis. We are continuing to advance the cause of sufferers. We have met with officials from the Department of Health and the Minister for Health's office, and I know that the member for Canberra is speaking with the shadow minister for health as well, so that we can do all we can to end the silence on endo and to help find better treatment outcomes for women but also, hopefully, a cure. The friendship group, together with other supporters like our Chief Government Whip, Nola Marino, who is an endo ambassador, will be doing all we can, along with all of the other wonderful groups, to end the silence on endo.
I thank the member for Canberra for bringing this motion before the House. I welcome those endo warriors from Canberra and Sydney. Endometriosis is a very personal medical condition, which should not be ignored. We are here today not to be silent. Today I intend to tell the story of a person in her own words about the impact that endometriosis has had on her life.
Katherine, a young woman from my electorate, who I know quite well, has been living with endometriosis for almost 10 years. These are Katherine's words:
I started experiencing symptoms of endometriosis when I was 18 years old but did not get a diagnosis until I was 23.
I saw various doctors, all who told me that I was experiencing was normal and it would get better as I aged.
I was experiencing extremely heavy and painful periods, bowel pain, pelvic pains that would shoot down my legs.
I was constantly bloated and had pain before, during and after my period. I was basically living in pain 24/7.
I was in my early 20's and was meant to be living my life, not constantly being in pain.
When I protested, I was sent for a pelvic ultrasound, all of which came back clear.
It was affecting my school and university studies and I just wanted an answer.
I finally saw a GP who believed the pain that I was constantly in. She immediately sent me to see an endometriosis excision specialist in Tasmania.
The specialist operated on me 4 weeks after initially seeing me and she found endometriosis on my bowel and left ovary.
My bowel was twisted and stuck to my pelvic wall.
When I was in recovery I got angry. I was angry that I was seeing GP's who told me that this pain was normal and angry that it took so long for a diagnosis. I got so angry that I decided to do volunteer work for Endometriosis Australia and make what I was going through worth something.
I now assist in running an online support group for sufferers of Endometriosis and ran a successful high tea to raise funds in 2016.
Endometriosis is not curable and I have had many hormonal treatments to help me manage my disease. Some have worked and some haven't.
The cost of this adds up very quickly and it has been difficult to afford my treatments and medication when I have had to take time off work because of this disease.
There is not much support or help for sufferers of endometriosis in North West Tasmania.
Everyone who suffers with the disease needs to travel to Hobart to see an endometriosis excision specialist.
For some of these people this means time off work and away from family.
I believe that it would be extremely beneficial for an endometriosis excision specialist to travel to the North West Coast once a month to see patients.
Excision surgery is an effective way to treat endometriosis, however, not all gynaecologists are excision specialists.
Education is also a must for all: employers, high school students, families and even GP's.
I believe that endometriosis education needs to be included in all high schools so that young girls know that constant period pain is not normal.
I also believe that sufferers of endometriosis in North West Tasmania would benefit from seeing a pelvic floor specialist who understands, manages and treats the pelvic pain associated with endometriosis.
I would like to congratulate Katherine for her bravery and for allowing me to share her very personal story. Endometriosis affects so many people like Katherine—people's partners, families and friends—in fact, one in ten Australians. It is a cruel disease that leaves people suffering in silence. Being uncomfortable when you have a period is normal; pain that stops life is not.
I again congratulate the member for Canberra for bringing this motion before the House today and thank those who've come here. I join with the member in calling for the government to end the silence on this disease and for all Australians to be far more well educated on this disease.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and talk to this motion that has been brought to the chamber. I acknowledge the contribution of colleagues here in the chamber this morning and some of the personal stories and testimonies that have been shared with us all. It reminds us of the mystery of endometriosis and the fact that the answer to the causes of endometriosis is not clear at all. We know that it is likely that there is no single cause. A number factors may perhaps include genetics or environmental impacts, but the actual causes still remain a mystery for Australians, for doctors and particularly for women suffering from endometriosis.
The estimates, as colleagues have mentioned, are that one in 10 women suffer from endometriosis, with 176 million women worldwide suffering from endometriosis. It reminds us all that this is a significant condition, a significant disease, that we must continue to research and promote awareness of. Endometriosis impacts on aspects of a women's total life. It's not just the physical symptoms, as many of us know, that a woman has to deal with but the financial, relationship and emotional impacts, and at times the mental health impacts as well. My understanding is that the world endometriosis conference in 2023 is going to be held in Edinburgh. I'm sure all of us would be very much behind supporting the objectives of Endometriosis Australia to continue to strive for a conference here in the years to come.
In terms of promotion of awareness of and research into the endometriosis condition, there's no specific government program specifically devoted to endometriosis. Of course, there is support through universal health programs. Those of us who have been touched by endometriosis in our lives would all be aware of rebated services through the Medicare Benefits Scheme and subsidised medicines et cetera through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, something that this government continues to focus on. Surgery is a proven way of removing endometriosis. I am advised that there are six items on the NBS to cover that, and $19 million was expended through MBS rebates in 2016-17 for just over 35,000 such services.
I continue to discuss the government's focus, and I'm sure one that is shared by all, in maintaining a national digital gateway for women's health and wellbeing and the fact that the Jean Hailes Foundation has made a significant contribution in raising awareness of women's health issues, including endometriosis. The Department of Health continues to liaise with chronic disease peak organisations and to receive advice and direction on a range of those chronic conditions. As I mentioned earlier, Endometriosis Australia is a national peak organisation leading the charge on much of this. These investments and this focus on promotion research is significant, and I'm proud that our government is focused on that. But with this particular condition there is always more that can be done. I think we should all continue to strive for that, and all of us as members of this House should remain in support of Endometriosis Australia in regard to that.
Obviously endometriosis is a women's disease, but it is a disease that affects so many Australians who support, love, live with and are friends of women suffering from this condition. From my perspective, like many of us, as a brother, a partner, a husband, a father, a friend, I know full well the impact that endometriosis can have on women and their lives—financially, emotionally, relationship-wise and in some cases from a mental health perspective. Getting that understanding and perspective and getting that support is something that this motion is certainly promoting. I support those sorts of aspects. I recognise what the government is doing, but at the end of the day we must recognise that this impacts on all of us.
The time allotted to the debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this House
(1) acknowledges the success of the New Colombo Plan (Plan);
(2) recognises that the Plan will have supported more than 30,000 Australian undergraduates to live, study and undertake internships in the Indo-Pacific by the end of 2018;
(3) welcomes the establishment of the Plan’s alumni ambassadors program, which will support the Plan’s alumnus from across the country to promote the value of engaging with the Indo-Pacific region;
(4) notes that numerous prime ministers, presidents and foreign ministers of the lndo-Pacific region have lauded the Plan as evidence of Australia’s commitment to building enduring relationships across the region; and
(5) recognises that the Plan is enhancing Asian literacy amongst Australian undergraduates, deepening Australia’s engagement in the region and strengthening Australia’s international education sector, which is one of our largest services export industries.
I am delighted to move this motion today to recognise the extraordinary success of the New Colombo Plan. I would like to start by paying tribute to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who devised and implemented the plan. Not only does the plan partner with our neighbours in the region; it provides incredible educational and life experiences for our university students and builds relationships in countries from India to Indonesia, Bangladesh to Burma and Pakistan to Papua New Guinea.
Now, more than ever, our nation must strengthen its relationships with our neighbours in the Indo-Pacific. The emerging prominence of these economies and their growing middle class demands that Australia builds a thorough understanding of our region. This knowledge must permeate all of our institutions, from government to business and throughout the public. The New Colombo Plan, devised and executed by our foreign minister, is a signature and forward-thinking initiative of the coalition government that works towards these aims and, while doing so, provides life-changing educational experiences for some of our best and brightest young minds.
The immense success of the plan can be seen in its uptake among students. By the end of 2018 the New Colombo Plan will have supported more than 30,000 students from around Australia to undertake experiences in 40 locations across the Indo-Pacific. In just four years, by the end of 2018, the New Colombo Plan will have supported 770 students from Flinders University, which is in the heart of my electorate and from where, I'm proud to say, I graduated. Sadly, we didn't have the New Colombo Plan when I was going through. In this time, across South Australia, the plan will have supported more than 2,327 students, giving each of them a unique and highly useful understanding of their host nations, which will no doubt be of use in their professional life but also to us as a nation overall.
The New Colombo Plan also boasts significant private sector engagement, with 19 champions and over 240 registered businesses as part of the plan's internship and mentoring network. Again, the substantial private sector interest is testament to the plan's potential over the long term, as our regional neighbours continue to reach new economic milestones.
On Friday, 6 October I was delighted to join the foreign minister as she launched another important aspect of the New Colombo Plan, the South Australian alumni program. At the launch we heard from two incredibly inspirational young students who have participated in the plan: Charlie Hamra from the University of Adelaide and Michelle Howie from the University of South Australia. Michelle studied engineering and Korean at Chung Ang University in Seoul and undertook a research work placement at KAIST, a public research university in Daejon, and she interned at Telstra in Hong Kong. Charlie studied Indian politics and culture at Jamia Millia Islamia and interned at the Centre for Escalation of Peace in New Delhi, where he organised a second-track dialogue between India and Bhutan.
I met Farwaaz Karim from Flinders University. He is Flinders' alumni ambassador and is undertaking bachelor's degrees in law, accounting and economics. In 2015 he undertook a commerce exchange program in Singapore through a New Colombo Plan mobility grant. Since the completion of his exchange he has worked with Spire Research and Consulting, Infrastructure Finance Australia, BankSA and, most recently, the government of South Australia. It's a very impressive list of experiences, which I'm sure were in part inspired by what he learnt overseas.
The mobility grants are an important part of the NCP—the plan—and Flinders uni has made good use of them. At the alumni launch I had the pleasure of meeting Mr Sebastian Raneskold, Vice-President and Pro-Vice-Chancellor (International). We heard that Flinders University had sent students to Malaysia and Hong Kong and that 12 nursing and midwifery students will undertake a four-week clinical placement in hospital and community health services in 2018 in Indonesia, our largest and closest neighbour.
In closing, I'd like to remark on two factors that stood out for me at the alumni launch. First was the diplomatic value of the New Colombo Plan and what it delivers for Australia. The foreign minister shared with us the genuine goodwill the plan generates with leaders across our region, from presidents to prime ministers to foreign ministers. Second was the energy and enthusiasm our Australian students now have for the country in which they've studied, the culture they've learnt so much about and the new friendships they've formed. This is a truly great program for Australians and our neighbours alike and I can't wait to see us achieve over 30,000 New Colombo Plan graduates by the end of 2018.
I thank the member. Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Overall I support the New Colombo Plan's aims and acknowledge progress in its delivery. I said in my first speech that the Australian people expect us to seek compromise and agreement across parties, and we should acknowledge when something's a good initiative. We shouldn't just bag and throw out things because they're someone else's idea and, of course, we should interrogate to see what's working and how things can be improved. Overall, in my view, the New Colombo Plan is a positive step which builds on Australia's decades-long tradition in public diplomacy in our region. It's too early to meaningfully assess the longer term benefits and outcomes, but we should expect tangible and intangible benefits from people-to-people contact over years and decades. The tangible are trade, economic and academic links, but the intangible, which can be as valuable or more valuable, fundamentally boil down to mutual understanding.
Improvements are possible. I've heard legitimate criticisms of the NCP, things like: a persistent criticism that it's too focused on elites—the wealthiest—and we need to address the equity issues; suggestions that there would be merit in extending the program to provide some focus on vocational qualifications; and scepticism from some about the value of the relatively short sojourns, in that this is a very different program from the original Colombo Plan, where study was generally for extended periods. There are concerns that there's a lack of focus on meaningful or substantive language acquisition and that the program's funded in part by cuts to the Australia Awards programs, which bring to Australia the best and brightest minds from Asia. These remain critically important, in my view, and it cannot be either-or.
The context is important, however. As always with this government, you've got to have a look at what's not said to really understand. Australia's future is inextricably linked to Asia. Geography is not destiny, but it is reality. We must do much more to deepen our relations with Asia, to seek, in the words of Paul Keating, 'Security in Asia, not from Asia'. This should be bipartisan and it should be sustained. Shame on you, government, for not having the generosity we're showing to the New Colombo Plan—you digitally burnt the Australia in the Asian century white paper. Slogans like 'more Jakarta and less Geneva' are not a substitute for foreign policy.
Penny Wong has made some wonderful, substantial speeches in recent months, laying the foundations for what will be a brilliant tenure as foreign minister. One point she makes powerfully is the need to understand the cultures of Asia and the mindsets of its people—the communitarian approach. Visiting alone, a bit of study and a few friends are not enough. The main window into culture is language, and our dismal record at learning Asian languages is an enormous problem. So, shame on this government for walking away from Labor's efforts to boost Asian language literacy. Those things have to be maintained for decades to have any meaningful impact.
As we have heard, the New Colombo Plan is being lauded as a signature initiative of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, central to her legacy—no doubt she's focused on that now! And, while worthy, if this is her signature, the height of her ambitions for Australian diplomacy, then it's pretty sad when compared to the work of some of her predecessors of real calibre. It's not even a new idea, really—it's a resuscitation of an old idea from a Menzies era student exchange program. They are not that interested in picking up Menzies's ideas about homeownership though—being focused on us becoming a nation of landlords and renters.
Minister Bishop is a generally competent transactional minister, it's fair to say. She engages, she charms and she reads her DFAT prepared lines beautifully. She generally responds well to events—putting aside the meltdown on New Zealand, when she was trying to influence domestic politics with her little tantrum that New Zealand Labour may win government. It was actually a bit sad for those opposite who support her—I know she has some support—to watch her leadership ambitions go up in smoke that week in the House, as the true extent of her glass jaw and her lack of judgement when she goes off script without DFAT dot points was revealed. I almost wondered whether she was setting us on a path to war, but then she was reined in.
Fundamentally, she lacks ambition and big strategic goals for Australia. I was reminded of this last week when we hosted Gareth Evans. What a contrast. He has an incredible intellect, strategic nous and achievements that this minister could only dream of: the chemical weapons treaty, where the US called him and asked for help; the Cambodia-Paris peace accords—Bishop kowtowed last week to Cambodia; progress on denuclearisation; the Canberra commission; creation of the regional architecture that we live off today with APEC and the ASEAN ARF, laying the foundations for his later work on peace building and the responsibility to protect doctrine; the anti-apartheid movement; and the Antarctic commission. In this context, 'modest' is really an overstatement for the New Colombo Plan, compared to Gareth's achievements. Then again, it's a lot more than can be said for their previous foreign minister, that sad sack Downer. His only achievement that anyone can think of is lasting longer than Gareth. While we welcome the New Colombo Plan, it is not a substitute for substantive policy.
Thank you to the member for Boothby for raising this very important motion. When the coalition government took office, one of its first great announcements and actions was to establish this New Colombo Plan. It is a signature policy in the coalition's foreign policy platform. As a middle power, Australia naturally invests significant thought and effort regarding its role and its place in this world. How we interact with countries in the Asia-Pacific region, and further abroad, has a significant impact on our own future and on the future of the planet. If we want to interact meaningfully, if we want to trade more, build ties, achieve international goals, foster relationships and, indeed, build friendships, we need Australians to be as literate as possible when it comes to the cultures, the languages, the practices and the business practices of our neighbours.
The New Colombo Plan continues to be a crucial element of this government's long-term plans to build closer relations for Australia in our region, including at the grassroots level. By building these networks and strengthening Australia's connections in our region, economic growth, prosperity and stability may continue to grow, hopefully for many years to come. In its first five years, the New Colombo Plan will have supported more than 30,000 young Australians—undergraduates from 40 Australian universities—to undertake study and work based placements in 35 different locations across our region. We are on track to meet that 30,000 target. Not only is this expanding the horizons of some of our best and brightest future leaders, it's creating more opportunities and links for Australians at large.
I had the huge privilege earlier this year to meet some of the New Colombo Plan recipients from around my electorate of Brisbane. I met with them both in Brisbane and here in Canberra, when some of them visited. Their placements stretch right across the Asia-Pacific region. What struck me most was their eagerness to learn about the countries they were travelling to, and their hope to be fully immersed into the languages and the cultures they would experience. They did really recognise that huge and rare opportunity before them. I was really confident that they would make both Brisbane and Australia very, very proud.
Thousands of Australian undergraduates are returning to Australia now with new skills and networks from their experiences across the region. They enhance Australia's capacity to engage with our neighbours into the future. I was really taken earlier—I think it was earlier this year when the Singaporean Prime Minister visited—by that story of how the Singaporean Prime Minister's wife had previously spent a significant amount of time in Australia under a similar program many decades ago, and how that had fostered that great relationship we now have with Singapore. In particular, I want to give a shout-out to some QUT students, like Alexandra Tran, who have become New Colombo Plan alumni ambassadors after their very successful stints overseas. Alexandra did a three-month internship with QBE in Hong Kong and now she studies with the New Colombo Plan scholarship in Korea.
New Colombo Plan recipients have been working on a range of projects, from entrepreneurship in Fiji, to humanitarian engineering and work in India, to Mandarin language immersion in China, to industrial design projects to support people with disabilities in Singapore. That's a great and broad array of backgrounds. Equally, this program supports students from Australia with a broad array of backgrounds. We're talking of Indigenous students, students with disabilities, students from regional and remote areas, students who began their life in a refugee camp, students who are the first in their families ever to attend university, as I was, or indeed the first in their family even to have a passport and travel overseas.
Over 60 per cent of New Colombo Plan mobility grant recipients are female; 15 per cent were born overseas; and over 20 per cent speak a language at home other than English. A full 10 per cent have never travelled overseas before. Around 240 private sector organisations have signed up to support the program, offering those internships and mentorships to these scholars. Nineteen Australian business leaders have joined the New Colombo Plan as business champions. They'll be promoting the program across their networks to emphasise the real value of this. Many of the businesses involved are providing transformational opportunities for all of these new Australian future leaders so that they gain real-life experience in the workplace.
So, the New Colombo Plan is going from strength to strength. It has broad support from right across the parliament, the university sector, business, the broader community and, importantly, our region. I commend it.
I have spoken frequently in this chamber in the past about the need for Australia to tackle with a sense of urgency the task of engaging with our region. As shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen recently noted, Australia needs a step change across government, business and culture in its engagement with Asia. There's a middle class of 1.7 billion people in our region, bigger than all of Europe and North America combined, but less than 10 per cent of Australian businesses currently do business in Asia. Our northern neighbour Indonesia is predicted to become the fourth-largest economy in the world, but it's not even in Australia's top 10 trading partners. Indeed, we invest more in New Zealand, a country of just four million people, than we do in Indonesia, a country of more than 260 million.
The reality is that Australia's Asia capability in our governments, businesses, education, and cultural institutions is very low. We have a big task ahead of ourselves if we want to engage effectively with Asia in the future. Programs like the New Colombo Plan, which supports students who choose to study in a non-Australian city in our region, are a good start. It is particularly pleasing that Indonesia is the most popular destination for undergraduates under the New Colombo Plan. But we shouldn't get too carried away with its success. When looking at the backgrounds of New Colombo Plan participants, there's a real question about whether Australian kids from all backgrounds are getting an equal opportunity to participate in it.
Further, the scale and impact of the program can be easily overestimated. Thirty thousand Australian undergrad students will spend some time abroad under the plan by the end of 2018—all to the good. But the Erasmus program in Europe, designed to promote cross-cultural engagement between students in the EU, saw over 200,000 students travel to a different city in the European Union in 2013-14 alone. By 2020, more than four million European students will have participated in the program. For the equivalent level of engagement with Asia under the New Colombo Plan, adjusted to Australia's student population, we would need to be sending at least 50 per cent more Australians into the region every year. So it's a good start but, taken alone, the program doesn't reflect the urgency of the need to engage and improve our Asia capability.
To truly build engagement and scale in a way that all Australians are able to participate in, we need to be looking for opportunities across all facets of our society. Building Asia capability through high school engagement and youth leadership exchanges are also important in this regard. I recently had the opportunity to see a great example of this in action when I hosted the shadow Treasurer and delegates from the Conference of Australian and Indonesian Youth at a session with students studying Bahasa Indonesia at Williamstown High School in my electorate. The Williamstown High School Bahasa Indonesia program is led by dedicated teachers Matthew Grose and Sharon Croft and includes a sister-school partnership with Labschool in Jakarta. Students have been travelling backwards and forwards between Willi High and Labschool for a number of years now. Willi High students recently returned from a trip to Indonesia to homestay with Labschool students' families. Unfortunately, the kids at Willi High are swimming against the tide. Depressingly, more Australians were studying Bahasa Indonesia when Gough Whitlam was the Prime Minister than are doing so in 2017—and there are 10 million more of us today. These students should be thankful to their teachers for giving them a competitive advantage in the global economy.
The delegates from CAUSINDY, a bilateral youth organisation which provides a platform for young leaders from both countries to create a stronger bilateral relationship, came with me and the shadow Treasurer to Willi High to support the teachers and students in their endeavours. CAUSINDY holds an annual four-day program which brings together 30 young leaders from Australia and Indonesia. I am pleased to say that this year, 2017, it was hosted in Melbourne and supported by the Victorian state government. I was pleased to host delegates in Footscray for a Vietnamese meal as part of the CAUSINDY program this year to show off Australia's multicultural background. I reckon CAUSINDY is pretty great for building personal relationships between Australians and Indonesians. As a former delegate myself, I've seen its work firsthand. I was pleased to be able to give the shadow Treasurer an insight into it as well. I know that the shadow Treasurer is in particular looking forward to receiving his jersey from Melbourne's very own Indonesian expat Aussie Rules team, the Krakatoas.
We need to create more opportunities for schools like Willi High to build partnerships with Asian schools, to offer these opportunities to Australian high school students. That's why as part of Labor's future Asia policy Labor is committed to restoring funding to the Asia Education Foundation, an initiative of the Keating Labor government that was established to promote Asian studies in Australian schools. The Asia Education Foundation currently offers a BRIDGE School Partnerships Program to promote partnerships like the one between Willi high and Labschool in Jakarta. The New Colombo Plan is worthwhile, as far as it goes. But we need to do a whole lot more to get Australia's Asia capability up to where it needs to be in the new world in which we live.
I'm proud to speak to this motion today and acknowledge the success of the New Colombo Plan, an inspired initiative of our foreign minister, the Hon. Julie Bishop, and constructively implemented by the Turnbull government. My electorate of Chisholm is home to two of Australia's biggest and best universities—Monash University in Clayton, where I studied arts and law, and Deakin University in Burwood. These are two fantastic tertiary institutions where thousands of Chisholm residents are pursuing further education. I'm thrilled also that both Monash and Deakin are participant universities in our government's New Colombo Plan.
The New Colombo Plan continues to be a crucial element of the government's long-term plans to build closer relations in our region. In its first five years, the New Colombo Plan has supported more than 30,000 Australian undergraduates undertaking study and work based placements across the Indo-Pacific region, including some 22 scholarship recipients and 2,151 mobility grant recipients studying in my electorate of Chisholm. These undergraduates are returning to Australia with new skills and networks from their experiences in the region, enhancing Australia's capacity to engage with our neighbours and, of course, having gained wonderful insight into the cultures and professional settings of our regional neighbours.
The New Colombo Plan is mobilising young Australians who are bright, inquisitive and wonderful ambassadors for our nation. Indeed, the Minister for Foreign Affairs recently launched the New Colombo Plan Alumni Ambassador Program, which, in its first year, will support students from across Australia to promote the New Colombo Plan and the value of Indo-Pacific study and work placements. Some young people from Chisholm's Monash and Deakin universities are included in this cohort of ambassadors and are representative of the diversity of students participating in the New Colombo Plan and of the depth and breadth of study and internship opportunities available in the Indo-Pacific. Included among these students is William Rathgeber from Deakin University, who this year is completing his Bachelor of Design, majoring in architecture. In 2015, he completed a study tour in India. In 2016, he attended Seoul National University in South Korea on exchange via a New Colombo Plan mobility grant. Finally, in 2017, he attended CEPT University in Ahmedabad, India, on his third international study trip. These opportunities have provided William with integral skills as well as professional and academic experience, and I am pleased to hear about William's ongoing successes.
Likewise, Sam Williams completed a Bachelor of Arts with honours from Monash University last year. For his honours year, he studied anthropology in Nepal, before conducting research in-country about Nepali ethno-politics through a New Colombo Plan scholarship. Sam interned for three years at the Australian Embassy in Nepal and is now working at the University of Melbourne. Also from Monash University, Alexander McLeish, who is studying arts/law, was the New Colombo Plan Japan Fellow in 2016, where he completed a semester of study at the University of Tokyo. Supported by his New Colombo Plan scholarship, Alex had the opportunity to intern for a law firm in Tokyo and with a leading Japanese company. Finally, Christopher Williams, whom I have met, is a Bachelor of Computer Science student at Deakin University. He is currently studying at the University of Hong Kong as the 2017 New Colombo Plan Fellow and plans to intern in the technology sector in Hong Kong in early 2018. These young Australians living and studying in Chisholm are just some of the wonderful examples of the thousands of Australians who are being mobilised in our region, and I commend them on their wonderful ongoing endeavours.
The New Colombo Plan thrives not only from government funding but from private sector sponsorship, including new sponsorship this year from aged care provider Arcare. Arcare's funding of $500,000 over five years will be directed to support New Colombo Plan mobility programs. Next year, it will fund 14 Deakin University School of Nursing and Midwifery students to travel to Bhutan to undertake practicums in primary health care, midwifery and aged care study. It is just one example of the fantastic mobility programs being undertaken by Chisholm students. The plan's mobility program would not have been possible without this additional support, and it is a great example of how the Turnbull government is partnering with the private sector to deliver new opportunities for young Australians. The New Colombo Plan is a wonderful initiative that is enhancing relationships in our region. I encourage all undergraduate students to apply to participate and explore the wonderful opportunities available in our region.
Two-thirds of the world's middle class will be living in Asia within the next 20 years. This, of course, presents enormous opportunities for Australia, but one of the greatest opportunities and challenges for us is to build closer and more mutually beneficial relationships within our neighbourhoods of the Indo-Pacific region. Now, that's easier said than done. Difficulties in this area include language barriers as well as cultural and, of course, geographic obstacles that hinder progress in developing greater ties within the region. But, as the world's economic, political and strategic focus continues to shift towards Asia, it's clear that opportunities of engagement far outweigh the problems that thwart greater connectivity and regional cooperation.
As a former parliamentary secretary for foreign affairs, I've got a great passion for improving relations with the Asian region, particularly in developing a greater Asian understanding through both cultural and linguistic awareness in Australian society. Unfortunately, at the moment, we're going backwards when it comes to learning languages of Asian background in Australia. The number of students studying Mandarin at the HSC level in New South Wales has actually fallen over recent decades. In 2015, there were only 61 non-background students studying Mandarin in year 12—a fall of 76 per cent since 1997. More students studied Indonesian in school in 1974 than do today in modern-day Australia. When it comes to Asian languages in schools, globally across Australia the rate of penetration was 24 per cent in 2000 and it has fallen to 18.6 per cent in modern-day Australia. Quite simply, we're going backwards when it comes to teaching Asian languages in our schools.
Building relationships is going to be a very important part of Asian cultural understanding. It is often the key to successful dealings at government and business levels. Gaining greater understanding of Asian languages and cultures and how to build relationships can be of great benefit to Australian businesses seeking to expand in Asia. The New Colombo Plan has been quite successful in building some of those links. From the electorate of Kingsford Smith, which I represent, there have been a total of five New Colombo Plan scholars: one in 2015, three in 2016 and one in 2017. The scholar from 2017, Daniel Tam, is a student of UNSW currently studying engineering at Shanghai's Jiao Tong University. New Colombo Plan Mobility Program grants have supported a total of 710 UNSW students to undertake short-term projects in the Indo-Pacific region from 2014 to 2017, and a further 794 UNSW students will be supported under the grants program in 2018.
The current New Colombo Plan alumni ambassador for UNSW is Sonia Parulekar. Sonia is currently in her final year of a bachelor of commerce degree at the University of New South Wales. In 2015 she studied business and information systems at the University of Malaya in Malaysia through a New Colombo Plan scholarship. She has also interned with PricewaterhouseCoopers in their management consulting practice in Singapore. In 2017 she intends to join CK Hutchison's group technology service division in Hong Kong. In Australia she has worked for the Reserve Bank of Australia, the Westpac group and AT Kearney.
Labor are committed to strengthening Australia's place within the Indo-Pacific region. We remain committed to ensuring that we increase connectivity. We are concerned about this government's approach to building Asian language literacy in this country. There have been two goes at national plans to build Asian language literacy—one by the Keating government and the other by the Rudd government—and both were cancelled by Liberal governments when they came to power. In the era when Pauline Hanson was saying we were being swamped by Asians, unfortunately, as a sop to Pauline Hanson's One Nation, the Howard government cancelled the program. Then the Abbott government cancelled the government program that was put in place by the Rudd government. They cancelled the Asian Century white paper, which was a road map to deeper engagement with Asia. So, although the New Colombo Plan has been good at building relations with Asia, there is much more that we can do at a government level, including having a nationally consistent approach to ensuring that we're improving exposure to languages at both school and tertiary levels in Australia.
The time allotted for the debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the planned closure of the regional processing centre on Manus Island in Papua New Guinea (PNG) on 31 October 2017 is creating a highly stressful situation for the 773 asylum seekers who remain on Manus Island;
(b) the Australian Government is seeking to relocate people to East Lorengau or elsewhere in PNG ahead of the deadline;
(c) there will be a withdrawal of current medical and mental health care, torture and trauma support and security services to detainees on 31 October;
(d) a UNHCR survey of the deterioration of the mental health of those on Manus Island and Nauru in May 2016 showed that more than 88 per cent of offshore detainees are suffering serious mental health issues after several years in detention; and
(e) there is enormous pressure on the detainees on Manus Island to relocate in PNG or return to where they fled, ahead of the deadline, whereas the UNHCR says a majority have been recognised as refugees who would qualify for resettlement; and
(2) calls on the Government to:
(a) urgently find viable and humane solutions outside of PNG and Nauru for those remaining under offshore processing arrangements; and
(b) ensure all detainees are settled safely and with appropriate medical support prior to the 31 October closure of the Manus Island regional processing centre.
I was in grade 5 when I first understood the link between values and behaviours. My ethics teacher explained that in life it is easy for people to endorse values, things, attributes and characteristics, but it is behaviours that give the evidence to these values. She asked us to imagine at the end of our lives one or two important values and the behaviours that we had enacted to show that we had lived by those values. Then she asked if there would be enough evidence to convict us. Her specific example was Christianity, the judge was God and the evidence was how we had lived our lives. In the four years I've worked in this parliament there has been lots of discussion and debate about values—Australian values and community values—and I believe that's exactly how it should be. It's the role of a member of parliament to debate values, cultural norms and behaviours expected and to enact laws to enforce them. In this debate today, I'd like to talk about four specific values—respect; duty of care; fair go for the underdog; and habeas corpus, the right to a fair trial by your peers and punishments that fit the crime—and the behaviours that would provide evidence that we are living those values. My motion notes:
(a) the planned closure of the regional processing centre on Manus Island in Papua New Guinea (PNG) on 31 October 2017 is creating a highly stressful situation for the 773 asylum seekers who remain on Manus Island;
… … …
(c) there will be a withdrawal of current medical and mental health care, torture and trauma support and security services to detainees on 31 October;
(d) a UNHCR survey of the deterioration of the mental health of those on Manus Island and Nauru in May 2016 showed that more than 88 per cent of offshore detainees are suffering serious mental health issues after several years in detention; and
(e) there is enormous pressure on the detainees on Manus Island to relocate in PNG or return to where they fled, ahead of the deadline, whereas the UNHCR says a majority have been recognised as refugees who would qualify for resettlement;
In respect of behaviours and evidence, we have seen indefinite detention, severe health issues and very ordinary people detained without trial because they fled from where they came with a well-founded fear of persecution.
In the past weeks I have spoken to the UNHCR—and I acknowledge their presence here today—and I've spoken to the Prime Minister and I've asked questions in parliament. I'm totally unimpressed with the response. Sure, I get the argument: protect our borders, deaths at sea, breaking the business model. But, in our treatment of the people on Manus, I believe we've crossed a line. The evidence shows that we're behaving badly, that we're becoming a bully, that we are very cruel, that we are unfair and, sadly, that we are not being our best selves. Worse than all of that, I believe, we have foisted on our well-respected neighbours a problem we don't want to have to own. Local people don't want foreigners, forced to live in their small rural communities, outnumbering them. Women in Papua New Guinea fear for their safety.
So I say to the government and the opposition: the standard you walk past is the standard you accept. Our treatment of these asylum seekers will define us in the decades to come. It will shadow our role on the United Nations Human Rights Committee. It will shadow our relationship with Papua New Guinea and with our other neighbours. It will shadow us as a nation. Its shadow will be long and heavy and dark. I believe we're better than this. I believe we can protect our borders and we can look after the refugees.
In closing, my words are: it is not only what we do but how we do it. I call on Labor and the government to work in partnership with the UNHCR and community groups such as Rural Australians for Refugees to find a solution to this moral problem and to work with the leaders on Manus to sort it out. We can be better and we should be better, and I call on the government to be better.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Australia consistently ranks among the top three countries globally, with long-established annual resettlement programs, and we continue to demonstrate this through our humanitarian program and by actively aiding displaced people both in their home country and beyond. Our additional intake of Syrian refugees provided 12,000 people with new opportunities and a safe place to call home.
The member for Indi has rightly raised concerns for displaced people on Manus Island in Papua New Guinea, and the Australian government is providing avenues and alternatives for both refugees and non-refugee residents of the Manus Regional Processing Centre. Refugees have the option of temporarily relocating to the East Lorengau Refugee Transit Centre or the Papua New Guinea community pending third-country resettlement. Refugees also have the option of settling permanently in Papua New Guinea. If the conditions in their home country have changed, they may return home voluntarily, and with reintegration assistance. The option always remains also that, if refugees have a third country that they have a right to reside in, they may also move there. Refugees who have expressed an interest in being resettled in the United States may also voluntarily transfer to Nauru, rounding off a number of avenues that residents of the Manus Regional Processing Centre have access to—and the Australian government will support them along the way. Non-refugee residents are expected to return home voluntarily, and, again, have access to assistance by the Australian government.
What we know, however, is that those who arrived by boat will not be resettled in Australia. We cannot let the prospect of resettlement in Australia be used as a lure for people smugglers to take advantage of incredibly vulnerable people and to encourage them to risk their lives. The Australian government do care—we don't want to see thousands of people drown at sea as we have seen in the past. Consequently, we as a government are making it clear that this will never eventuate. Australia takes its international obligations seriously and we provide protection to refugees consistent with these obligations as set out in the statutory refugee framework provisions of the Migration Act of 1958. We have committed to increase the humanitarian program from the current level of 13,750 places up to 18,750 places every year by 2018-19, making 2018-19 the largest offshore intake in more than 30 years. Our tough border protection measures mean that there have been no deaths at sea since the coalition came into government. This is a remarkable milestone. We have closed 17 detention centres, meaning fewer people in detention and a much better system that is trusted by the Australian people. It gives us an opportunity as well to expand our humanitarian program into a future where the Australian people have confidence in our system.
It is also worth noting that the only reason that anyone is on Manus Island or Nauru is that Labor lost control of our borders. Operation Sovereign Borders is saving lives. There are always issues and difficulties that we need to deal with on a regular basis but the government is concerned and the government does care. We are working to ensure the best system is in place, which ensures that those who are in need of genuine protection receive that protection while simultaneously ensuring that people smugglers do not take advantage of our system and that we reduce the numbers of people drowning at sea, in particular children. I again thank the member for Indi for her compassion and her interest in this matter and for raising this important motion today before the Federation Chamber.
I want to thank the member for Indi for bringing this important matter to the House. The government has said that in eight days time, under a deadline it has self-imposed, it will close down the processing centre on Manus and potentially start turning off the power and the water to the people who are there, but there are hundreds of people in that place who don't know their fate. These are people who have committed no crime. All they have done is what I think any one of us in this place would do if we thought that our lives were at risk, our family's lives were at risk or we couldn't freely express ourselves politically without risk of persecution or torture. They did what many people with no other option would do—they sought a better life. We should be very proud that the life that they sought was in Australia. It is a testament to our values that they thought that they would seek to come to Australia. If I was in that situation and I thought my only hope of looking after myself or my family was to jump on a boat, I would do it. I suspect many, many other people here would do it as well. Is it the best way? Perhaps not. Sometimes, though, it's the only way. They did nothing more than jump on a boat instead of getting on a plane, in which case they would have been treated very differently, but this government is continuing the policy of the Labor government of locking these people up indefinitely.
The people in this centre have already witnessed murders, riots, beatings and machete attacks. They have witnessed drunken members of the Papua New Guinea navy fire over 100 shots into the prison, and they have witnessed a loaded up Toyota Hilux ute being rammed through the gates in an attempt to attack refugees in that centre. As a result, we are hearing now on a daily basis that the people, who are in the centre because they have committed no crime but are in indefinite detention in a place that is a risk to their safety, are feeling the effects of having been locked up in this mental illness factory. Now they are told that in eight days time the place will close. As we have heard from previous speakers, the options they have been given are anywhere but Australia. They are told, 'You could go elsewhere in Papua New Guinea, or maybe we'll send you over to Nauru. Maybe you'll be one of the lucky ones who get under the US resettlement deal, but there is no guarantee of that either.' The government is going to great lengths to do everything other than the humane thing, which is to say, 'We will bring them here and process them here.'
As a result, because of this government's deliberate policy of uncertainty, we're in a situation where in eight days time services could be cut off to these people and they will be, yet again, forced to make decisions with a gun at their heads. What worries me is that this is a deliberate decision by the minister and the government to create a powder keg that will go off. As I've said, we know that the conditions there are appalling and that they should never have been in this camp that Labor and Liberal support. They should never have been there. But now it is a tinderbox, and the worry is that the minister is deliberately creating the conditions for a situation where violence will occur. It has already occurred there, through the attacks, and now in eight days time, if you have several hundred people stuck on an island that they can't get off, given no alternative other than perhaps to be told, 'You can go and live in PNG'—where they know it's not safe—'or you can go and be moved elsewhere to another form of detention.' When they're saying, 'We don't want to go until we know what our future is,' that is creating the conditions for violence to occur. I think it's a deliberate act by Minister Dutton to create a situation where violence will occur, which he will then use to turn around and blame these refugees and asylum seekers even further and say, 'Look, that is why we can't bring them to Australia.'
I think that's despicable. If the government wanted to impose this deadline to bring an end to the centre, then it should have a decent plan for the several hundred people who are there. Now, it will shame us if the new New Zealand government takes these people. Maybe they will; I don't know; but it would shame us that across the ditch a government is prepared to do the right thing, yet we here in Australia are party to a government that says, 'If you're an asylum seeker you can't have a pet unless we approve it, and we're going to lock you up and destroy your life.'
I rise to speak on the serious matter raised by the member for Indi. We need to remember that the reason people are on Manus Island and Nauru is because Labor lost control of the borders. Under Labor there were 50,000 illegal boat arrivals, who came over in 800 leaky boats. Tragically, at least 1,200 people drowned at sea and 8,000 children were drawn into detention by Labor's policy failures. Under Labor Australia's border security arrangements were in chaos. There was an $11 billion budget blowout and 17 additional detention centres were opened. At the height of Labor's policy failure 10,201 people were held in detention, including 1,992 children.
Any weakening of border protection policy runs the risk of getting the people smugglers back in business and overrunning our borders. The only way to stop people from drowning is to deny people smugglers the product that they sell. This was first shown in 2001, when the Howard coalition government successfully halted the first wave of boat arrivals. Under the current coalition government's Operation Sovereign Borders, anyone who comes illegally by boat won't be settled in Australia. This life-saving policy has been a resounding success. Under this government, there has not been a successful arrival in over 1,000 days and not a single death at sea.
Australians have always been a generous people. We consistently rank among the top three countries in the world for our resettlement programs. While Australians have a substantial humanitarian program, it must always be governed on our terms. After putting an end to Labor's tragic policy failure and securing our borders we are now looking to move existing asylum seekers out of detention centres. We have already closed 17 detention centres and removed all children from detention. Labor promised to move children out of detention but the coalition is actually delivering on that. We are working with Papua New Guinea to close the Manus Regional Processing Centre by the end of the month. Refugees will have the option to settle permanently in PNG, return home, move to a third country they have the right to reside in, or volunteer to transfer to Nauru if they are interested in US resettlement. Crucially, no-one will come to Australia.
We have managed to move people out of detention centres while continuing to deter people smugglers. The government now operates the largest and most sophisticated maritime surveillance and response fleet ever deployed in our nation's history. If the people smugglers try anything, the Australian Border Force will be waiting to intercept and return any boats that attempt to enter our shores. We all want to show compassion to genuine refugees but we need to think with our heads and not our hearts. After 1,200 deaths at sea, we cannot afford to give an inch to the people smugglers and their disgraceful business practices. It is clear from the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd Labor experiment, that sending mixed messages just results in more illegal arrivals. What Australia needs is strong borders. Only the coalition has a proven record of achieving this.
I worry about what a Labor government would do to the strong border arrangements this side has worked so hard to deliver. The opposition showed it has not learnt from its mistakes earlier this year when they voted against our crackdown on fake refugees receiving welfare. Many in the ALP don't care about border security, and people smugglers are aching for a change of government so they can test the waters. The Labor Party must accept its six years in government were an abject failure for border protection and it must unequivocally support our policies that have stopped the boats.
The government is resettling asylum seekers humanely and in line with our international obligations. Most importantly, we are doing it in a way that will not encourage anyone to again make the dangerous voyage to Australia. Unlike the former Labor government we will never tolerate the vile people smugglers who manipulate vulnerable men, women and children to risk their lives at sea. The last thing we can afford is to turn Australia into a magnet for the people-smuggler trade as happened under Labor. I congratulate Minister Peter Dutton and our government on their success and will continue to work with them to keep our borders strong and secure. (Time expired)
I thank the member for Indi for bringing this most important motion forward today. Let me start by saying the blame game must end and end now. What is happening on Manus Island, as I speak, is completely inhumane, unacceptable and will forever be a stain on Australia's human rights history. Demonising and dehumanising traumatised people is not the Australian way. Surely we are better than this.
The only plan that the Turnbull government has is to close Manus Island on 31 October 2017. They have no plan for the 773 people on Manus Island seeking asylum, who will be left in limbo, and that is what this motion is about. They have used these people seeking asylum as a deterrent to put the fear of God into others fleeing from trauma and war. They have done very little about their safety. They have no regard for their physical and emotional wellbeing and health. What is most distressing is that nothing has been done about finding a third country resettlement deal. Where does this government expect 773 people seeking asylum to go?
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 12:24 to 12:37
Where is the evidence that this government has been exploring third-party options? Where is the action to engage with the third parties? Where is the Turnbull government on these human rights issues? This is a huge human rights problem, and the Turnbull government has no answers. People seeking asylum are not illegals; they are people. They are mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, sisters and brothers. It is intolerable that, in 2017, people are being left with no access to water and power, yet this is exactly what is happening.
Whether this government likes it or not, the people seeking asylum on Manus are the responsibility of the Australian government. How are the government going about meeting their responsibility? They are continuing to cruelly punish people seeking asylum and leave them with no water, no power and no access to health care, whilst at the same time giving them enormous stress, anxiety and fear of what their future may hold.
The Turnbull government's complete mistreatment of people on Manus Island has delivered the Australian taxpayer a hefty $70 million human rights payout, and that does not include legal costs. It is the largest in Australian legal history. But these men have had their voices heard—$70 million in compensation to men illegally detained in dangerous and damaging conditions, all because of the Turnbull government's complete and utter mistreatment of human beings. Surely it would have been easier, less costly and just the right thing to do to treat people with dignity and respect rather than incur the largest human rights payout in our history. A fair go means treating people with dignity and respect, regardless of whether one is a millionaire or a refugee.
At a recent town hall meeting in Townsville, members of my community raised their concerns about the people on Manus. The community is scared about the safety, access to medical attention, and access to water and power for these men. Labor's position has always been clear. Labor have always said that we oppose indefinite detention of people on Manus and Nauru. Labor are not about the exploitation of human beings, and we are certainly not about the cruelty of indefinite detention. The reports that have consistently come out of Manus and Nauru are horrifying, to say the least.
It is critical that this government sets a very high standard now that we have a place on the Human Rights Council, and that includes how we treat people seeking asylum who are in detention. A close look at Australia's human rights record right now shows that Australia is going backwards almost across the board—in the treatment of refugees and of first-nation people in incarceration, violence against women, protecting children in youth justice, and the physical safety of people with a disability. Australia has always strived to be an international leader on human rights, but our current tarnished human rights record is a reflection of the Turnbull government's complete disregard for compassion, dignity and respect. I call on the Turnbull government and the minister to take immediate action to ensure the safety and relocation of the people on Manus Island.
The time allotted for this debate has expired.The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this House:
(1) welcomes and congratulates the Government for banning the importation of African lion hunting trophies and its participation in helping end the practice of canned hunting;
(2) acknowledges and commends the Government for its elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn ban for products produced after 1975 but recognises that these bans need to be implemented for all products produced prior to 1975 as well;
(3) notes that elephants and rhinoceroses are facing extinction due to poaching with:
(a) one elephant dying every 15 minutes for its tusks;
(b) one rhinoceros dying every 8 hours for its horn;
(c) less than 400,000 African elephants remaining; and
(d) less than 27,000 rhinoceroses remaining;
(4) notes with concern that we can still buy and sell elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn in Australia, which is part of the problem;
(5) notes the sadistic and cruel method poachers use when harvesting elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn;
(6) recognises that this ban is not about attacking legal hunters, it is about stopping illegal poaching and illegal trading in elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn; and
(7) calls on all governments to help Australia be part of the solution and prohibit the domestic trade of elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn, additionally to set up an infringement fine system, offense provisions and penalties.
Leonard Joel is one of Australia's biggest auction houses and the largest trader of rhino horn and ivory. In Australia, a kilo of rhino horn sells for up to $68,000, whilst ivory tusks sell for up to $8,000. This is good money for an auction house, so I put out huge congratulations to John Albrecht at Leonard Joel Auction House for enacting a ban on the sale of rhino horn and ivory from 1 January this year. John made the point to me that Leonard Joel wanted to take the sophistication away from the ivory and rhino horn trade and reveal it for what it truly is.
In August this year I met with experts on this matter at Melbourne Zoo. I would like to thank Donalea Patman, director of For the Love of Wildlife, who is the local resident who brought this issue to my attention; Dr Lynne Johnson, director of Breaking the Brand; Nicholas Duncan, President, SAVE African Rhino Foundation; Fiona Gordon, from Gordon Consulting; and, finally, Rod Campbell, from the Australia Institute. They advised me that, in 10 years, it will be very rare to see these animals in the wild, if not impossible, because they could be extinct. They wanted me to be aware that, every 15 minutes, an elephant dies for its tusks and, every eight minutes, a rhino dies for its horn.
I acknowledge the work the government has undertaken in its efforts to ban rhino horn and ivory products in Australia produced prior to 1975, and I congratulate the former environment minister, Greg Hunt, on that. But I recognise bans need to be implemented for all products produced prior to 1975 as well. Today I call on all governments to help Australia and be part of the solution, and prohibit the domestic trade of elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn.
We need to understand the sadistic and cruel methods poachers use when harvesting rhino horn and elephant ivory. These violent poachers carefully sneak up behind these beautiful creatures. Often the rhinos are so young they are still at their mother's side. First they hack at the rhino's ankles, preventing them from running away and putting them in such agony that they are unable to fight back. Then they hack off the rhino's face with a machete, leaving the tortured and mutilated animal to bleed to death in excruciating pain, as the mother helplessly watches. These brutalities are used to acquire elephant tusks as well, and I've actually sadly witnessed this in videos. However, some elephants are instead poisoned with cyanide through their water source, resulting in a slow and excruciatingly painful death. This is how dire the situation can be when it comes to the entire food chain, with other animals eating toxic carcasses.
This illegal wildlife trade is worth around US$5 billion to US$10 billion each year, making it the fourth most profitable global crime, only behind drugs, human trafficking and firearms. Poachers are paid an average of $12,000 per rhino. This is what fuels this brutal industry. Their incentives need to be taken away from them. The market for these products is unregulated, with no requirements of evidence of a product's origin, import history or age. I believe that as a nation we need to completely close Australia's market for ivory and rhino horn. That's why I'm calling for an Australian trade ban which prohibits the domestic commercial trading of elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn; prohibits the international trade and import and export of elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn from Australia; allows the commercial trade in musical instruments that contain only small amounts of ivory, allows the non-commercial exchange of elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn specifically for bona fide scientific, education and law enforcement purposes; allows for the distribution of elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn to legal beneficiaries; sets up an infringement fine system with offences, provisions and penalties; and allows for importation of elephant and rhino parts gained through official hunting permits approved by Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, otherwise known as CITES.
I would like to make the strong point that this is not about legal hunters; it is about going after the poachers. African states such as Zimbabwe are now imposing necessary and very harsh penalties. In Zimbabwe convicted poachers of rhino horn and elephant ivory will now receive nine years. These products should not have the material value, and trading in them is investing in incredible cruelty. Australia must stop this practice.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion.
Earlier this year, in February, I submitted a private member's motion on the same topic. I will read the motion, because there are some statistics in it which are relevant to the matter that we are debating. It was:
That this House:
(1) notes:
(a) the growing recognition that the world's African elephant and rhinoceros populations are facing extinction as a result of unprecedented levels of poaching for the global ivory trade;
(b) that the poached ivory is sold in auction houses around the world, including several Australian auction sites;
(c) that the overwhelming amount of ivory sold does not have provenance information to prove its origin, history and authenticity;
(d) that during a 2015 International Fund of Animal Welfare investigation, just 2 of 73 ivory lots offered at Australian auction houses had provenance documentation; and
(e) that the 17111 Conference of Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) from 24 September to 5 October 2016 adopted the following resolution: that all CITES parties and non-parties 'in whose jurisdiction there is a legal domestic market for ivory that is contributing to poaching or illegal trade, take all necessary legislative, regulatory and enforcement measures to close their domestic markets for commercial trade in raw and worked ivory as a matter of urgency'; and
(2) calls on the Government to implement the CITES resolution.
I read that resolution out because it goes to the heart of my comments on this matter. It does concern me when I hear about animals becoming extinct because of human greed and stupidity. It makes me angry that people are financing their destruction through buying the very products that those animals are being killed for. Some months ago I met with Shaun O'Shea. I've known Shaun since he was a teenager. When he left school he joined the South Australian Police Force. He worked as a police officer in South Australia for 30 years. On retirement, still a relatively young man, he went to work for the International Coalition of Rhino Protection in Mozambique in Africa. He spent three months there in what was referred to as an anti-poaching unit, and he saw firsthand what was occurring and the devastation that was happening to both elephants and rhinoceroses. The point made by the member for La Trobe in terms of the cruelty and the barbaric way in which these animals are killed was something he saw firsthand, whether it was the use of poison arrows, rifles, grenades, machetes and the like.
The fact is that prior to European civilisation there were some 20 million elephants in Africa. Today there are 350,000, or thereabouts. With the northern white rhino, of which there were some 2,000 in 1960, there are only six left in the world, and I believe they are all in captivity. With black rhinos, I understand there's only about 5,000 of them left. The authorities in some African countries are not doing enough to protect these majestic animals. Indeed, I understand that in some places corruption is rife. The work that Shaun and his team are doing is very risky. African conservation park officers are often killed doing their duty—working on the conservation parks and trying to stop the poachers.
The elephants and rhinos would not be killed if there were no market for the ivory. I note a recent news story reporting that both China and the US are doing something about this. China has committed to phasing out its ivory industry. I understand that 11 states in the US are legislating to ban ivory trading. These are both encouraging developments, but there are many other countries where the ivory is still being sold, and Australia, whilst it's taken some steps, is one country that could be doing more. We should adopt the CITES resolution as a matter of urgency. It was agreed to last year and it's an international resolution. In my view, this is the first step that the Australian government should be taking. If we don't act and don't act urgently, then there is every likelihood that these wonderful animals will become extinct in the not too distant future.
I go back to the comments of Shaun when he was working out there. The cruelty and the barbaric way that these animals were being killed is something he experienced. Because of his police expertise, he was able to successfully stop poachers many a time. But, unfortunately, there are not enough people like Shaun doing that kind of work to protect them.
As I said, I rise to second the motion put forward by the member for La Trobe, and I welcome the contribution from the member for Makin. I wasn't aware that he had put a motion forward earlier in the year. Well done on doing that, and I appreciate your input on this particular subject. It's great to join with the member for La Trobe in congratulating the coalition government for banning the importation of African lion-hunting trophies and for its participation in helping end the practice of canned hunting. The Australian trade ban prohibits the domestic commercial trade in elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn and prohibits international trade import or export from Australia. In addition to this, it sets up an infringement fine system, offence provisions and penalties yet still allows the non-commercial exchange of elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn specifically for bona fide scientific, educational and law enforcement purposes.
This is not about attacking legal hunters; it is about stopping illegal poaching. As we know, behind every ivory ornament or trinket there is an elephant that has been brutally killed for its tusks. Elephant tusks and rhino horns aren't there for aesthetics; they evolve from teeth, giving an evolutionary advantage. Elephants and rhinos use their tusks and horns to dig, to lift, to gather food and to defend themselves. Tusks also play a big role in protecting the trunks of elephants. Unlike Asian elephants, both male and female African elephants have tusks.
One elephant is killed every 15 minutes for its tusks and every eight hours a rhinoceros is killed for its horns. In Kenya alone, 60 per cent of its elephants were killed between 2009 and 2014. As a result, only 400,000 African elephants and less than 27,000 rhinos remain, pushing these magnificent animals to the brink of extinction. In fact, it is predicted they will be extinct in five to 10 years. Despite this, we can still buy and sell elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn in Australia. Can you believe that? We need urgent proactive and preventative measures to protect these animals. In recent years Australian authorities have seized multiple rhino and ivory products at our borders, yet people continue to import ivory into Australia. International illegal wildlife trade is valued at around US$5 billion to US$20 billion per year, making it the fourth most lucrative global crime after drugs, human trafficking and arms dealing. China, the United States, France and India have already enacted domestic trade bans. The African Elephant Coalition, consisting of over 29 elephant ranger states, have also sought to shut down global and domestic ivory markets.
We know ivory is highly valued. We know it is worth thousands of dollars on the unregulated markets. Whether it is for jewellery or ornaments or because of a belief that it contains healing properties, the animals are always killed in the process. We've seen local tribes using bows and arrows and more traditional hunting methods, but more and more we are seeing the use of weapons like AK-47 automatic rifles and even grenades on entire herds. The outcome is devastating. In fact, at some game reserves poachers will start a fire to draw the attention of rangers to one area of the park. While they flock to put the fire out, the poachers target the animals. Because of these sorts of tactics, a number of conservation groups and game reserves have actually undertaken a dehorning program for their rhinoceroses. By safely removing the horns, they greatly reduce the risk of animals being targeted by poachers, because they lose their worth to the poachers. Dehorning can be done safely for the animal after it has been anaesthetised. The dehorning program is widely publicised to deter poachers from reserves. When targeted by poachers, the horn is brutally removed and the animal is killed. In regions in South Africa, over one-third of all reserve rhinos have been dehorned and, out of 33 rhinos killed between 2009 and 2011, only one was a dehorned rhino.
Dehorning is not a standalone solution. We need a comprehensive approach using preventative and protective measures to secure the future of elephants and rhinoceroses. As it stands here in Australia, there are no requirements to show evidence of a product's origin, import history or age, despite some pieces being worth thousands of dollars. In 2014, our authorities seized carved ivory ornaments and jewellery at a shop in Sydney worth an estimated $80,000, and the following year in my home city of Perth, 110 kilograms of ivory was seized by Customs. I support this motion and I congratulate the member for La Trobe for bringing it to the House and I thank the other people who are making contributions.
I rise to speak in support of the motion submitted by the member for La Trobe and commend him for so doing—and the previous speakers. There's no doubt that African animals are in grave danger of becoming extinct due to illegal poaching and the trade in ivory and rhinoceros horn. The figures, sadly, are too hard to ignore. The black rhino's population has decreased by 97.6 per cent since 1960. Lions are now extinct in seven African countries. Up to 35,000 African elephants were killed last year alone. At the current rates of poaching, elephants and rhinos and some of the other unique African animals may be extinct within our lifetime. That would be a tragedy, not only for Australians who dream of one day visiting Africa to see these majestic animals in their natural habitat, but for the many African people who rely on animal tourism for their livelihood.
Poachers are encouraged to continue their disgusting trade by people in Australia and around the world who pay huge amounts for elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn. Rhinoceros horn is, pound for pound, much more expensive than gold. Some misguided people believe it has medicinal qualities, curing many ailments, from hangovers to cancer. However, there is no evidence that it has any medicinal qualities at all. Of course, our government should do all it can to prevent any contribution that Australia may be making to this illegal trade. That is just being a good, responsible global citizen. Realistically, Australia's contribution to the encouragement of this illegal trade is not the largest. Sadly, China is responsible for up to 70 per cent of the illegal ivory sold. Nonetheless, it is important that the Australian community also take our responsibilities seriously.
We should know, more than most countries, the value of our natural wonders, especially in difficult economic times. I know, coming from Queensland, that the Great Barrier Reef is a huge drawcard for tourists. Tourism in Central Queensland is worth about $1.4 billion to the economy and supports 7,000 jobs. That's why when Labor was in government we implemented major reforms to protect our oceans. The Turnbull government, sadly, is rolling back some of these protections. It proposes to remove 40 million hectares of marine national parks from protection. So, while we should be concerned about illegal poaching and the protection of endangered species in Africa, or wherever they are, this government is in the box seat to protect marine parks in our own backyard. Sadly, some of those opposite have abandoned these parks, even though one of them was set up by the member for Wentworth when he was the environment minister. Obviously, that was a person from another time, another place.
We were reminded last week that Africa is also far from immune from the devastation of international terrorism. With up to 300 lives lost and many more people receiving terrible injuries, the people of Somalia were dealt a dreadful blow last week. As terrible as the loss of life from this attack has been, it has also caused massive destruction in the Mogadishu business district. I send my prayers to all the Somali community in Australia, especially those living in Moreton.
Australia could make a real difference to the lives of African people by fighting poaching and also stepping up to help Africans combat international terrorism. Australia's expertise in counterterrorism could strengthen the resilience of Africa to combat this very real and increasing threat. In fact, in an article in The Australian newspaper today, Anthony Bergin, the senior research fellow at ANU's National Security College, says that:
Australia has 190 ASX-listed companies running 590 mining and exploration projects across 38 countries on the continent.
The projects these Australian companies are embarking on in Africa may increase the potential for terrorist threats to occur. So it's incumbent on these companies and the Australian government to do all they can to mitigate that risk. Mr Bergin also suggests that more of the African aid budget be spent on countries facing the threat of terrorism by jihadist groups to bolster their resources and fund the necessary capabilities to defeat those groups.
Sadly, the Turnbull government has abandoned Australia's bipartisan commitment to aid funding and slashed well over $11 billion from our international development assistance budget. This is short-sighted and fails to take into account that strengthening the resilience of Africa to counterterrorism would not only help Africans but also assist with stability in the region, which would then help all Africans and obviously be good for those Australians with African connections. Many of them call my electorate of Moreton home—people from Sudan, South Sudan, Somalia, South Africa, Congo and Eritrea, to name but a few. Just one year ago, a Sudanese Australian from my local community stopped his taxi to get a haircut at the Moorooka shops. He saw a bus in flames and stepped in and saved 11 people who were trapped on that bus. Sadly, one person died in that accident—Mr Alisher—but we'll be opening a park in his honour, called Manmeet's Paradise, on Saturday.
I rise to today to talk about this motion as I believe it's appalling that elephants and rhinos are facing extinction because of poaching, particularly given the sadistic and cruel methods that poachers use when harvesting elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn. I congratulate the government for banning the importation of African lion-hunting trophies and its participation in helping end the practice of canned hunting. I acknowledge and commend the Turnbull government for its ban on elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn products produced after 1975 but recognise that this ban needs to be implemented for all products produced prior to 1975 as well.
I note that elephants and rhinoceroses are facing extinction due to poaching, with one elephant dying every 15 minutes for its tusks and one rhinoceros dying every eight hours for its horn. There are less than 400,000 African elephants remaining and less than 27,000 rhinoceroses remaining. I note with concern that we can still buy and sell elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn in Australia, which is part of the problem. I commend the Turnbull government for being part of the solution. I recognise that this ban is not about attacking legal hunters; it is about stopping the illegality. It is about stopping illegal poaching and illegal trading in elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn. I call on all governments to help Australia be part of the solution and prohibit the domestic trade of elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn and additionally to set up an infringement fine system, offence provisions and penalties. I support this motion and congratulate the member for La Trobe for bringing this motion and for his compassion and commitment in relation to such issues.
I rise to speak in support of the member for La Trobe's motion and its importance in protecting some of these animals that are fast disappearing from the earth—in particular, the measures banning lion-hunting trophies and restrictions on elephant and rhino products. There is no doubt that these measures will assist efforts to protect wildlife and, in particular, some of the endangered species. I want to acknowledge some of the previous speakers, who made excellent points. I just want to look at some other animals as well and some other difficulties we face in this area so that we might widen the conversation.
Some key statistics: there are over 35,000 species—over 5,000 animals and 30,000 plants—listed under CITES, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. CITES includes species that are threatened with extinction and species that, although not currently threatened, might become threatened if trade is not strictly regulated. We can argue about the exact numbers but, in general, scientists are in agreement that we are in a period of heightened extinction risks and rates as a result of human activity. African animals, as we've heard this morning, are in trouble. But so are others. The Australian Wildlife Conservancy reports that Australia has the worst mammal extinction rate in the world. Thirty native mammals have become extinct since European settlement. To put this in a global context, one out of three mammal extinctions in the last 400 years have occurred in Australia. More than 1,700 species of animals and plants are listed by the Australian government as being at risk of extinction, and around 30 per cent of our surviving non-bat mammal species are threatened with extinction.
Like many of my colleagues, I am really passionate about protecting endangered animals. Back in 2001 I was privileged to volunteer with the NGO Conservation International, which was conducting antipoaching patrols targeting tiger poachers in Cambodia. At that point in Cambodia, in 2001, in particular around the Cardamom Mountains, there were only 30 tigers left and a patrolling armed force was being set up to prevent further loss of those magnificent animals in that national park. Tigers are a great example of why it is critical that we protect animals. They're listed on CITES as a species that is threatened with extinction, and the Worldwide Fund for Nature reports that over the last century tiger numbers have fallen by about 95 per cent. They now survive in 40 per cent less area than they occupied just a decade ago. Tigers face daily hazards from poaching and habitat loss. Every part of the tiger, from its whiskers to its tail, is traded in illegal wildlife markets, feeding a multi-billion-dollar criminal network. I'd suggest that maybe tigers are something the member for La Trobe could move on to next, and I'd be more than happy to work with him on it.
In order to save tigers we need to preserve the biodiverse environments in which they exist—Asia's remaining great rainforests, jungles and wild lands. These areas are also home to thousands of other species of plants, animals and people. They provide food, water and other essential ecosystem services necessary for survival.
There's been a little bit of light recently, in that last year the Worldwide Fund for Nature reported that the global population of tigers had shown a slight increase. That was driven largely by conservation successes in India, Russia and Nepal. Unfortunately, the report estimated that only seven wild tigers remain in China. As we've heard, the Chinese provide a big market for a lot of the products coming from these animals in Africa. That is a concern, but of massive concern is that there are none left in Cambodia. That is not to say that our efforts are in vain, but we must redouble them for the future.
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the Government's additional $23.5 billion investment in Australian schools over the next 10 years, on top of the 2016 budget, will deliver the real needs based funding that our students need to succeed;
(b) this funding package will ensure that all students and schools are treated fairly and equitably, and that students with the same need in the same sector receive the same support from the Commonwealth; and
(c) in the electoral division of Fisher this action by the Government will ensure that, for example, Glasshouse Christian College will receive an additional $28.5 million, Chancellor State College will receive an additional $24.6 million, and Meridan State College will receive an additional $23.5 million in funding over the next ten years;
(2) congratulates the Government on this major investment in Australia's future and on delivering needs based funding into the school system;
(3) welcomes the Government's action to ensure that this additional funding delivers improved results, through initiatives like the Review to Achieve Educational Excellence in Australian Schools, the Review into Regional, Rural and Remote Education, and the Teacher Performance Assessment; and
(4) encourages the Government to continue its focus on improving educational outcomes and ensuring that school funding is well spent, particularly in regional areas such as the Sunshine Coast.
The upbringing of our children is one of the greatest responsibilities that we all share as a community. It is often said that it takes a village to raise a child, and that is very, very true. For those of us in this place it's our particular responsibility to deliver an education system that gives all Australian children the opportunity to grow and to succeed. Governments and politicians quickly come and go. Laws are enacted and repealed but, in setting the parameters of our children's education, we play a part in building the future of an entire generation and therefore our nation. That's why this government has made investment and reform in education one of the centrepieces of its agenda. We have committed an unprecedented additional $23.5 billion over the next 10 years. This investment in our children's futures, which is unmatched in our nation's history, represents an average of more than $2,300 for every Australian student. However, this government recognises that taxpayer funds are not endless, which is why we must prioritise those schools and those students who need additional resources the most. The true needs-based funding model that the government has developed achieves just that.
In my own regional electorate of Fisher, this will mean that every school will receive additional funds. The biggest beneficiaries will be Glasshouse Christian College, which will receive an additional $28.5 million; Chancellor State College, $24.6 million; and Meridan State College, $23.5 million. Overall, every student in every school sector in Fisher will see an increase in support. It is a testament to this government's commitment to education that many colleagues on both sides of the House will be able to say the same.
We also recognise that money is not everything when it comes to securing the best educational outcomes for our children. However, in my own electorate of Fisher, we have seen the great things that schools can achieve when they do have the resources to invest. I spoke only last week in the House about a school in my local electorate, Kawana Waters State College. Kawana Waters has built a new health education unit to teach up to 120 year 11 and year 12 students. Their investment allows the school to go far beyond the classroom, to create a truly immersive, practical and 21st century learning experience, mixing actual hospital equipment with digital simulation. This is in a high school.
Extra investment can deliver these big projects, but it is also about the smaller changes that can make a world of difference. Extra resources can allow schools to put together simple but expensive activities like work experience, sports programs or debating teams. While I'm on the subject of debating teams, I'd like to congratulate Kate, Lucy and Mia as well as their teacher Ms Watson from Chancellor State College for their win in the intermediate age group just last week at the Sunshine Coast Schools Debating Competition held at the University of the Sunshine Coast. Whether it be a Kawana Waters State College Health Education Unit, Chancellor's State College's debating team or even the new bathroom facilities installed at the C&K Mooloolaba Early Childhood Centre, these programs deliver for the Turnbull government and make a huge difference to the learning experience of all our students.
However, when it comes to education, money isn't everything. Over recent decades, we have seen huge increases in spending on schools while our educational outcomes have not substantially improved. What is more important than money is how our students are being taught, what they are being taught and the skills and training of the teachers who are their instructors, their mentors and their guides. That is why the government is ensuring the quality and readiness of new teachers with strengthened accreditation standards for teaching courses and ensuring that graduate teachers have literacy and numeracy skills in the top 30 per cent of adults, with the rollout in 2018 of the new teacher performance assessment.
To ensure ongoing improvement, the government is also undertaking a comprehensive process of consultation and review of education practices throughout Australia. We are asking the right questions of teachers, students, school administrators, parents and education experts in our cities and regions. I commend that work, and I commend this motion to the House.
Can I have a seconder for the motion?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
I know that the member for Fisher was elected only in the most recent election so he might be forgiven for not knowing the history of Gonski reforms and for not knowing that the previous Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, before the 2013 election committed to the full funding of the Gonski reforms. There was not a sliver of paper between Liberal and Labor on education and yet what we have before us now is a motion that seeks praise for a $22.3 billion cut from that trajectory—there will be $22.3 billion less for schools than was agreed by the previous Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, in the final days before the election in 2013. When you spread that $22.3 billion out and you look at the effects on local schools in my electorate of Parramatta, it is $18 million less for the 33 government schools over two years alone. The schools that are hit hardest are the schools that can least afford to be hit at all. We have Arthur Phillip High School losing $622,000 in 2018 and $1.38 million in 2019—so just over $2 million will be cut from Arthur Phillip High School. Parramatta Public School will lose $504,000 in 2018 and faces a cut of nearly $600,000 in 2019. That is $1.1 million less than they would have received if this government kept its commitment in 2013 to fully fund the Gonski reforms. Granville Boys High School has 566 students from some of the most disadvantaged families in our community. It will receive $337,000 less in 2018 and $750,000 less in 2019. It is hard to imagine why anyone on the government side would stand up and seek praise for these reforms, because they do represent a $22.3 billion cut from the promise they made in 2013.
The member for Fisher also said taxpayer fund are not limitless. That is one of their excuses for cutting this money, but you can't on one hand say you can't afford to meet that $22.3 billion promise for schools and on the other hand give a corporate tax cut of $50 billion over the same period—a tax cut that will cost $15 billion per year each year after that. You can't say, 'We didn't have the money to meet our commitments and fully honour the Gonski agreement' while on the other hand give a tax cut of over twice that size to the big end of town. We really are seeing here a government that's taking from the future of our children to fund corporate tax cuts for some of the biggest businesses in Australia. It is not just the government schools, either. Catholic education leaders have been speaking out about this plan to cut funding from the trajectory. When you look at schools like Holy Family and St Oliver's you see that the systemic Catholic schools do not charge high fees, they are not wealthy schools—they need funding clarity and certainty. They have been well and truly speaking out against this government's plans. The government's decision to exclude systemic Catholic schools, even from the consultation process, rang alarm bells. Again, the member for Fisher wouldn't remember that the Gonski reforms took years of negotiating. There were years of consultation when we went out and talked to schools, to parents and to state governments about what schools actually needed.
Under these reforms, as this government calls them, only one in seven public schools will reach their fair funding level after 10 years. They remove the extra funding agreed with states and territories for 2018-19, which would have brought many of those under-resourced schools up to their fair funding level and it locks in sector specific payments of 80 per cent for non-government schools and just 20 per cent for government schools. It is the very opposite of a sector-blind movement and the very opposite of what children in our communities need. Any member of parliament who goes out to some of their poorer schools in the most disadvantaged areas will know that the government's plan for schooling is a giant fail. (Time expired)
I would like to talk about the Gonski 2.0 funding package and what it will mean to the over 25,000 students and their families in my electorate of Boothby. This landmark reform package overhauls the very messy funding system we inherited from the previous Labor government, which saw 27 individual deals done across Australia. In South Australia we saw one of the worst funding arrangements, with the vast majority of money loaded into the unfunded fifth and sixth years of the deal—money that never existed; typical Labor! Not only did federal Labor fail South Australian students but so did our state Labor government. Their funding decreased in real terms for schools—falling from $2.45 billion to $2.394 billion in 2014-15, a decrease of 2.5 per cent. Thanks to our coalition government and the hard work of the Minister for Education and Training, a fellow South Australian, we now have a stable and uniform needs-based system and funding model that will see over the next 10 years an extra $263 million delivered to schools in my electorate of Boothby alone.
Our school communities in Boothby, including principals, teachers, parents and students, know that our government is delivering a funding model that is fair and equitable. Some of the stand-out examples of better funding for primary school education include Westbourne Park Primary, which will receive an extra $4.5 million, and Edwardstown Primary, which will receive $3.2 million. Colonel Light Gardens Primary, which is where both my grandmother and great-grandmother taught, is receiving an extra $5.1 million in federal funding. Secondary schools in Boothby are also seeing large increases, with Hamilton Secondary College receiving an extra $10.4 million, Aberfoyle Park High School receiving an extra $10.2 million and Brighton Secondary School receiving an extra $14.6 million.
The best story though is that of Suneden Special School, which truly is a very special school. It is quite near my electorate office. This year it celebrated its 50th year of supporting children with the highest needs in our community. These children have very severe disabilities and they need an incredibly high level of support. Suneden will see their funding per student grow from $20,000 a year to $54,000 a year under our funding program. I am so pleased that these high-needs students and their families will reap the benefits of this unprecedented increase in funding. I recently toured the facility with the Minister for Education and Training. We've just supported them with some upgrades to their educational infrastructure, the playground and the classrooms. It is just remarkable. It really is an example of best-practice needs-based support for students who need it most. With such large funding increases across the board, especially for those students who need it most, it makes you wonder how underfunded state Labor and federal Labor were previously leaving these students.
It's not just about how much money we give, of course. Year on year we have been increasing funding to schools but we are still seeing some results decreasing. We understand that it is not just about funding; we need to fix our school education system, which is why we have implemented a number of policies that will ensure we see better educational outcomes for students. We have launched the Quality Schools, Quality Outcomes policy, which is evidence based and aimed at ensuring funding is spent in the most effective way. Our ambitious reform agenda will strengthen teaching and school leadership, develop essential knowledge and skills, improve student participation and parental engagement, and build better evidence and transparency. In particular, the key reforms include a year 1 literacy, numeracy and phonics test to assist in early identification of learning difficulties; initiatives to retain teachers—one of the biggest issues facing the industry—and a focus on science, technology, engineering and mathematics. I was very pleased to attend last week the launch of a maths conference in my electorate aimed at encouraging maths teachers, who are ambassadors for their fellow teachers and for students, to encourage more people to get involved with maths.
Between our government's increases in funding and targeted outcome-driven policies we will begin to see Australian students learning more and being better equipped for life in the 21st century than ever before. I am grateful to the member for Fisher for bringing this motion to the House today. I congratulate the Minister for Education and Training on his significant achievements in education funding. As somebody who has a brother and a sister who are both teachers and are married to teachers and a mother and a grandmother who were teachers, I really do understand how important our teachers are, how hard they work and what wonderful support they provide to our students.
I rise to oppose doublespeak and misleading political spin, to oppose saying one thing and doing another, to oppose cutting billions of dollars of funding and then claiming somehow to have invested billions more. When you are elected as a representative, the people of your electorate put their trust in you. So I actually find it quite abhorrent that this government so casually betrays trust with such misleading and Orwellian use of language. Should people be elated or scared if they hear that the government plans to invest in a particular sector? How are the people of Australia to know when a so-called government investment actually means real investment and isn't shorthand for more cuts? So long as this government is in power, there really is no way to know at all. They've thrived on lies and they've thrived on deceit, but the Australian people see through that. That's why the Liberals have been tanking in the Newspoll surveys.
Australians want accessible, affordable, high-quality health care. Australians want a fair go; they want to see active measures in place to reduce economic inequality, not huge cuts for millionaires and big business. Australians really want investment in a quality education system. They want what they were promised. They want true needs based funding—the original funding model that Labor created and costed. That's what the Liberals promised them, not this watered-down scheme that we have got. Let's face it: multibillion-dollar cuts is what they have been given. When Prime Minister Abbott promised the government would 'spend exactly the same over the forward estimates as the Labor Party for school funding' or when Christopher Pyne, the then education minister, pledged that the coalition was 'matching Labor's funding model dollar for dollar, so you can vote Liberal or Labor and you will get exactly the same amount of funding for your school', what they really meant was that the coalition would deliver $17 billion less in funding than Labor.
There is no way to spin this. They outright lied to the Australian people. They knew the Australian people wouldn't take this lightly, of course. That's why they invoked the Gonski brand that Labor had made so synonymous with true needs based funning. There is no more clear representation of this government's desperation, so blatantly attempting to deceive the public. Stop and think for a moment: why else would the coalition refer to their model as Gonski 2.0? It was a blatant attempt to align their lesser model with Labor's promise. The government is cutting billions from what was promised—$17 billion—from schools like Morayfield State School, Tullawong High School, Woodford State School and Burpengary Meadows State School. It is cutting $17 billion from schools like these, deserving schools full of deserving children. Some of these schools had already started to see the benefits from the original Gonski model. This is what's quite alarming—they'd already started to see this.
Minimbah State School, an independent public school, was utilising needs based funding to target the needs of students through targeted professional development in literacy and numeracy for every teacher and teacher aide. They saw the very best NAPLAN results ever. By employing a master teacher to improve classroom practices, they saw their mean scale score improve in all 10 areas. Through gifted and talented activities such as robotics, Minimbah has seen attendance rates rise to the highest level in five years—best NAPLAN, increased rates of attendance and an improvement in the mean scale score across 10 areas. That's what you get from a true Gonski model. The other good news story about Minimbah is that the Gonski plan, as promised, was always about helping the most vulnerable kids, and at Minimbah this translated to speech therapy as well as vision and hearing checks.
Every single student across this country deserves a fair go, including those in my electorate. But, let's be clear: this government would rather take $17 billion of this funding and use it to fund a cut for big business tax. We've grown to expect this behaviour by this government. We should never, ever accept it. Australia deserves a government with its priorities in order and a government that truly values education.
I welcome this opportunity to speak on the motion from the member for Fisher in relation to the government's investment in schools. He notes quite clearly that the government's additional $23.5 billion investment in Australian schools over the next 10 years, on top of the 2016 budget, will deliver the real needs based funding that our students need to succeed in the future. It is all about a focus on all students and schools, that they be treated fairly and equitably and that students with the same need in the same sector receive the same support from the Commonwealth government. I also note the motion's important reference to the Review to Achieve Educational Excellence in Australian Schools and the Review into Regional, Rural And Remote Education together with the Teacher Performance Assessment. They are items that I would like to contribute to in this debate in the chamber today.
I say this from the perspective of being the member for Groom, centred around the city of Toowoomba, which is Australia's second biggest inland city behind Canberra. Groom and Toowoomba are well known for their educational offerings. We are very much a regional education capital for southern inland Queensland and northern inland New South Wales, at both the primary, secondary and tertiary education levels, as well as at preschool level in our city at the same time. I categorically state, for the benefit of the chamber, that all schools in Groom will receive an increase in Commonwealth funding in 2018. Three examples of additional funding over the next 10 years, which I offer for the chamber today, are St Mary's College, a Catholic boys college, formerly a Christian Brothers college, which will receive $20.1 million; Harristown State School, a very significant school in the south-west corner of Toowoomba, which will receive $17.6 million; and Fairholme, a private girls day and boarding school—a magnificent college—which will receive $16.3 million over that period.
Other examples across the region outside Toowoomba include Mary MacKillop, a Catholic school at Highfields, where my wife has been a teacher in the past—$10.4 million. Pittsworth State High School, one of the leading agricultural high schools in the country, let alone in Queensland—$4.4 million. Oakey State School—$3.4 million.
I note the compliments from the Brisbane Catholic Education Office in months past in relation to the government's package, and I myself have had very constructive conversations, for example, with the Toowoomba Diocese Catholic Education Office, which covers most of south-west Queensland. I am a former board member of it myself, so I can appreciate the challenges, in terms of quality education and funding that education, that such boards have right across such regions.
In terms of the Review to Achieve Educational Excellence in Australian Schools, the Turnbull government has locked in a new funding system that certainly boosts per-student assistance by an average of $2,300 so schools and teachers will have the support and resources that they need to focus on programs that are best suited to their students. But money alone is not enough. To measure success, the Review to Achieve Educational Excellence in Australian Schools is underway as well. That review, headed by Mr Gonski himself, will report back to the Prime Minister and the education minister, Simon Birmingham, by March 2018. My experience in Queensland is that recognising the ability of schools to tailor their requirements to their students and their local communities is very important for the jobs of the future. The Review into Regional Rural And Remote Education complements what's already underway in terms of government assistance to the tertiary sector for rural, regional and remote students—under-represented students as well—such is the case with USQ in my city of Toowoomba.
I'm particularly pleased with the Teacher Performance Assessment. I'm surrounded by teachers: a couple of brothers-in-law, my sister, my wife, a daughter who is now a secondary school teacher and one studying primary school teaching as well. They are passionate and professional and they, like the rest of us, are focused on professional development. I very much encourage the government to continue its focus on improving educational outcomes and quality.
I thank the member for Fisher for bringing this motion to the House, as it gives us the opportunity to discuss the very vital issue of school education in Australia. Unfortunately, I must start by correcting an error in the member's motion. The government is not investing an additional $23.5 billion; it has removed $17 billion. Neither I, nor the member for Fisher, were in this place in 2013, but I am sure that he remembers the member for Sturt, who was then the coalition's education spokesperson, promising Australian parents there would not be one dollar difference between the coalition's and Labor's education plans. It was such an ironclad promise, the coalition even had corflutes made up, which were brandished with abandon at election booths. After the election, the coalition sought to break its promise by trying to cut $30 billion in school funding, which Labor and the Senate blocked. Now the government expects praise for cutting just $17 billion and not the $30 billion that was formerly proposed. If the funding you legislate is less than what you had promised, it is a cut. So, if we're going to debate an issue, we should at least start with the truth.
I am delighted that the member for Fisher is pleased that three schools in his electorate are, between them, to receive an extra $76.6 million over the next decade. It's a less happy tale in Tasmania, where public schools will receive $60 million less than they were promised by the coalition, and that's just over the next two years. And it is, of course, public schools and Catholic schools that do the really heavy lifting in Tasmania—educating three-quarters of the state's children, including most children with a disability. It is beyond comprehension that the new funding formula also strips Tasmanian schools of $10 million targeted at students with disability.
It is public schools and Catholic schools that need the most funding, but apparently that's not the case under this government. The exclusive Friends' School in Hobart, where high school tuition can cost parents more than $20,000 a year, is getting an extra $19 million from the government's changes to funding formulas. While kids in Bridgewater, Campania and Westbury and Evandale get less for their schools, Friends' School gets a few million extra.
Those opposite will often accuse Labor of waging class warfare, but the fact is our funding model would have ensured that no Australian school would have been worse off, whether it were public, private, Catholic or whatever. Our formula was based on need, and that formula would have seen more funds directed to public and Catholic schools, where the need is demonstrably greatest. The government's model, on the other hand, skews public funds markedly to wealthy, high-fee-charging, independent schools. Caulfield Grammar in Melbourne, which charges $29,000 a year, will get $34.8 million more from taxpayers over the next decade. Wesley in Melbourne charges $30,000 and gets $22 million more. Presbyterian in Melbourne charges $30,000 and will get $18 million more. Kings in Parramatta charges $34,000 and gets $19 million more. Newington and Santa Sabina in Strathfield, which charge $32,000 and $22,000 in fees, get $19 million more. It is not Labor waging class warfare; it is the coalition waging warfare on public education funding.
Anyone who says school funding is not relevant to education performance is kidding themselves. It is not the only thing that matters, but it is right up there in importance. On all the education indices, my electorate of Lyons is behind the eight ball. Many in my electorate do not aspire to university; they see it as either out of reach or irrelevant to their needs. Just 5.5 per cent are university graduates. I'm sad to say, just 6.8 per cent have a diploma or a trade qualification. That's a huge percentage of people without any formal qualification beyond school. That means these people are automatically behind the eight ball when it comes to better employment prospects, better pay, better working conditions and more social mobility. Education is where it starts, and it starts in primary school, and that is where these cuts are having the worst effect. The silence of the four Tasmanian Liberal senators has been deafening on these cuts, while the meek surrender of the Liberal Premier of Tasmania has been, frankly, pathetic. That is why we need a state Labor government in Tasmania.
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Sitting suspended from 13:40 to 16 : 00
Remembrance Day this year is going to be a very special commemoration—100 years since Beersheba and the Light Horse and 75 years since Kokoda. I'll be spending the day down at Marysville RSL. I am looking forward to meeting up with Ron Jones, the president, and Graham Eddy, the secretary. Today I would like to acknowledge the work of the Yackandandah Cemetery Trust to commemorate the service and sacrifice of World War I veterans and their families. On Saturday I will join them to officially open the memorial rotunda and the honour board. This will recognise and commemorate the sacrifice made by 109 servicemen and two nurses and their families from this very small community in north-east Victoria, just outside of Beechworth, and remember the 23 people lost in battle. To the chair, Ron Leary, the secretary, Mrs Gil Malone, and the treasurer, Mary Rinaudo, of the outstanding cemetery trust I say thank you for your commitment to this work. I also thank the Foundation for Rural and Regional Renewal, the Bendigo Bank, the Indigo Shire, the Stanley Fire Brigade, Stanley Inc, the Stanley Social Group, the Stanley hall committee and the members of the community who have worked to make this event possible. The experience of our veterans and their families is a really important part of the Stanley history, and the work of this local community will ensure that it will not be forgotten. Lest we forget.
Four years ago, Mrs Sharon Cloete introduced a robotics program to Mullion Creek Public School. Since robotics became part of the school curriculum in 2013, the students have competed in the RoboCup Junior Australian Open Championships. This year, three dance teams from Mullion Creek Public School placed first and equal second at the state competition and progressed to the national championships in Brisbane. They took place in the first week of the September school holidays, and the students finished sixth, seventh and 13th—a fantastic effort.
What is even more impressive is that the competition involves the students designing and programming these robots. The first team I would like to mention today programmed their robots to dance to the music from Disney's Fantasia. Special mention goes to students Chloe Grosling, Elianna Wentworth, Piper Dening, Sophie Gorman and Saffron Strickland. The second team coordinated their robots to dance in a boxing match to the song Eye of the Tiger. Special mention goes to students Hunter Middleton, Max Sheardown, Edward Southwell, Oliver Inman and Liam Griffith. The last group I would like to recognise designed and built robotic dogs and choreographed a dance to the song Who Let the Dogs Out. Special mention goes to students Ellie Calaja, Anna Martin, Katelyn Peters and Maddison Brooking. I would like to once again recognise Ms Sharon Cloete for bringing this remarkable program to Mullion Creek Public School and Principal Sally Beer for supporting the robotics program that has seen our local students excel on a national level. Mullion Creek is a small school, but it is certainly a mighty school in what it's achieving on the national stage.
I rise to table the community climate petition as approved by the Petitions Committee. On 2 August this year, a group of committed climate advocates from my electorate met at my office to present their petition, signed by nearly 1,000 residents in Wakefield. The petition calls on the government to commit to a further reduction of emissions by developing a plan to reach zero net greenhouse gas emissions before 2050. The petition also calls for Australia to be a more proactive global citizen by supporting our neighbouring countries suffering from the effects of global warming. The community climate petition was a community led project from the Gawler Interchurch Council, giving voice to the majority of the public who are tired of anti-climate-change rhetoric. I would like to thank Peter and Gill Caunce and the Gawler Interchurch Council, Graham Brockman, Barry Neylon and Deborah Russell, and student leaders Luke Molett and Macey Ferdinands from Trinity College, who took the time to meet with me in the office and present me with their very important petition.
) ( ): As a proud representative of the Murray electorate, and a member of the Turnbull-Joyce government, I welcome the announcement of the National Energy Guarantee by the Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment and Energy. There are many food processors and manufacturers in the electorate of Murray. These are big businesses that employ large numbers of employees, and they also are heavy energy users. These processors include SPC Ardmona, Simplot, Unilever, Campbell's Soup, Kagome, Geoffrey Thompson, Pental, Parmalat, Bega Cheese, Murray Goulburn, Fonterra, Ozpak and Freedom Foods, to mention some. They have all expressed some very real concern about a 43 per cent likelihood that Victoria is going to have blackouts this summer because of the closure of the coal station in Gippsland.
The government has gone to work in this area, getting the advice of the experts to put together the National Energy Guarantee. It will create a level playing field that will ensure all energies are part of Australia's energy mix, it will provide certainty for investors, it will reduce volatility within the energy sector, and it will be the end of the subsidies that are no longer needed.
Yesterday, the city of Burnie in my electorate on the north-west coast of Tasmania held the Burnie Ten. This running race has a successful history of over 25 years. This year's Burnie Ten was also an Australian Masters Games 10-kilometre road race event, which added to the excitement. This event attracts runners from all levels, and yesterday saw close to 3,000 entries in both the 10-kilometre and five-kilometre races. One of those entries was mine.
The town yesterday was a centre of activity, with runners and walkers, young and old, fit and not fit, elite and slow—like yours truly—lining up along Wilson Street to run along the Bass Highway, with many watching from footpaths. There were many stories of personal achievements. As I participated, I witnessed stories of inspiration and motivation being played out during the race—stories of people doing amazing things. For the men's winner, it was the story of childhood dreams being achieved, and for the women's winner it was the story of an incredible back-to-back victory.
Another story is about the team Just Like Jack. Just Like Jack is an organisation run by volunteers with a mission of delivering to children with additional needs adventures and experiences that they never thought were possible. Their words of motivation—'No matter your ability, with the right team support and positive attitude you can achieve anything, just like Jack'—are such fitting words for a 10-kilometre road race. I congratulate the wonderful volunteers of Just Like Jack, and a big congratulations to the many who competed and the many volunteers who made yesterday possible.
I want to talk about the National School Chaplaincy Program. It was not been funded for 2018, and I want to advocate for funding into 2018. I have a lot of high schools across the electorate of Mallee that would never be able to afford the level of student support services if it were not for the school chaplaincy fund. Increasingly, I have principals coming to me and saying: 'Can you inquire about this? We want to ensure it goes forward for 2018.'
We must assist young Australians on the journey of life by having someone in the school body they can talk to—whether it is about dealing with the pressures of body image or dealing with home life, they need someone who is on their side, who is an authority figure and who has the appropriate skills. Can I point out to the parliament that I have recently written to the Treasurer, Scott Morrison, and also to the Minister for Education and Training, Simon Birmingham, about this. I believe this is a very important program, particularly in those country schools that do not have enough resources.
The National School Chaplaincy Program is something I'm going to continue to advocate for. It's something that should be delivered. It's something I believe in, and I think standing by our young Australians is something that enjoys support on both sides of the parliament. Having someone you can talk to is so important as you go through the challenges of getting your education.
I rise to speak again about the struggle of the hardworking maintenance workers at Esso in Victoria employed by contractor UGL. UGL workers at Esso Gippsland have now been on the picket line for over a hundred days. They're standing up to corporate greed and fighting back against unfair conditions. UGL wants to scrap the workers' EBA and has asked them to accept worse conditions and pay cuts of up to 40 per cent. Many of the 200 workers have been with the company for over a decade, and it's thanks to their hard work and their incredible safety record that UGL has won countless contracts. These workers have dedicated themselves to their work, but UGL won't even give them a decent wage in return. Every day on the picket line is another day without pay, and it only gets harder for these workers and their families.
I'm astonished that in all this time there has been no change, that UGL has refused to treat these workers in the way they should be treated, in the way they deserve. I'm not astonished, however, at the resilience, commitment and integrity of these workers, who are sticking to their guns and insisting on justice. This fight is one of the most important industrial disputes of our time. These members are standing together against one of the richest companies in the world and demanding a fair EBA. All they want is to get their jobs back with fair pay and fair conditions. We know that, if Esso and UGL are allowed to get away with treating their employees this way, other workplaces will follow. I congratulate the workers at UGL on their efforts and back them all the way. We'll be with them as they continue to fight the good fight.
Last week, the federal government announced some extra funding for palliative care, specifically to improve the quality and accessibility of palliative care. Some of the new funding will go to some projects in Brisbane. Through the Brisbane North PHN, $12 million will be delivered to QUT in a Brisbane project to build collaboration amongst the experts in palliative care, including especially in education and training, to build the capability and the capacity of Brisbane's palliative care workforce. We're striving for best practice here, and I'm sure QUT in Brisbane have been selected for this project because of the tremendous work some of our local experts do. They're clearly among the best when it comes to delivering quality palliative care. There will also be a Brisbane based project delivered through QUT specifically to assist medical professionals to better understand the legal framework around palliative care.
The people that provide care to our loved ones as they approach the end of their life are doing a hugely important job and they deserve the very best quality training and support. The work will commence this year, and when I think about, in addition, the funding this government has recently delivered to places like Hummingbird House and the new Ronald McDonald House, and to help refit the lodges at the Queensland Cancer Council, I'm incredibly proud to be a part of a government doing more than ever before to assist Queensland families in some of the toughest moments in their lives.
Last week this parliament celebrated carers and our appreciation for the work carers do every day in our communities. There are 2.7 million unpaid carers in Australia today, putting in 36 million hours of care and support every week and saving the Australian economy at least $60.3 billion. On Friday I was pleased to attend an afternoon tea to thank some of the carers in my electorate. I would like to thank Christine O'Neill and Anthony Coniglio from Northcott Casula for generously organising the event. Northcott is a not-for-profit disability service that works with its customers to realise their potential. It was established in 1929. It was wonderful to be treated to presentations from several of the customers, who explained what they have been doing at the centre recently. They have diverse programs, such as men's and women's groups and first aid, and varied work skill options such as getting a drivers licence or learning to navigate the public transport system. I also spoke to the carers about their hopes for their children and their experiences with the NDIS.
At this event I launched the Werriwa Disability Services Directory. The first edition is a reference for those looking for services for themselves or for loved ones in Werriwa. The booklet will be revised periodically, and if anybody else would like to be involved, please contact my office. I thank the member for Blair for his inspiration for the directory. Thank you to Cameron, Ben, Emma, Susu, David and Christine for your hospitality.
Mincon are a fabulous company in my electorate. I joined Mincon for their 40th anniversary celebrations and the opening of their new manufacturing facility in Welshpool, an industrial area in my electorate of Swan. Mincon are an Irish company but operate in many countries, manufacturing drilling consumables for the global mining sector. In 2006 they opened up their first manufacturing facility in Western Australia, and over the last decade they've continued to go from strength to strength, manufacturing materials for mining companies of all sizes across our great state. In the last 12 months alone, Mincon have invested over $1 million in their manufacturing facilities in Perth and have increased their workforce considerably. They have taken on three apprentices, who are working across their facilities and gaining real-life experience with an established company. A further $2 million has been allocated to invest in equipment over the next six months. In doing so, Mincon are confident they'll be able to grow the company in WA and employ more WA people. I know from my conversation with Mincon director, Jim Purcell, how committed the company is to the manufacturing industry in WA. He said they believe it is the key to success in the mining sector.
I would like to congratulate Jim and the team at Mincon on this milestone anniversary. I also had the opportunity to meet Paddy, who started the company many years ago back in Ireland. They are an example of what can be achieved through hard work and persistence. They are an iconic company in my electorate. I look forward to catching up with the team again and wish them every success.
As patron of the high-flying Belconnen Magpies, I rise to acknowledge some of those who received awards at the club's annual event. In the Rising Stars category, this year the Rising Stars fought hard in the preliminary rounds, beat the Jets and the Hawks but, alas, didn't make it to the finals. Congratulations to award winners John Rees, Blake Hourn, Tom Fekete, Brendan Garske, Alex Wenke and Fraser Miller. Fourth grade also had a strong season but didn't make the finals. Congratulations to award winners Matt Newman, Kael Hulin, Aiden Watt, Brady Daw, Jace Iemma and Blake Collins
The women's team played strongly, smashed the Lions in the semis and narrowly lost to the Jets in the preliminary final. Congratulations to award winners Jodie Hicks, Amber Allen, Raven Leatherby-Ford, Elisa Pevere, Natasha McKay and Melissa Pellow.
Second grade made the preliminary finals but lost to the Tigers. Congratulations to award winners Djali Bloomfield, Luke McGilvary, Joseph Pisciotta, Carl Wenke and Nick Burridge. First grade had a great season but were beaten in the grand final last month by the Ainslie Tricolours. Congratulations to James Bennett, Stephen Coate, Ryan Turnbull, Joseph Kenna, Blake Talsma, Jack Harper and Beau Walker.
Finally, congratulations to Fraser Miller, Natasha McKay, Rob Lamb, Phil Batten, Peter Dunn, Trent Hopkinson, Scott Reid, Ryan Turnbull and the first woman inducted into the Belconnen Magpies Hall of Fame, Jo Foster.
As an MP, I'm frequently approached by other veterans seeking help with the transition to civilian life. Often they tell me that their biggest struggle is translating the skills they learned in the forces to a post-service career. Through no fault of their own, businesses don't understand how employing a veteran can benefit them. While the government can and should address the issue, which the Prime Minister is doing through the Veterans' Employment Program, nothing can replicate programs tailor made for veterans by veterans.
WithYouWithMe is a veteran owned tech start-up that tackles veteran employment by offering a hand up for the people who need it. In their own words, 'With you WithYouWithMe's grand objective is to transform Australian society's image of veterans from the current stigma of broken goods to highly competitive talent that business should grab before the competition does.' I was fortunate recently to visit a group of nine veterans embarking on day one of a two-week training course run free of charge by WithYouWithMe. The group is the second intake of Perth veterans training to become subcontractors for the rollout of the NBN in WA. In the two-week training veterans receive basic qualifications like first aid, power awareness and pole-top rescue. After that, they enter a 12-week traineeship program to learn on-the-job skills.
Since December 2016 WithYouWithMe has helped over 158 veterans get training, education and jobs. There are now 549 veterans signed up to their program. I applaud their work. They have asked for no handouts and no help from government. They simply get on with the job and are succeeding. I applaud their initiative, drive and vision. Well done.
In September I spoke in this chamber on the arrest of Mr Kem Sokha, leader of the Cambodian opposition party, the CNRP, on charges related to a speech he gave here in Australia. Mr Sokha is set to face the courts in Cambodia on 31 October, where he could face up to 30 years in prison. I'm deeply concerned that Mr Sokha's trial will be far from transparent and fair. Meanwhile, the CNRP is at threat of being disbanded by the Supreme Court of Cambodia, and more than half of its elected members have fled the nation in fear of reprisal and political arrest.
Last Monday the Cambodian parliament voted to change the electoral laws so that if the CNRP is disbanded their seats are not subject to by-elections but instead will be redistributed to five minor parties. Last month I met with the former opposition leader, Mr Sam Rainsy, and several leaders of the local Cambodian-Australian community. There are now very serious doubts about any prospect of free and fair elections being held when they're due, in mid-2018. This silencing of the voice of the people is of deep concern to the Labor Party. The Cambodian people should be the only ones who have the power to give to any party seats in the Cambodian parliament. It is the Cambodian people's right to decide the party they want to lead them into the future. Labor urges the Australian government to work to ensure free and fair elections in Cambodia, with free political discourse.
We're very lucky in Dunkley to have a number of brilliant innovators, and with each one that I visit I am more and more impressed with our local talent, skill and ability to innovate. Recently I met with Gretals Australia, another fantastically innovative company based in Mornington. Gretals specialise in developing highly innovative pharmaceuticals and new technologies in collaboration with their partners across Australia and around the globe; for example, they developed glucosamine, which has had amazing results in Australia and across the world. I met with the CEO of Gretals, Alistair Cumming, to discuss how they will benefit from the $50,000 grant they recently received under the government's Global Connections Fund, part of the National Innovation and Science Agenda, as well as other federal funding they've recently received.
Recently Gretals have been working on a new soil analysis system that would allow farmers to identify issues with soil quality in a matter of minutes, as currently it can take several days to have soil analysis conducted and results returned. This technology would allow farmers to have higher success rates with their crops and higher yields of produce. It would mean that treatment of contaminants could happen much faster, ensuring that the health of the crop or livestock is maintained.
I congratulate Gretals Australia on their work and on the receipt of their grant. I look forward to their continued success and advances.
I rise in the parliament today and hold one knitted square. It is a knitted square that was made with much love, just like the 9.8 million squares that have made up 440,000 blankets sent to over 70 countries by over 25,000 volunteers in this country. On Saturday morning I was privileged to visit Aveo retirement village at Durack in my electorate and meet with the ladies and gentlemen who give freely of their time to make these squares, which form blankets that are sent to children and people in trauma right across the globe. I want particularly to acknowledge Daphne Lithgow, an amazing individual who, alongside her hardworking volunteers, gives up her time to make these beautiful knitted blankets to send to those in need. It is a great achievement.
The group within the electorate of Oxley make around 308 wraps a year. I know from listening to their stories—from listening to people like Jenny King and volunteer Betty Amble—that they are so proud of the work they do. Jenny King says it best:
This project makes us feel useful in making wraps for those suffering cold and shock caused by natural disasters of flood, fire, earthquake, famine and continuing poverty, both abroad and at home.
Well done to the knitters! Well done to project Wrap with Love!
A fracas broke out in the 'city of islands' over the weekend, when two constituents had the temerity to place an 'It's okay to vote no' sign on the external glass window of a state Labor MP in the city. Most people would have smiled and said: 'Let democracy and freedom of expression reign. Let both sides' points of view be articulated.' Alas, no. We had a Labor state MP calling it vandalism and defacement of taxpayer property. We felt, I think, in the city that this was a completely hysterical, over-the-top reaction from someone who should welcome both sides of the debate.
Many people in here have strong views. We can see wincing over there from one of the members on the other side. And there are others who hold strong views, yes and no. I think it's important to allow this ABS vote to proceed without angst. We certainly don't need Labor MPs kicking it along, alleging vandalism and defacement of taxpayer property. It was putting up a sign with a bit of Blu Tack and a bit of a smudge on the glass. The sign was promptly removed after a photo was taken. Can we all move on and not kick this kind of aggravation along? I can see a lot of agreement from the Labor Party side as well. The member for Capalaba, Don Brown, clearly lets down his own party by not simply saying to a couple of constituents who want to make a point that both sides are okay. It was a grievous overreaction, as we saw on social media over the weekend.
Last Saturday I joined hundreds in walking together through Melbourne's CBD to say 'Welcome' in an event organised by the fantastic people at Welcome to Australia. We walked through the city to show our best side as Australians, who are decent, open, compassionate and above all empathetic to those who unfortunately have been placed in a position, through no fault of their own, of having to ask us for help. I know that Australians right around the country, I think in 23 cities and towns, did something similar. I know some of my colleagues took part in this demonstration. I was really pleased at the Melbourne event to be given the opportunity to say a few words, but I am sure that the most important aspect of this event and those around the country was hearing the lived experience of refugees, people who have been forced to come to Australia and then gone through the process of becoming Australian, or are still, in too many cases, seeking to go through that process. I was inspired by the bravery of the young women who shared difficult stories with many strangers to share this experience in the parliament, and I encourage others who heard these stories to go out there and make the case through these people's experiences for a more humane, more compassionate and better way forward.
I would like to congratulate the Brighton Calisthenics Club, which formally celebrates its 60th birthday this week. The club began in 1933, closed during World War II and was re-established in 1957, joining the Calisthenics Association that year, using its red and white colours. Calisthenics is an important sport for building both health and confidence in young girls and women. The word originates from the ancient Greek words for beauty and strength. Girls are taught the importance of teamwork, coordination, fitness, strength and flexibility, as well as presentation and preparation. My sister and I did calisthenics when we were young, and I can speak firsthand of the lessons it taught us. As I have previously stated, my grandmother also participated in calisthenics when she was young, and I wear her medal, engraved with her initials 'GG', which happen also to be the letters for the ultimate calisthenics prize, the Graceful Girl award.
I congratulate the Brighton Calisthenics Club on their continuing success—60 years is a remarkable achievement for any club. I acknowledge the almost 100 young women who train and compete for Brighton Calisthenics and their parents, who take them to training and prepare the beautiful, intricate outfits they wear for competition. These are people like wardrobe mistress Joy Putman, who has three generations of her family involved in the club. I congratulate the club president, Amanda Carruthers, the hardworking committee, and the coaches for the work they do. Happy birthday to the Brighton Calisthenics Club.
In the last few days, I have had two wonderful experiences with the good people of Branxton in my electorate. On Saturday morning I joined the preschool community for the celebration of 30 years of early childhood education delivery—a great achievement. Along with a large number of parents who came along, there was the director, Natalie Caslick, and her very professional team, and Philippa Furner, who 30 years ago was the driving force behind the establishment of the preschool. I congratulate all involved there. I saw them delivering subjects like technology, engineering and mathematics at preschool age. As we all know in this place, we can't start our children on these paths of learning too early.
Today I met with Branxton Public School right here in Parliament House, and I was most impressed by the quality of their questions as I shared some banter with the children. I congratulate the principal, Michelle Maier, and all the teaching staff at Branxton Public School. What really stands out for me, and I said this on Saturday when speaking at the preschool, is that everywhere I go in Branxton—the end of year school presentation, the child care, the preschool or local sporting events—the number of parents supporting their children is just phenomenal. I congratulate the Branxton community for the way they get behind their children and devote so much of their time to their learning and future opportunities.
I would like to congratulate the Richmond Valley Council for working closely with the private sector to encourage investment and, very importantly, the creation of local jobs in the Richmond Valley. After this government legislated last year to allow for the medicinal use of cannabis, Casino is set to become the centre of Australia's burgeoning medicinal cannabis industry after the council signed an agreement with company PUF to build a $100 million cannabis greenhouse and processing plant. This will create more than 300 permanent local jobs. A week after announcing this deal, Richmond Valley Council also announced plans to work with a Brisbane based biohub developer to hopefully build a $4.3 million biohub to turn organic waste and wastewater into energy, clean water and other bioproducts. It is also trying to lure a $37 million rural industries food hub to Casino after the proposal didn't attract the support of a nearby council.
Later this month, I will be turning the sod on a $14 million upgrade of the Casino saleyards, which was kick-started by a $3.5 million Stronger Regions Fund grant. I congratulate Mayor Robert Mustow and all the councillors, as well as CEO Vaughan Macdonald and all the staff, on their can-do attitude.
Today I and the member for Moore had the pleasure of hosting four students and two teachers from Alta-1 College in Western Australia. Alta-1 is an alternative care school that provides an opportunity for education for young people who, for various reasons, haven't been able to access or use the school system. Many of the students have mental health conditions, are homeless or are dealing with complex and difficult family situations. Today, four of these students got to speak directly to parliamentarians about their experiences with the youth mental health system. We heard about the gaps and challenges for young people accessing mental health services, and how a 17-year-old in Western Australia can't access services for youth up to the age of 16 or adults that start at the age of 18.
I thank Darryl and Hanna, their teachers and all the staff at Alta-1 for the wonderful work that they do for these young people. Apart from providing education outcomes, the school embraces a therapeutic model and course aimed at addressing the needs of young people with high-risk behaviours. The four students we met today—Taya, Genevieve, Matt and Jake—all spoke about how Alta-1 was a lifeline for them. Some of them had a history of self-harming and had not attended regular schooling for some time before finding out about Alta-1.
I thank my Labor colleagues who came along to meet these young people to let them know that we're listening to them. I also thank the member for Moore, Mr Ian Goodenough, for helping me bring these young people to Canberra. It's truly an example of bipartisanship that the public doesn't often get to see.
It is often said that being the test captain of the Australian Cricket Team is second in stature to that of the Prime Minister. Whether you play in your backyard or at a local club on a Saturday morning, cricket is part of our national identity. I have fond memories of playing footpath cricket in Bracken Ridge while growing up.
In my electorate of Petrie, I'm lucky to have a terrific junior cricket club, the Redcliffe City Junior Cricket Club—better known as the Cyclones. The Cyclones formed in 1965 and today have approximately 100 members. Recently, I visited the club to watch the Super 6's game. It was a great game, with 45 minutes a side so that parents can watch their kids and get it done quickly.
I was pleased to secure the club's first government grant in 52 years. The $14,000 grant will help them build a storage shed at Filmer Park for the club's gear and uniforms. The shed will also provide a patio to offer a bit of shade to the spectators. It is very easy for local sporting clubs to reinvest the money they fundraise back into the club, but this club also gives back, raising money for the McGrath Foundation. Last year, it also helped Woody Point Special School.
The Cyclones are paving the way as well for our up-and-coming stars. Previous Queensland rep Trevor Barsby, who started at the Cyclones, is a great example. A quick shout-out to Jake Scott from Scarborough, one of the young men at the club, who is doing a terrific job. Thank you for everything that the club does in the community.
I rise today to pay tribute to two extraordinary women who have sadly left this earth: Neta Yallop and Linda Beattie. Both women were extremely important to the electorates of Barton and Canterbury.
Neta Yallop passed away peacefully on 2 August 2017, aged 93. Throughout her life, Neta made a tremendous contribution to her local community. I knew Neta well and her late husband, Ted. She served as a board member of Earlwood childcare centre for 40 years, championing support for vulnerable families and children with disabilities. For over 60 years she was a volunteer at the Canterbury City Community Centre, formerly the Canterbury Community Aid Bureau. She was a founding member and subsequently served as president and vice-president. In 2015 she was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia as part of the Queen's honours list for her 60 years service to Canterbury. After a lifetime of community service, may she rest in peace.
I also want to mention the late Linda Beattie, a wonderful woman who died on 19 August 2017. She was 67. Linda was an actor and a model and ran many productions in Sydney's renowned theatre scene. She was a dedicated Labor member and supported me in the last election campaign. She had insurmountable odds, but she was always full of life and never once complained. She was full of passion and flare. I pay tribute to her dear friend Daryl Burge-Lopez as well. Both women will be sorely missed.
I was honoured to accept an invitation from the Joondalup Local Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the birth of Baha'u'llah at a service held at the Currambine Community Centre on Saturday evening. The Baha'i community is an integral part of our society, with its members actively participating in civic activities and volunteering to assist charitable organisations. They are well represented in the professions, business and education sectors. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the contribution of members of the Local Spiritual Assembly: Ali Habibi, Shiva Haidary, David Marshall, Mitra Marshall, Nicola Mazandarani, Flora Sharafizad, Kourash Sheikhzadeh, Forouzan Shojaei and Helena Shojaei.
Over the years I have developed a closer working relationship and friendship with many Baha'is as I attended their events and found out more about their philosophy and history, including the challenges they face with persecution in a number of countries around the world. The Australian community is enhanced by the values of peace, tolerance, unity, family and advancement through education, which the Baha'is practise. I wish the Baha'i community all the best on this landmark occasion. I look forward to continuing to represent their interests in parliament.
I come from Cowboy country. I just do not have enough time to do real justice to the mighty Cowboys. The 2017 season has been both inspirational and challenging. We lost our co-captains—Johnathan Thurston and Matt Scott—to injury, and throughout the season many other players were also injured. But our great team did not let the challenges get to them. They are a team with incredible self-belief and resilience. They define true grit. They were not predicted to make the finals, but they took it one game at a time and reached the finals, to their credit. The Cowboys have put a spring in the step of our community members. They have done their community proud and the community have backed them every inch of the way.
My husband and I attended the grand final game. We sat in the stands with the supporters. What a great game it was. Our boys did not give up. My congratulations go to the players for an outstanding season, Coach Paul Green, CEO Greg Tonner, Cowboys staff and the dedicated supporters. We did not win but we certainly let the country know that you never take a team with nothing to lose and a real passion to win for granted. We're ready for a win in 2018. I congratulate Melbourne Storm as well because they truly did deserve their win. They played very well and, after all, they are Queenslanders.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate a teacher in my electorate—Mr Brett McKay from Kirrawee High School—who last week received the Prime Minister's prize for excellence in science teaching in secondary schools. Mr McKay has had great achievements at Kirrawee. Enrolments in physics classes have actually increased fourfold under his watch. This year about 60 per cent of Kirrawee High's year 12 students will sit at least one HSC science exam and in year 10 about 140 kids, or 70 per cent of that year, are actually doing science thanks to Mr McKay's great work. Mr McKay said:
Every kid as a child asks questions but when they get to high school, they've stopped …
… we've got to get them starting again.
Mr McKay, I'm sure, teaches them that science is not advanced by consensus but by informed dissent. It's also very pleasing to see that Mr McKay has embraced the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor, where many students from Kirrawee High School go and actually learn about nuclear science. I would encourage them to do that. Whatever our future holds, I'm sure that nuclear science and technology will have a very big part in it. Again I congratulate Mr McKay on the great work that he is doing at Kirrawee High School.
I'm very sad to report to the parliament that our region lost a wonderful gentleman, Neil Preston, last week. I got to know Neil very well during his time as Greenacres chief executive. He was a determined and well-respected advocate for people with a disability. His advocacy led to him being named Wollongong Citizen of the Year in 2014 and also earned him an OAM.
When Neil retired in 2011, the member for Whitlam and I hosted then Senator Jan McLucas, who was the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers, on a surprise visit to Neil at work to present him with a certificate of appreciation for his years of public service and advocacy in the disability sector. He had been an engineer, and this was a significant career change for him. He sometimes wondered how he ended up there, but he was an absolute asset to the disability sector and it was great for the sector that he did. Indeed, at the time of his retirement, the current Labor leader, Bill Shorten, who was a minister at that time, sent a message of support, as did the Prime Minister at the time, Julia Gillard, because Neil's advocacy was known far and wide.
Greg Ellis of the Illawarra Mercury wrote a beautiful tribute, with reflections on Neil from people like Janine Cullen, who had worked with Neil and is now head of the Illawarra Business Chamber; Greenacres chairman Richard Young; and Neil's long-time friend Susan Burns, on his wonderful legacy. He will be sorely missed.
This year marks the 200th anniversary of the birth of the prophet-founder Baha'u'llah, according to the Baha'i faith. On 15 October, I was fortunate enough to join the local Baha'i community to celebrate this momentous occasion at the Baha'i House of Worship in Ingleside. Located on one of the highest spots on the northern beaches, the temple is one of only seven worldwide and the largest of its kind in Australia.
The Baha'i faith is one of inclusion. The Australian Baha'i are striving to create more-vibrant neighbourhoods by establishing closer connections among those previously regarding themselves as strangers. Worshippers from all over Australia, from all backgrounds and walks of life, flocked to the house of worship for this once-in-a-lifetime commemoration.
As in other faiths, the Baha'i faith recognises the importance of singing and chanting as part of their ceremonies, and let me tell you their choir from Mount Druitt is something to be heard. The singing in this most beautiful temple was transcendental. It was fantastic to see so many people from diverse backgrounds and beliefs come together, unified by the vision that Baha'u'llah had for a united, peaceful world and society.
Madam Deputy Speaker Claydon, I want to take you back to 2004, when the member for Wentworth was elected to this parliament. It was also the time when the Queensland government, under Peter Beattie, brought in land-clearing legislation. It was quite controversial at the time, but it saw land clearing in Queensland go down to 78,000 hectares in a year. However, under the changes brought in by Campbell Newman and Tim Nicholls when they were the LNP government and gutted the laws protecting Queensland from land clearing, we saw that the industry had not reformed and, last financial year, 2015-16, we saw that there were 400,000 hectares of land cleared in Queensland.
We know that, if we're going to reduce emissions, we need to start fixing carbon. We know that, if we are going to meet those Paris targets for 2050, we need to have a big carbon sink, and reafforestation will be big part of that. So I'm calling on the Prime Minister, who's been in parliament now for 13 years, to remember his time as environment minister under the Howard government and to remember when we were committed in a bipartisan way to meeting the Kyoto protocol targets and solving this environmental imperative, which is to make sure that Queensland's forests are protected and that the agricultural industry reforms itself and doesn't do broadscale clearing. It is absolutely imperative that we get back down to that 78,000 hectares a year under the Labor government.
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
I move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges the important role Holden's workforce has played in Holden Australia's history including when it:
(a) was established in 1856 by James Alexander Holden as a saddlery business;
(b) became the exclusive supplier for General Motors in Australia in 1924;
(c) built the first all-Australian motor vehicle in 1948, the FX Holden;
(d) commenced construction on the current Holden site in Elizabeth, South Australia in 1958; and,
(e) hosted Queen Elizabeth II at the Elizabeth plant in 1963;
(2) congratulates the current Holden workforce for its ongoing professionalism which has ensured the Holden Elizabeth plant remains General Motors' top factory for quality globally; and
(3) acknowledges the role of Prime Minister Chifley and South Australian Premier Sir Thomas Playford in establishing the Australian automotive industry.
Every so often there are moments in the national life when a Prime Minister and a government must speak to the country. Undoubtedly 20 October 2017, that Black Friday, when the last car rolled off the line at GMH Elizabeth, was one of those days. It demanded a government and a Prime Minister that would actually speak to the nation. Instead, what we had was largely ignorance of that moment, denial of that moment and avoidance of that moment. But it was a very big moment. In the words of Holden, in their press release, their Executive Director of Manufacturing, Richard Phillips, paid tribute to the people and achievements at Elizabeth plant. He said:
The passion and dedication of the team here is second to none, it has been an honour to work alongside them. In the final years of production, we have been building categorically the best-quality cars to ever roll out of this plant, and our last car was our best.
That's what Holden said. In the newspapers in Adelaide, in InDaily the headline was: 'Holden gave me everything I have.' In the Advertiser it was: 'Holden's heart is still but history will drive our enduring passion.' In that article Richard Phillips was quoted, and he channelled Ben Chifley:
"Sixty-nine years ago prime minister Ben Chifley announced our first Australian-built vehicle with that famous line, 'She’s a beauty'," he said.
'And today, but just as a humble lad from Elizabeth, as I saw that car rolling past me on the line, the thought that came to my mind was simply, 'She’s perfect'.
That last car is perfect, and it tells a story about a factory and a workforce that, despite all of the criticism of them by this government at the time Holden made their announcement and in the lead-up to that—the blackguarding of what was an honourable workforce, a productive workforce and a workforce that was prepared to take a reduction in conditions and pay in its enterprise bargaining agreement as a method of securing the additional billion dollars worth of investment. The one thing that we lacked at that time was a government that was prepared to facilitate that billion dollars worth of investment that GM wanted to make, which would have allowed us to have two new extra models and would have carried us through to 2022 at the earliest.
We had a situation where this was an unnecessary closure of a great industry, of a great workforce, 50,000 employees across the country—not just the thousand at Elizabeth, but thousands and thousands in car component factories behind them. And we know that this tragic moment, and those opposite will get up and blackguard the car industry again. But even if you believe what they say they believe, which is that we couldn't manufacture cars in this country, you still needed a Prime Minister who would speak to the moment, who would honour that workforce, who would say decent things and pat them on the back for being so productive right up until the end—an unheard-of achievement. Of all the GM factories around the world, GM Elizabeth was the No. 1 in the world for quality in the last three months. In a factory scheduled for closure, that is unheard of, and those workers deserved congratulations for their efforts. But did the Prime Minister say that? No. When asked if he felt any guilt, he said, 'Personally I feel very sad. A bit of an end of an era. You can't get away from the emotional response to closure. Having said that, let's look at some of the more positive aspects to it'—some of the more positive aspects, that the workers might have transitioned to new jobs. That positive aspect is despite this government and not because of this government.
What we had on Friday was a Prime Minister who abrogated his responsibility to tell the nation what just happened. It was an important moment in our post-war history—the last Australian-made car coming off the line. He could have told South Australia, Victoria and the country what comes next. It could have been a time to explain what comes next, whether it be defence, innovation or something else like high technology. I don't know. But we'll never know, because the Prime Minister didn't turn up. He didn't make that speech. He didn't say anything to the people of South Australia, Victoria or, indeed, the nation. It was a critical moment in our history and a symbolic moment for this government that will condemn this Prime Minister and this government as the government that waved goodbye to the last Australian-made car.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
I'm pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to commentary on this motion. I say at the outset that I agree with many of the sentiments contained within the motion from the member for Wakefield. As I acknowledge the sentiments of the member for Wakefield in this motion, I particularly support the recognition of the professionalism of Holden workers, both in recent times and over the many, many decades in the history of the Australian motor vehicle manufacturing industry. I recognise at the same time the challenges for the Australian motor vehicle industry considered by successive federal and state governments across this country.
As we continue, quite rightly, to recognise and celebrate the past, given the recent decisions of Ford, Toyota and, of course, now Holden to cease manufacturing in Australia, so too are we compelled to look to the future. Is this the end of an era? Of course it is. Especially significant, I think, given the community celebration of at least those involved and supportive of Australian motor vehicle sport, is the success of Holden and Ford at Bathurst and the Gold Coast in recent weeks, respectively. I say this also as a great fan of Australian manufacturing and an investor in Australian manufacturing industries myself prior to coming to this place. I offer tremendous support to any comment of respect towards Holden workers and those who have worked in the industry more broadly over many, many decades. I say this as a true Australian motor vehicle buff myself.
But, as I say, we do need to look to the future. As a former premier of the very important vehicle manufacturing state of Victoria, Jeff Kennett, recently reflected, the challenges for successive governments under various Australian industry federal ministers—including my own predecessor in this place, Ian Macfarlane—have been there for many years to consider. Mr Kennett reflected that for years we had a tariff of almost 60 per cent protecting our car industry by ensuring imported cars were so much more expensive. The tariff began to be reduced in the mid-1980s under the Hawke Labor government. By 2015, the tariff had been reduced to about 10 per cent. The review by former Victorian Labor Premier Steve Bracks recommended a further five per cent cut, which happened in 2010. More recently that tariff has sat at about five per cent.
The Button plan of Labor in 1990 encouraged the local industry to export, quite rightly, and to reduce the number of models it sold—a move towards export and rationalisation, I guess, was his thinking—in return for ongoing financial support from the federal government. We know the history has been that, as tariffs reduced, imports increased from individual plants that produced, in fact, more vehicles each year than our entire industry did in any one year. As Kim Carr said in 2012: 'Governments don't run the car companies. It's not the government's job to tell them how to manage the plant.' As the General Motors head of international operations said at around the same time, nor was it the fault of any particular government decision that they had to face up to economic conditions on a worldwide basis.
I'm proud that our government has responded to these challenges and put in place a range of support mechanisms to help workers transition. These have been in place for some years, recognising that the decisions of Ford, Toyota and Holden were announced some time ago. The $100 million Advanced Manufacturing Fund—assistance to expand advanced manufacturing, particularly in South Australia and Victoria—leveraging a total investment of $119 million, I think has been particularly important through these difficult times and these challenges. And so the list goes on. There is $255 million in assistance to specific businesses to transition to new industries. There is some $45 million for the workers in transition programs, with 6,000 workers provided with career training advice and support. I'm advised that 75 per cent of Holden workers have found new jobs or retired.
There is a salutary lesson here for Australian consumers as well. As Jeff Kennett said, Australians changed their purchasing patterns and started buying more and more imported vehicles. If I had the opportunity, I would buy Australian vehicles forever more. I cherish the '67 six-cylinder Ford sedan through to the 2015 V8 Falcon I've purchased, and I cherish the Australian industry. I look forward to its future, particularly with Ford and Holden, looking at international engineering activities.
I begin by thanking my colleague, the member for Wakefield, for bringing this very important motion before this parliament, and I am delighted to second it. Last week, the sadness about the final destruction of this country's car industry reverberated throughout this chamber, throughout this parliament and, I might say, across the country. The closure of the Holden Australia plant in Elizabeth was really the final chapter in what has been an extinction-level event for thousands of Australian jobs, an entire industry being wiped out by this government. Over some nearly seven decades the car industry has employed, quite literally, generations of workers. It was a source of good-quality jobs for migrants and for working-class people.
In my own electorate of Batman, where some two in five persons were born overseas, many residents now in their golden years remember working in those car factories, and they remember the good jobs and the opportunities that came with them. They came to this country with next to nothing but with a hope for a better life for themselves and for their children, and they found work in car manufacturing companies. They built cars for our grandparents and our parents, and they helped to build them for this nation. Their jobs were a source of both personal and national prosperity. They are often the neglected heroes of this nation's nation-building story. If only today they were able to have a government that backed them in. If only today they had a government that was prepared not only to acknowledge their contribution but to seize the opportunities the car industry could have looked forward to into the future.
Victoria has been making cars for over seven decades, and now that, too, has come to an end. The reality is that all three brands that have a deep history in this country, that helped build this country, are now gone. Instead, the government made an active, a calculated and a conscious decision, Prime Minister after Prime Minister, Treasurer after Treasurer, to turn their backs on the car industry. It was almost with cavalier disregard that they allowed this industry to collapse on their watch. It was a game of brinksmanship for which they were not qualified. It was a game of brinksmanship which saw them lost, perhaps for momentary embarrassment at the next polo game they attended, but to the lasting destruction of this industry and for this country, and they turned their backs not just on these workers and their families but on this country as a whole.
In question time last Thursday, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer bragged about the coalition's achievement of jobs growth, and they did that in the very same week where 1,000 workers at Holden lost their jobs. It just shows how remarkably out of touch this government is. When faced with a jobs tragedy, we find ourselves asking again and again: 'Well, how did we get here? How did this tragedy come about? How is it that this government killed the car industry?' In 2013, the then Labor government went to that election with a plan. Under the new car plan, Labor promised a further $1.5 billion in support for the car industry, to be given over the period 2015 to 2020. The plan would deliver some $5.4 billion in support to the Australian automotive manufacturing industry over the period from 2008 to 2020, the bulk of these funds flowing to the industry through the Automotive Transformation Scheme.
The then Labor government believed that this was a plan that would help the automotive manufacturing industry in this country not just to survive but to prosper, remembering that at that moment in time Australia was just one of 13 nations in the world that had the people, the skills, and the capital to build cars from end to end. China, Japan, France, Germany, Italy, India, the UK, US, South Korea, Russia and Malaysia—this was a club that the Abbott and Turnbull governments were very, very relaxed about Australia departing. This was a club, of course, where in all 13 of those nations the car industry was supported by subsidies or by tariffs. But, nonetheless, this was a club that this government cared nothing about Australia leaving. The election of the Abbott government turned out to be the nail in the coffin of an industry that still had a lot of life left to give to this country.
Speaking at the launch of the new four-cylinder Holden Cruze in 2011, then Prime Minister Julia Gillard spoke of the occasion when Prime Minister Chifley launched the first Holden, in the 1950s. He wasn't just launching a car, the Prime Minister said, he was building a nation. We know that this isn't a government that minds a good boondoggle—a $1 billion subsidy to Adani is justified in their world view—and we know that this isn't a government that is opposed to the subsidies on the grounds of markets, because Direct Action is, of course, a plan to destroy—(Time expired)
When the last Holden rolled off production in Adelaide on Friday it was the end of an era. The automotive manufacturing industry, begun by Liberal Premier Sir Thomas Playford, supported our economy and countless families in South Australia for decades. Over the course of its 70-year history, Holden produced some 7.3 million vehicles, including 2.3 million of the staple in many Australian garages, the Holden Commodore. The loss of employment in Adelaide's north will be felt hard by workers, their families and South Australia's economy as a whole.
I hope that new and emerging industries, such as the Naval Shipbuilding Plan, will find room for the experience and skills that ex-Holden workers will bring with them. We must remember, though, that there will still be workers in Australia carrying on the Holden legacy. General Motors will continue to be supported by around 1,000 staff, including a 350-strong design and engineering team. Holden's dealer network will also remain important, with some 6,000 staff across Australia. In my electorate of Boothby we're lucky to have one of Adelaide's most iconic dealerships, Hamilton Holden, on Brighton Road, operated by David Hamilton and his daughter Sally Hamilton.
We have known for some time that General Motors Holden was going to leave South Australia. It followed the decision of Ford and Toyota in Victoria, and Mitsubishi, at the turn of the century, in southern Adelaide, in my electorate of Boothby. With a monumental economic shift such as this, members of parliament are responsible for analysing and understanding the factors that have led us to where we are today. To my mind, there is no doubt that the cost inputs for manufacturing in Australia have been one of the biggest reasons for the decline of car manufacturing. The responsibility for these increasing costs lies squarely at the feet of the Labor Party and the unions. They have left Australia with the most globally uncompetitive wages in the world and have effectively priced Australian workers out of the market. The most generous salaries and terms and conditions of employment are worth absolutely nothing if you don't have a job. They're worth nothing if your product cannot compete on the world stage, because, as an isolated island, with a small population, we're reliant on trade to keep our businesses going. These facts are lost on those opposite, I know.
I also wonder what those opposite, who are blaming everyone but themselves for the closure of Holden, have done to personally support Holden. I bet they have not done nearly as much as my family has over the years to support Holden. I grew up in a family that taught me the importance of looking after local businesses by supporting them with your purchasing power and decisions. That's why I'm a proud third-generation Holden owner. My grandparents on both sides were farmers and both were Holden owners. They owned about five farm utes each over the years and 16 or so Holden sedans between them. I have photos here of my paternal grandfather, my dad and my uncle with a range of these Holden utes in their paddocks. I have photos of my mum and my uncle, as very small children, standing with my grandfather in front of several of the utes that would tow their caravan family holidays.
My mum grew up to be a rev head, a gene I have inherited, and I have photos here of my mum with her first GPak Torana, her Kermit-green 4.2-litre V8 Holden Torana SLR, and my parents' V8 Commodore station wagon—which they had to buy when they had three children and then ended up with four not long after that. And I have many pictures of my parents' more recent Commodore sedans. My parents have also owned about 10 Holden utes over the course of their 40-or-so-year farming careers.
My first car was a Holden Astra. The second was slightly less refined. As I wrote when I was still a columnist with The Advertiser in Adelaide, before being elected to this place:
For three fun and sometimes fraught years, I owned a piece of Holden motoring history.
Lady Di — full name Lady Dianne — was a 1982 Holden WB ute, or at least she was on paper. By the time I bought her it was impossible to tell how many times she had been pulled apart and pieced back together.
She had a 5-litre V8 engine, HZ premier front-end, five-post bullbar, roll bar and numerous other modifications. She was, of course, a manual.
I am proud to say I now own one of the very last Holden Commodores ever made, a testament to three generations of Holden history within my family. We have proudly supported this very proud South Australian business, and we've done our part to support our proud Australian culture. I look forward to enjoying many years with one of the last remaining Holdens to come off the production line.
Following that five-minute comedy of errors, I rise to say that the government has finally followed a policy through to the outcome they desired: the death of the automotive industry in Australia.
While it's known that I'm a fierce blue oval man, growing up in the shadow of the Ford factory at Broady, I can't deny the vital role that Holdens have played in Australia's rich automotive history. It goes back to 1856, when Sir James Alexander Holden originally established a saddlery business that grew, through popularity and innovation, to become the exclusive supplier for General Motors Australia in 1924. In 1931, General Motors in Australia merged with Holden to become GMH. Ford and GMH dominated the fledgling automotive industry during this period. In 1948, the first car made in Australia for Australians, the 48215, or FX, arrived. From the 48215 to the VF Commodore, Holden has been Australia's motor car.
The government's final nail in the coffin for the Australian car manufacturing industry was hammered in last Friday, with the closure of the last Holden factory in Adelaide. It was a truly sad day, and to be honest I'm still in shock to think that Australia doesn't make cars anymore—words I never thought I would say. This closure is a national tragedy that didn't have to happen. It was a government choice that made this happen. We didn't have to lose such an icon, and we didn't need to kill thousands of manufacturing jobs in Australia. It's yet another short-sighted decision by a Liberal government that doesn't understand how important manufacturing jobs are in a diversified economy.
I sat in this parliament in utter disbelief when the Abbott-Turnbull Liberal government pulled out investment from the automotive industry, with blowhard Hockey goading Holden to leave Australia. He did that even though he knew that Holden making cars locally was a $33 billion boost to the Australian economy. If you think back to the EJ Holden, the slogan was 'the look of leadership'. Rest assured, that is something this government has never had.
Holden is synonymous with the Australian lifestyle. Back in the seventies we had the ads: 'football, meat pies, kangaroos and Holden cars'. Cars such as Kingswoods, Monaros, Toranas, the original sin bin—the Sandman—and Commodores were the choices of great Australian generations. These cars became part of our identities. Holden had such a wide appeal that it became part of our pop culture. If you're a little bit older, you will remember shows like Kingswood Countryand old Ted Bullpitt, the conservative, Kingswood-loving putty factory worker and World War II veteran. Driving a Holden gave social status—unless it was a Camira or the Starfire 4 VH Commodore, of course! It was the Commodore that ruled them all—Australia's own car. It was such an icon that it became Australia's top selling car for 15 years.
You cannot paint a full picture of Holden's contribution and success without talking about the motor sport landscape. There isn't anything like the Bathurst 1000. The rivalry produced Australia's most famous muscle cars, the Bathurst specials—race cars that were driven by icons like Lowndes, Skaife, Norm Beechey and of course Bruce McPhee and Barry Mulholland, who gave Holden its very first Bathurst win. Of course, the biggest of them all, one of the McEwen electorate's most famous names, was Peter Brock—aka Peter Perfect, King of the Mountain. He won all his nine Bathurst championships in Holdens. His association with Holden was the stuff of legend, debuting in 1969 in a HT Monaro GTS, and going on to win the event nine times between 1972 and 1987, a feat that has not been equalled since. Peter Brock was such an icon that Holden collaborated with him, taking race inspired design, like the first HT TVC Commodore and, my favourite, the iconic VK group A blue meanie. As a petrolhead, I could talk about cars till the cows come home.
I rise to condemn the government for its short-sighted actions to cut down Australia's automotive industry. This is about the thousands of people left without jobs, the generations devoted to Holden since its early days, who worked day in and day out to put food on the table. Those generations of Australians shaped this industry, with countless stories of immigrants building a life in the country off the back of manufacturing—stories like Arrivederci Holden, the factory that fed my family, by SBS's Daniela Ritorto, should never be forgotten. To the Holden workforce, we thank you for your hard work in shaping this nation. Your contribution will be sorely missed. The end of the era didn't need to happen. It was a government choice that made it that way.
I thank the House for this opportunity to make a contribution to this debate. There are a few points I wish to make this evening. Firstly, in talking about what is a very sad occasion, I would like to offer our support and best wishes to all of those workers and their families in Adelaide who have been associated with that plant, sometimes for generations. I want to tell them tonight that we in the Central West have some idea how they feel, because not too long ago we lost Australia's last fridge-making plant in Orange, which saw the departure of 550 direct jobs and probably another couple of hundred of contractors as well. So we have a good understanding of the trauma that those communities are no doubt going through and the uncertain times that have befallen them recently. When we went through this it took a huge community effort to get through, and we're still working through it now, there's no doubt about that. It was a huge effort, especially in the retraining area. Whilst that was really traumatic for us, we managed to get through it because the community came together and we supported each other. So to all of the workers and their families down in Adelaide, our thoughts and our best wishes are with you.
The other thing I want to say is that obviously in my electorate of Calare we have a special interest in Holden because, as other speakers have noted, it's the home of Mount Panorama, where for decades Holden and Ford have battled it out on the mountain, as they did recently. The Holden history is etched into the mountainside from the HK Monaro in 1963 right through to the VF Commodore in 2017. The Holdens have taken line honours in the great race 32 times, more than any other manufacturer, with stars like Larry Perkins, Mark Skaife and nine-time winner, the late Peter Brock, who is still a revered figure in motor racing circles but particularly in our area, the spiritual and indeed physical home of motor racing in Australia. The Holden Dealer Team debuted in 1969. It was the first Australian motor sport team backed by the dealers themselves. I know that the organisers of the Bathurst 1000, the Bathurst Regional Council, Mayor Graeme Hanger and General Manager David Sherley would also like me to express their sadness and their support for those communities in Adelaide who are affected by this closure.
Another group that would like to have their expression of sadness given voice to in this House is the Cudgegong Cruisers of Mudgee. The Cudgegong Cruisers are a motor car club. They have close to 200 members from Mudgee, Gulgong, Kandos and Rylstone. It's a popular local institution. I think a huge proportion of their members have Holdens. These are Holdens of all vintages, which have been restored. We thank the Cudgegong Cruisers for their charity work. They raise a lot of money for charity, but I think they also wished to have their expression of sadness noted on this occasion. I make special mention of the committee: Glenn Box, Gary and Linda Goodman, John and Sue Hodges, Jim and Luene Cottee, Perry and Yvette Fulton, Nathan White and John and Cheryl Stuart. I'm told that John is a Holden man through and through. He owns three Holdens, including a special 1956 Holden FJ, which was manufactured in the year that he was born and gifted to him by his wife and children to celebrate his 50th birthday. John has since restored this vehicle.
To all of those folks in Adelaide, we would like to express our support and best wishes as you go through what is and will be a very difficult time to come. It is the end of an era. It won't quite be the same up on Mount Panorama when we watch the V8 Supercars. This last chapter of Holden is a sad chapter in Australia's history, to see the end of manufacturing of cars, along with so many other manufacturing industries like Electrolux. (Time expired)
That contribution from the member for Calare had a level of humanity and dignity that was entirely lacking in the member for Boothby's contribution to this debate. It is extraordinary, given that the member for Boothby represents a South Australian electorate, which also has a deep tradition of car-making and a supply industry in the southern suburbs, which coalesced around the old Chrysler and then Mitsubishi factory.
I want to pay credit to the member for Wakefield for proposing this important debate in the Federation Chamber, the week after the closure of the Holden factory, when enormous economic dislocation is happening in the suburbs of Adelaide. The member for Wakefield has given extraordinary voice to that sense of loss, dislocation and distress that has been experienced in different parts of Adelaide over almost the last four years—since Joe Hockey, the then Treasurer, goaded Holden to leave. I had street-corner meetings in the northern part of my electorate, in Paralowie, over the weekend, where there are a number of automotive supply companies and where there are a number of families who worked at Holden live, as the member for Wakefield would know. I have talked to members of families who have lost jobs at Holden or who have lost jobs at companies that had traditionally supplied the work of Holden, Toyota, Ford and, before them, Mitsubishi. The level of distress and dislocation is quite difficult to appreciate from this distance.
The other thing I like about this motion is its celebration of the 160-year history of this company, particularly since it took the decision in the early part of the last century to move from saddlery into automotive manufacturing. The first period of that automotive manufacturing was essentially one of assembly, when, for a while, Holden became an assembly company for Ford and then for Chrysler. Then, in 1924, it managed to obtain the exclusive contract to assemble GM, or General Motors, cars at a Woodville plant, just around the corner from my house, where now the local Bunnings store is, because the Woodville plant of GMH closed in the 1980s.
I want to talk a bit about the 1930s, which was a fork in the road for Holden in South Australia. The Great Depression hit the South Australian economy perhaps more harshly than any other economy because the South Australian economy was then so dependent on commodities, which really took a dive after the stock market crash in 1929. The government of the time took a very deliberate decision to start to industrialise the South Australian economy. In 1931 Holden, because it was in distress at the time, as most companies were, was effectively taken over by General Motors. The amalgamated, or merged, company, GMH, continued to be run by the Holden family—Ted Holden at the time—and in the mid-1930s a contract was finally struck for GMH to move its entire operation to Fishermans Bend in Victoria. The contract was struck while the then Premier, my great-grandfather Richard Butler, a conservative, was overseas. Almost the entire automotive manufacturing industry would have shifted in one fell swoop from South Australia to Victoria were that administration not given the opportunity to negotiate with Ted Holden and put in place a range of industry policies and tax concessions that kept the industry in South Australia for the following 82 years. I'm sure it's a matter of utter coincidence that Ted Holden entered the Legislative Council a few months later, as a member of the LCL, as a part-time job to supplement his ongoing work as the CEO and chair of GMH, but, were that decision not taken in the mid-1930s, the postwar economy of South Australia would have been profoundly different. It was a decision taken only a couple of years before the same administration decided to build a blast furnace in Whyalla. Really, they were the twin pillars of South Australia's postwar economy.
So I'm not going to take lectures from the member for Boothby about the Playford legacy. The Butler and Playford legacy of our manufacturing was from a time when the Liberal Party had real vision—the vision to build not just an industrial economy in South Australia but social reforms like the development of the South Australian Housing Trust, the first public housing policy, which was deliberately designed to try to give affordable housing opportunities to workers who would be employed in the factories that came into being in that very exciting period of the South Australian economy. Those were the pillars of South Australia's economic activity and our culture for five, six, seven, eight decades, and they were lost in a profound act of self-harm by this government. (Time expired)
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this House:
(1) welcomes the announcement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs at the United Nations General Assembly on 22 September 2017 of the Women's Leadership Initiative (Initiative);
(2) notes that the Initiative is a five year program to support emerging women leaders in the Pacific and to help participants—selected from Australia Awards scholars—to fulfil their leadership potential and drive ideas and reforms in their communities;
(3) further notes that the Initiative is part of Australia's partnership with Pacific Island countries to meet shared challenges and support a stable, secure and prosperous Pacific region;
(4) acknowledges that the Initiative will deepen our long standing relationship with our Pacific neighbours and see Pacific women mentored by successful female leaders, including Australian Indigenous leaders, private sector representatives and pioneering leaders from the Pacific; and
(5) recognises that the empowerment of women and girls is a priority for Australia's development assistance and is fundamental to our increased engagement in the Pacific.
This motion asks that the House welcome the announcement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, at the United Nations General Assembly on 22 September 2017, of the Women's Leadership Initiative. It notes that the initiative is a five-year program to support emerging women leaders in the Pacific and help participants, selected from among Australia Awards scholars, to fulfil their leadership potential and drive ideas and reforms in their communities. It asks that the House further note that the initiative is part of Australia's partnership with Pacific Island countries to meet shared challenges and support a stable, secure and prosperous Pacific region, and to acknowledge that this initiative will deepen our longstanding relationship with our Pacific neighbours and see Pacific women mentored by successful female leaders, including Australian Indigenous leaders, private sector representatives and pioneering leaders from the Pacific. It asks the House to recognise that the empowerment of women and girls is a priority of Australia's development assistance and is fundamental to our increased engagement in the Pacific.
I'm proud to be a member of the Turnbull government and in particular to endorse this recent announcement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, at the United Nations General Assembly, of our government's new Women's Leadership Initiative. The Women's Leadership Initiative, launched in September, is a five-year program. The $5.4 million program will help participants, selected from among Australian Awards scholars, to fulfil their leadership potential and drive big ideas and reforms in their communities. This will be an incredible opportunity for the participants—an opportunity which will empower them with skills and networks to engender significant change in their home countries, in their communities and in their own personal lives.
Women in the Pacific continue to be underrepresented in leadership positions. I am a strong advocate for gender equality and know firsthand the benefits and positives that gender equality brings to create a more cohesive society. Diversity delivers success, and gender diversity should be something that is a mandate and absolutely an imperative for us all. Greater gender equality, especially in leadership and decision making, contributes to reducing poverty, promoting economic growth and enhancing the wellbeing of women, girls and their families. It is imperative that young women and young girls increasingly participate in communities in the workforce. This is what mentoring and the many other elements of this initiative will provide.
The Women's Leadership Initiative will specifically provide participants with the tools to navigate barriers that might otherwise impede pathways to leadership. This will see Pacific women mentored by other successful female leaders, including Australian Indigenous leaders, private sector representatives and pioneering leaders from the Pacific. The advantage of role models and mentoring can never be underestimated. That is why this is such an important element in this initiative. By forging links between emerging women leaders in the Pacific and in Australia, the Women's Leadership Initiative will deepen our longstanding relationship with our Pacific neighbours and, indeed, the empowerment of women and girls. This is a priority for Australia's development assistance and a key pillar of our increased engagement in the Pacific.
As part of our aid program, the Turnbull government is investing in neighbouring countries and in women throughout the Pacific so that we will see better outcomes for people throughout the Asia-Pacific region—and the benefits will be mutual. We know that women make significant contributions to their country's economies. Governments and the private sector, together, are recognising that investing in women and girls has a powerful effect on productivity, the economy, efficiency, economic growth and, on a more personal level, self-esteem and empowerment. A 2016 study by Pacific Trade Invest Australia found that proprietors of one-third of exporting companies are women, with the number increasing in the last two years. While women are still underrepresented in national parliaments in the Pacific, there is a higher participation of women in senior management in the public sector. The regional average increased from 11.3 per cent in 2012 to 14. 8 per cent in 2016.
While progress has been made, we have far to go to progress true gender equality. The Women's Leadership Initiative will be a force for good, assisting Pacific nations to empower themselves economically through better equality. The Inter-Parliamentary Union found that globally women comprise 23.3 per cent of national parliamentarians. That was the world average at January 2017. But the percentage of women in Pacific parliaments is currently around 6.9 per cent. Parliaments that represent their nation's demography are better placed to represent the needs of all citizens, men and women. Across the Pacific, men far outnumber women in paid employment outside the agriculture sector by approximately two to one, and males typically earn 20 to 50 per cent more than women because they work in jobs attracting higher salaries. So, typically, more men are working in leadership positions.
In deepening our people-to-people links with the Pacific, on 8 September the Prime Minister announced the establishment of the Pacific Connect program to forge a network of strategic level relationships between Pacific and Australian leaders across both the public and private sectors. It will comprise a year-long leaders program, focused on solving a particular challenge or problem. The inaugural challenge is bringing the digital revolution to the Pacific. We're also encouraging more frequent cultural exchanges and closer ties between Australia and Pacific communities, businesses, sporting clubs and schools.
We will continue to support Australian graduates to study in the Pacific, with 1,100 participants in the region under the New Colombo Plan in 2018. The New Colombo Plan is an inspired initiative of our foreign minister and the coalition government, which is making such enormous leaps and bounds and building a cohesive and wholly rounded educated society, particularly with our young students. We also want to encourage more frequent cultural exchanges and closer ties between Australian and Pacific communities, businesses, sporting clubs and schools.
I believe strongly in the dignity of work, coupled strongly with equality of opportunity. A country prospers when its citizens are empowered by the same educational standards and capacity to contribute to society. The Women's Leadership Initiative will be a strong conduit for growth in the Pacific region and I know that it will create tangible and effectual change for our neighbouring women and girls.
The Turnbull government knows that women and women's interests are increasingly and effectively represented and visible through leadership at all levels of decision-making. Through more inclusive engagement, Pacific women will have expanded economic opportunities to earn income and accumulate economic assets. With that, of course, comes financial independence and increased productivity. The Women's Leadership Initiative will drive integral societal and economic reforms throughout the Pacific, empowering women and girls so that entire communities may grow.
Is there a seconder for this motion?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Today I rise to place on record my support and commend Australia's efforts for a stable, secure and prosperous Pacific region. The Women's Leadership Initiative is a step towards gender equality in the Pacific. It contributes to expanding political representation, effective leadership and empowering women who face substantial barriers to participation. Harnessing the power of women is crucial for the development of any region, most especially in the Pacific. The initiative extends the benefits of Australian awards to include a collegiate mentoring opportunity for personal growth and strengthens relationships between women leaders in Australia and the Pacific. It is part of Australia's longstanding contribution to growth development of leadership in developing countries that started with the Colombo Plan in the 1950s.
I commend DFAT on running the aid and development programs that benefit our Pacific neighbours; however, there is more that we can be doing. To start, Australia can stop cutting our level of assistance overseas. Labor is deeply concerned that Australia is falling further in world rankings for overseas development assistance. The Abbott and Turnbull governments have relentlessly attacked aid funding and have taken Australia to its lowest level of spending on aid as a proportion of gross national income, or GNI, since the program began. Australian development assistance fell by over 12 per cent in the 2016 year. Minister Bishop has seen $11 billion slashed from the aid program under her watch. The 2016-17 budget delivered the weakest levels of Australian development assistance in history, spending just 23c in every $100 of our national income on foreign aid. Over the next decade that will worsen, with the Turnbull government's budget figures forecasting that our international development program will fall to just 0.17 per cent of GNI. This is an international embarrassment created by this government.
A backbencher thinks that they can rewrite their appalling history with this motion. Their lack of investment harms our efforts to alleviate poverty, which affects more women and children than men. It also harms our aspirations to make our region safer and more secure. Our reputation as a caring nation is at risk. We cannot abrogate our responsibilities.
We need to support strong Pacific women in positions of leadership, including political leadership. In August 2017 the total number of women elected to Pacific nation parliaments numbered just 39 in forum island nations, excluding Australia and New Zealand. There are only 39 MPs out of a total of 559. That is seven per cent of elected representatives. Sadly, it has never been higher than 10 per cent. In comparison, the Inter-Parliamentary Union reports that the world average of women elected members in July 2017 was 23.5 per cent. That is not helped by this government's abysmal support for women in our own parliament. Those on the other side of the House would like us to believe that that's okay and that we don't need to address this inequity either here or anywhere else in our region.
A look at representation by women in political office, even the most cursory check, shows there's much need for improvement. PNG has no female MPs out of 111 parliamentarians. There are no female MPs in the Federated States of Micronesia. The Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and Tuvalu have one female MP. Tonga will hold their elections this November. Only one woman served in the last parliament. Nauru has two female MPs; Marshall Islands and Kiribati, three each; Palu, four. In the 2016 elections in Samoa, four women were successful, joining the one female there already; they now have five female MPs. Samoa is the only one that has a 10 per cent minimum quota. Fiji has seven MPs out of 50.
Australia can do more to support the development of women's political leadership and representation in the Pacific, including programs like the Women's Leadership Initiative. The Liberal and National parties can certainly do the same here. Fort-five per cent of federal ALP parliamentarians are women, compared to 21 per cent of Liberals and 14 of the Nationals. We know that the number 13 is an unlucky one for this government; 13 is the total number of female government MPs in the House of Representatives, out of 76. They are always asking their Dixers in QT about alternative approaches. Here is a brief explanation of how getting more women in leadership goes.
In 1994, Labor adopted an affirmative action rule that at least 35 per cent of our parliamentarians would be women. When we achieved that, we lifted it again to 40 per cent. Then, at our last national conference in 2015, we lifted the target to 50 per cent by 2025. On quotas, even Peter van Onselen has said:
Opponents of doing so say Liberals preselect on merit, not on gender balance. But for such logic to be sustained one has to believe that women are only worthy, capable or meritorious of holding 13 out of 76 Coalition seats in the house.
I welcome the Women's Leadership Initiative. (Time expired)
At a time when there is a movie called Battle of the Sexes, featuring the Bobby Riggs clash with Billie Jean King, it might be appropriate to talk about the leadership of our great women players to fight for and gain equal prize money in this international sport. It might be surprising to many that often the best-known female in the world has been a women's tennis player.
At the turn of the previous century, it was claimed that Suzanne Lenglen was the most famous woman in the world. Then it was Billie Jean King, at the height of her powers. Steffi Graf was voted more famous than Princess Diana. Then the Williams sisters, who have set records that no sisters will ever equal. Through this, the game of women's tennis has prospered enormously and this has drawn attention to what women can do when they have a fair chance and equal pay.
It is of a concern to anybody that has sisters and who has daughters—I still have sisters and I have daughters; I'm surrounded by women—to have seen their fight in the workplace and to see their trials and tribulations and to see the change in attitudes. My mother was a schoolteacher, and my parents' marriage was somewhat delayed because, if she were to marry, she would have to retire from the career that she loved. She did marry and had to retire. My sister was a schoolteacher and she loved that profession also. And by that time that profession did provide equal pay. And it has continued. We here in parliament are very aware of inequality, and each party, I think, makes a genuine effort to increase women's participation in representation. My colleague, the previous speaker, made the point that, to give equal representation to 50 per cent of the population, you've got to have equal numbers in parliament. I think that is a great aim, and we are moving towards that.
Furthermore, in the workplace we are aware that, while management is sometimes male top-heavy, there are any number of great examples of women increasing their sway at the top. I am going to a function shortly for the Lung Foundation of Australia, an organisation where both the CEO and the chair—Christine Jenkins—are women. Christine Jenkins spoke beautifully on Saturday night at their fundraising event. She is here this evening, and she will be presenting again at this function. They present great examples of women's success that we can celebrate, and we can look forward to having many more celebrations of this type.
I thank the member for Bennelong for his contribution. The question is that the motion be agreed to.
I thank the member for Chisholm for introducing this private member's motion that recognises, among other things:
… the empowerment of women and girls is a priority for Australia's development assistance and is fundamental to our increased engagement in the Pacific.
I also note the announcement of the Australian Women's Leadership Initiative and place on the record my support for it. Investment in women and girls, and working toward their equality of opportunity with men and boys, is an important part of the foreign aid contribution of Australia. I congratulate Minister Bishop on continuing the important work of former Prime Minister Julia Gillard to emphasise the importance of gender within the aid, international development and foreign policy programs of this nation. When Australia cuts its contribution to foreign aid and development programs in health, education and governance—programs that assist our neighbours who don't yet enjoy the same prosperity and peace as we do—it is women and children who inevitably carry the burden of those aid cuts.
It is important that the Australian people understand the value of the money, expertise, skills and friendship that Australia offers to those in our region who need it. It is important that the Australian government show leadership in foreign aid and international development and stand by Australia's once-proud record in this area. Instead, what we have seen, sadly, since the Abbott and Turnbull Liberal governments took on this responsibility is the devastation of an aid program that helped save and improve so many human lives.
The Abbott and Turnbull Liberal governments abandoned Australia's bipartisan commitment to growth in aid funding and have overseen a 24.2 per cent cut to development budgets since 2013. The slasher was wielded indiscriminately, eliminating health and education programs across the region that were delivering results, especially for women and girls, and for gender equality, and therefore for increased prosperity in our region. The 2017-18 budget went further, cutting an additional $303 million over the forward estimates. These cuts have taken Australia to the lowest level of spending on overseas aid as a proportion of gross national income since records were first kept. This year it is 22c in every $100, and by 2027-28, under Liberal governments, this will fall lower, to 16c in every $100. Over the next decade, our aid program will continue to weaken. The Turnbull government has set us on a course for an ever-diminishing contribution of our national income to international development assistance, and this is a crying shame.
The Prime Minister is fond of quoting the proclamation of that notable feminist Chairman Mao Zedong that 'women hold up half the sky', and in much of the world they are asked to do that whilst raising the children without an education or job, with poor access to medicine and hygiene, without safe water to drink or with which to wash, without adequate nutrition, and under the threat of violence against them and those in their care.
Gender equality is invaluable. The Women's Leadership Initiative is a welcome drop in the vast ocean of effort that has to be made internationally to address the inequalities that women face—the things that hold half the world back. And the things that hold women back are legion: domestic violence, lack of access to health care, being denied control of their own reproductive systems, girls and women being denied basic and higher education, and being denied a voice.
According to the research of McKinsey Global Institute in 2015, if all women played an equal role to men in the labour market, global GDP would rise by $28 trillion. Achieving the full potential of women in the labour market is an economic winner for the world. The research says that, in a 'best in region' scenario, where all countries match the rate of improvement of the country moving fastest to gender equality in the labour market, we would see a $12 trillion increase in annual GDP in 2025. This is a staggering figure, and demonstrates how important it is that Australia continues to place gender equality and equity at the centre of our foreign policy and international development policies. Dare I say it, to quote a former US president, 'It's the economy, stupid.'
Australia can help itself by helping women and girls across the Indo-Pacific and Pacific region. This includes the aspiring women who may benefit from the Women's Leadership Initiative, but also the women and girls who remain so far away from any hope of access to the Australia Awards. We should also remind ourselves that gender equality plays a large part in peace building and ensuring stability in times of tension that may erupt into conflict. As the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has noted and acknowledged, women are significant players in negotiating ceasefires, and peacekeeping efforts involving women are regularly more effective. Recognising the wisdom and benefits of women's inclusion and mainstreaming gender equality in our foreign policy is a good thing.
I speak today to congratulate the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Julie Bishop, for the announcement made at the United Nations General Assembly on 22 September this year of the Women's Leadership Initiative. From 25-28 September I, along with Nola Marino MP, the Hon. Jane Prentice MP, Senator Moore and MPs from all over our region, attended the Pacific Women's Parliamentary Partnerships Forum in the Solomon Islands. It was there that I met the Young Women's Parliamentary Group, enthusiastic in training and being mentored by Solomon Islands MPs and others interested in promoting the participation of women in politics. There is the creation of a space that helps them engage in the process. This is an essential ingredient to encourage women into politics.
These young women have as their main focus techniques to influence policy-making. They also engage in community and voluntary organisations to get direct, on-the-ground information and develop a sphere of support. As a bonus, they love the activities they're involved in. One of these was Seif Ples, a domestic violence hub where medical help can be given, along with shelter directions and a process of counselling, and the victims have a place to begin the emotional healing. There is a well-equipped play area, gifted by the Rotary Club of Honiara. It was great to meet the young people who have chosen to volunteer and to meet Susie, who lost a leg in a shark attack but is the emotional backbone of the centre.
It's particularly important to know that the initiative presented by the minister is a five-year program to support emerging women leaders in our region. We need to have them selected from Awards scholars, and we need to mentor them, help them and encourage them. Empowering women begins with education, grows with education and can be shared with education. This starts at primary school, but then the opportunities must be grown by getting girls into high schools—perhaps by creating a facility such as Palau has done with the Centre for the Empowerment of Women. In all ways we must educate our women and provide them with a base knowledge of the structure of politics.
The women in the Pacific identified some characteristics of the five-year plan. As I said, it starts with education and awareness-raising. Then potential candidates need to be identified and prepared with activities, such as community contact and gathering supporters and volunteers. Economically empowering women will be an essential part of this, and it will be instrumental for both the potential candidates and other women leaders. I imagine that DFAT will be a significant aspect of this growth. Following this the candidates can be prepared for legislative reform and develop strong networking political partnerships.
It was clear at the conference that this initiative will be a very welcome next step in Australia's partnership with Pacific Island countries. It will help meet shared needs and challenges and support a stable, secure and prosperous region. The women need help to get political traction and then to actively develop policy that will enhance economic and social stability. The conference was attended by women who were either elected members of, past members of or past candidates for their national parliaments. There were women from Cook Islands, Fiji, Samoa, Australia, Niue, Tonga, Kiribati, Palau, the Bougainville region of PNG, Nauru, PNG, Tokelau and the Solomon Islands. It was an absolute joy to meet all of these women, as well as the young women's group. It will be great to see the government-led initiative deepen our longstanding relationship with our Pacific neighbours and see these women mentored by successful female leaders, including Indigenous leaders, private sector representatives and other pioneering leaders from our region.
The empowerment of women and girls is a priority for Australia's development assistance and is fundamental to our increased engagement in the Pacific. Future gatherings such as these can be designed to develop campaigning skills, coach for public speaking and provide preparation for media interviewing, both the benefits and the traps. There can be hands-on workshops for microfinancing options and economic empowerment activities to share in the regions and links developed with the NGOs to get better outcomes overall for their actual and future constituents. Finally, this initiative can help develop strategies for women to gain their place in an elected government and then strategies to keep their place in the elected government. I sometimes think we've got an uphill battle to get into politics in Australia, but, really, the girls in the Pacific have a much harder journey. The initiative is a tremendous way to help our Pacific sisters in their quest to hold up their half of the sky. We're recognised as a regional leader. Perhaps we in Australia should be considering the best way forward to increase the female participation rate in government representation at all levels. At this moment we don't actually have the ability to hold up half the sky. There aren't enough of us to work together. I actively believe that we need to encourage young women to get into politics. I will be having a women's empowerment camp before the end of the year to help introduce them to all levels of government and skill them up, ready for the next step.
I thank the member for Chisholm for bringing this motion forward. Equality will never be achieved in the Pacific unless every effort is made to create genuine opportunities to empower women and girls. This is of paramount importance in the Pacific region if women are going to have fair access to leadership opportunities. Women's empowerment is a cross-cutting component of the Pacific Regional Program. As global leaders came together for the 72nd session of the UN General Assembly in New York, UN women brought women's voices and priorities to the forefront and called for tangible actions to achieve gender equality. This year's theme was focusing on people, striving for peace, and a decent life for all on a sustainable planet. Through a range of high-level events on women's economic empowerment, equal pay for work of equal value, ending violence against women and girls, engaging men and boys as gender equity champions, gender and climate change, and stepping up financing for gender equity, UN women continued to highlight women's empowerment as a key driver of sustainable development.
Pacific women are hardworking, creative and resilient. They make significant contributions to their societies and economies, and there is a growing recognition amongst governments and the private sector that investing in women and girls has a powerful effect on economic growth and wellbeing. However, women and girls face significant challenges. Up to 60 per cent of women and girls have experienced violence at the hands of their partners or family members. The Inter-Parliamentary Union reports that globally women comprise 23.3 per cent of national parliamentarians. That is the world average as at January 2017, but the percentage of women in the Pacific parliaments is currently around 6.9 per cent. Across the Pacific men outnumber women in paid employment outside the agricultural sector by approximately two to one, and males typically earn 20 to 50 per cent more than women because they work in jobs attracting higher salaries.
Progressing Gender Equality in the Pacific is a five-year project working with the 14 Pacific island countries to strengthen government's capacity to mainstream gender and improve gender statistics to better monitor progress towards gender equality. The PGEP project commenced in 2013 and will finish in 2018. In July 2016 a formative mid-term evaluation of the PGEP was commissioned by DFAT. It showed the following successful outcomes: women in the Pacific accessed 22,217 crisis support services; 3,495 accessed financial information and services; 2,548 had formal opportunities to share their ideas and learn from each other; 9,385 were supported to take on leadership roles at the community, provincial and national level; and 692 men actively engaged in promoting gender equality in this reporting period.
Participating UN women agreed that empowering women is central to addressing the 21st century's global challenges such as poverty, inequality and violence. Yet, deep financing gaps for women and girls pose significant barriers and deter progress. Addressing gender equality is everyone's business. Melinda Gates said, 'We have learned from our partners that if we don't look at the gender piece of work, we will never achieve our goals and lift people up.' We have a lot of anecdotal evidence about women in terms of their lives and livelihoods, and now we are finally doing the research and gathering data to inform policies and programs. If we are serious about achieving the sustainable development goals, we have to invest in gender data. It is at the heart of what we do.
The importance of women and girl child equality and their livelihood is ever more important in this world. Gender matters, and we have a role to play. Gender equality must start from the cradle. There are still far too many male-dominated industries where women are locked out. Here in Australia, we have much to do with our own first-nation women and girls. It is great to see Senator McCarthy and the Honourable Linda Burney, who are amazing role models for our first-nation women. Labor has been a leading light in gender equality in politics, and we are now very close—44 per cent—to achieving our 50 per cent by 2025.
I rise to speak on a very promising program launched by the Minister for Foreign Affairs just last month. The program is called the Women's Leadership Initiative and it is focused on helping women and girls from across the Pacific to fulfil their leadership potential and drive big ideas and reforms in their communities. The five-year program will cost the taxpayer $5.4 million—money well spent, given Australia's outstanding leadership in the field of international women's rights.
Australia has a proud history of promoting women's rights. In 1902, Australia became the first country in the world to give women both the right to vote in federal elections and also the right to be elected to parliament on a national basis. It is this right, this change of direction, that has brought so much good to this nation. In order to make the best decisions for the country, you simply must have a diverse group of people in charge. If you ignore the thoughts and experiences of 50 per cent of the population, you will find it most difficult to create appropriate legislation for them. This is true in Australia just as it is in our smaller Pacific Island neighbours.
Women leaders are not simply grown on trees, though. It takes a concerted effort and sound policies that help to grant women the opportunity to act as, and to be seen as, leaders in their own communities. This means providing education opportunities, freedoms, and mentoring for young girls and women, wherever they may be. Women in the Pacific make significant contributions to their countries' economies. Governments and the private sector are recognising that investing in women and girls has a powerful effect on productivity, efficiency and economic growth. According to a 2016 study, the number of female proprietors of exporting companies in the Pacific has increased dramatically. Women now represent one-third of proprietors in these export businesses. The number of female representatives in the national parliaments of Pacific nations has increased from 11.3 per cent in 2012 to 14.8 per cent in 2016. These numbers show, as a percentage, the gap between the outcomes for women leaders in these nations when compared with ours here in the House of Representatives and the Senate, where 33 per cent of parliamentarians are women. While the increases are heartening, the distance still to gain to reach the example set by wealthy, well-resourced Australia is vast, which is why it is so important for Australia to play a role in this advance.
The progress and promotion of women in public life is important, but what is perhaps a more pressing concern is the rates of violence against women and girls. It has been reported that as much as 60 per cent of women and girls have experienced violence at the hands of partners or family members—a horrifying statistic. Violence against women is not only abhorrent to human nature; it represents a deep disrespect for the women of a society that won't stop it happening. It is not a simple issue, but one that must be addressed the world over. Women deserve to be safe and they deserve to be respected as human beings. I support this program and the positive effect it's having on some of our poorest neighbours. I wish the minister and her department all the best in making it a success.
by leave—This initiative, supported by our esteemed foreign minister, the Hon. Julie Bishop, has been a fantastic initiative to address the gender equality divide. The announcement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs was so welcomed at the United Nations General Assembly. As Australians we should be proud of this Women's Leadership Initiative. There is work to do around the world in relation to equality for women. Gender inequality is something that has not been fully addressed across the world—indeed, in western democracies and in the Pacific. This initiative will absolutely consolidate and support gender equality.
This is a five-year program to support emerging women leaders in the Pacific and to help participants selected from Australia Award scholars. This initiative will enable them to fulfil their leadership potential and drive ideas and reforms in their communities. The initiative contains the essence of key elements which will seek to narrow the gender divide.
The Women's Leadership Initiative, launched in September, is a five-year program. One of its key foundations is about empowerment for women and girls in the Pacific. The program will help participants selected from Australia Award scholars to fulfil their potential. Having worked in the corporate world for many years, and having sat on many diversity councils and women in leadership councils, we know that in our country, in Australia, the issue of gender inequality needs to be addressed from both an unconscious bias perspective and from a discrimination perspective. While we have antidiscrimination laws in our country, it's really important that initiatives such as this are embraced around the world. I am truly proud of this Women's Leadership Initiative. Women in the Pacific, specifically, continue to be under-represented in leadership positions. I've always been a strong advocate for gender equality. My view is that the meritocracy argument is flawed. The reason for that is that there are two things that get in the way of meritocracy: discrimination and unconscious bias. Those things prevail in the corporate workplace and in our communities in Australia and across the Pacific.
Having worked in the Asia-Pacific area and in Australia, I have seen gender inequality come to prevail consciously, overtly and covertly. This initiative will provide participants with the tools to navigate barriers that might impede pathways to leadership. One of the important tools is role models and mentors. Role models and mentors are so important because younger women and young girls can be what they can see. It's really important for us as women leaders to communicate this to them. I'm particularly proud that this initiative will see Pacific women mentored by successful female leaders, including Australian Indigenous leaders and leaders from the private sector and pioneering leaders from the Pacific. By forging links between emerging women leaders in Australia and the Pacific, the Women's Leadership Initiative will deepen our longstanding relationship with our Pacific neighbours. The empowerment of women and girls is a priority for Australia's development assistance and is a key pillar for our increased engagement in the Pacific.
As part of our aid program the Turnbull government is investing in neighbouring countries and in women throughout the Pacific so that we see better outcomes for people throughout our region. The New Colombo Plan is something that again forges ties with women in the Pacific. The Turnbull government continues to support Australian undergraduates to study in the Pacific, with 1,100 participants in the region under the New Colombo Plan in 2018. The benefit of that experience, the cross-cultural experience, the cross-working experience, and the mentoring and leadership that will continue within the realm of the New Colombo Plan is very, very encouraging. We want to encourage more frequent cultural exchanges and closer ties between Australian and Pacific communities, businesses, sporting clubs and schools across the Pacific.
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) 15 to 21 October 2017 is National Carers Week and that it is estimated that there are 2.7 million carers who provide care and support to a family member or friend with a disability, mental illness, chronic condition, terminal illness, or who is frail aged in Australia; and
(b) the theme for National Carers Week is 'Carers Count';
(2) acknowledges the significant contribution that carers make to the Australian community, saving the nation an estimated $60 billion per year; and
(3) recognises the incredible sacrifices carers make and the challenges they face including fewer employment options and a restricted capacity to participate in community life.
As one of the co-conveners of Parliamentary Friends of Carers, I'm very pleased to be moving this motion today. National Carers Week is the time to recognise the millions of Australian carers who work tirelessly for no pay every day to make other people's lives better. It's a time to reflect on the contribution that carers make not just to the people that they care for and their families but to our community and our society as a whole. It's also a time to acknowledge the sacrifices that carers make to fulfil their caring responsibilities and the impact those ongoing sacrifices have on their personal and professional lives.
Last week, events were held in cities and towns across Australia to honour our carers. In my home city of Newcastle, the Carers Action Network held a morning tea which, unfortunately, I wasn't able to attend, as parliament was sitting and I was here in Canberra. But another Newcastle event hosted by mental health carers, ARAFMI, was also held in my area to give heartfelt thanks to the local mental health carers in our region. This year, the theme of National Carers Week is Carers Count—a very fitting title when you consider how much we rely on not only the unpaid work that carers do but also the sheer quantum of their contribution. In fact, there are 2.7 million unpaid carers in Australia, and together they spend a total of 36 million hours caring for families or friends each year. The carer contribution is even higher in the regions, with unpaid carers living in rural areas of Australia spending 11 more hours each week undertaking their caring responsibilities than do their urban counterparts. All this unpaid work is worth an estimated $60 billion per year. It is an astonishing amount of money. When you consider that the federal government spends less than $10 billion each year on higher education and less than $11 billion each year on assistance to the unemployed and sick, you start to get a picture of what a truly massive contribution carers make to Australia.
Today, I'd like to give my heartfelt appreciation to carers across the country. I would also like to acknowledge the personal sacrifices that carers make and the impacts that these responsibilities can have on their lives. Too often, carers are so busy looking after other people that they don't get their needs met. This is borne out by findings of a recent international survey of carers commissioned by Merck. The report of this survey, entitled Embracing carers, was released this month. It offered some telling insights into the experience of Australian carers, and it confirmed that carers continue to face enormous challenges in many areas of their lives. For example, almost half of the Australian carers surveyed said they don't have time to book or attend medical appointments for themselves; 59 per cent said they don't have time to exercise; and almost 40 per cent said their caring responsibilities had put pressure on their own finances. We also need to recognise that carers experience barriers to employment that people without caring responsibilities just don't face. Only 56 per cent of primary carers of working age participate in the workforce, compared to 80 per cent of noncarers.
All of these challenges can take a heavy mental and emotional toll. Sadly, just over half of Australian unpaid carers who were surveyed said they felt they needed medical care or support for a mental health condition as a result of their caring responsibilities. This is a very disturbing finding that we in this place should pay serious attention to. While carers give so much of themselves to family and friends, their communities and our society, it's clear that too often they are not getting the support they need in return. National Carers Week is an important time to raise awareness about the challenges that carers face in so many parts of their lives. It's the perfect time to talk about how we, both as legislators and as community members, can help address this. The message for National Carers Week is clear: anyone, at any time, can find themselves becoming a carer.
I want to pay special tribute to the 272,000 young carers—people aged under 25—who are caring for a parent, partner, sibling, child, relative or friend. It is the responsibility of all of us to ensure that carers have access to the support they need.
Is there a seconder for this motion?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
I'm really pleased to rise in support of the motion of the member for Newcastle and acknowledge the outstanding work and sacrifice of carers in our community. I thank the member for Newcastle for bringing this to the parliament. With National Carers Week having wrapped up for this week, I'd like to recognise the outstanding work of carers across the country and in particular in my electorate of Robertson on the New South Wales Central Coast.
National Carers Week was celebrated from 15 to 21 October this year, and the week is a time for all of us to recognise the incredible contribution that carers make to the lives of so many Australians. It's estimated there are around 2.7 million unpaid carers across Australia, and this past week was a great chance for us to say an extra-special thank you to each and every carer in our community. Every week, carers around the nation are estimated to provide 36 million hours of care and support to family and friends. Should all carers stop performing their roles, it would be at an estimated cost of $60.3 billion per year, as the member for Newcastle also noted. Carers come from all aspects of our community, and, at any time, anyone could become a carer to a loved one. One in eight Australians are unpaid carers who support family members or friends who need it most. Caring can take many forms, whether it be caring for an individual with a disability, a mental illness, a chronic condition or a terminal illness, or caring for an older Australian.
The theme of this year's National Carers Week was 'carers count', and I would like to pay tribute to the carers in my electorate on the Central Coast, because they count for so much in our community. Across the Central Coast during the week there were dozens of events to recognise and pay tribute to our carers. Meals on Wheels Central Coast hosted a carers community restaurant, and Delphis Australia arranged a riverboat cruise on the Hawkesbury for carers of those living with dementia. At the Empire Bay Tavern, the Central Coast Huntington's Disease Support Group—a group very close to my heart—hosted a long lunch. The Central Coast Disability Network had young carers for a barbecue picnic at Erina, and the Central Coast Local Health District hosted a carers retreat and a tai chi morning in Gosford. Over at Woy Woy, there was a Carer Pamper Morning, for carers of people with a chronic illness, hosted thanks to the Local Health District Carer Program. In Terrigal, at the Crowne Plaza, the Coastwide Child and Family Services support group hosted a breakfast for carers of younger Australians. At Kariong, carers participated in a cultural outing to Wyong Arthouse, thanks to the Kariong Neighbourhood Centre.
I would really like to thank each and every community group, organiser and advocate for helping to give back to our local carers, who every day dedicate themselves so selflessly to others. I would also like to congratulate two special carers, Lauren Mott from Springfield and Kim Power from The Entrance. Last week Lauren and Kim were awarded the New South Wales Carers Award by the New South Wales minister for disabilities, Ray Williams, recognising their outstanding contribution as unpaid carers. Even though the official National Carers Week is now finished for another year, I would like to encourage members of our community to join me in saying thank you to carers all year round. Just as their caring work never stops, so too should our appreciation never stop. Our carers make such an important contribution to our community, and they work tirelessly to improve the lives of others.
That's why I'm proud to be part of a government that recognises the incredible work that carers do and is committed to supporting them through services and financial support, such as the carer allowance and carer payment. The Australian government also funds a range of programs that assist carers. In 2017-18, that funding is around $162 million.
The Department of Social Services has also been working with the sector to develop an integrated plan for carer support services. In my electorate this includes a roundtable with local carers. Holding that, it was fantastic to get feedback on the plan and to hear from our carers what they want most. Thank you particularly to Ljae, Sarah, Elisa and Leila for everything that you do and for your contributions to the plan. When I heard the stories of these women, the stories of the sacrifices they make to care for their children, who live with significant disabilities, it was really inspiring. But what struck me even more was the deep love that each has as a mother and their determination to give their children every possible opportunity in life despite the great cost to their own lives and their careers. To them and to their families: thank you!
I'm pleased to say that the NDIS is supporting carers and their families in my electorate. Already the rollout is well underway and, once completed, it will support more than 2,900 individuals in my electorate. Again I extend my sincere gratitude to each and every carer in our community.
I'm delighted to have seconded the motion before the parliament today to acknowledge the work of carers in our community. As the member for Newcastle indicated in her remarks, there is a dollar figure that we can put on the role of carers in the community, but this evening I want to talk about two very clear examples of things that money simply can't buy. I'm very proud to bring to the attention of the House two events in my electorate surrounding carers.
Every Monday morning, if you go to a hall called 'Our Place' in Elizabeth Bruce Playground Park, you will find a group of seniors, people with all sorts of abilities, dancing, singing and enjoying themselves. This has been going on for a total of 38 years. Every morning, 9 am, you will be greeted by someone and you'll have a warm cup of tea and a fun morning out. A whole range of people continue to enjoy that service, and I acknowledge in the parliament tonight Mrs Shirley Schneider, a wonderful Australian, who thought, 'Wouldn't it be nice if we could come together to give carers a break and allow their clients, across multicultural backgrounds, to come and enjoy a musical morning tea.' I've attended that event over the last 10 years, since I was first elected to the Brisbane City Council and now as a federal MP. That one event has brought so much joy and happiness—literally hundreds, if not thousands, of hours of joy—and it's all run by volunteers under the auspices of Inala Community House. It just goes to show how some of the smallest acts and events can go such a long way in supporting the work of carers.
When I speak to carers in the community they all say the same thing: they don't want any recognition or any rewards; they just want the people they love and care about to have a high quality of life. If you go to a centre in my electorate called the Inala Respite Centre you will find a large professional organisation that clients can visit, perhaps for an overnight stay or for an event or gathering—for performances, art or craft—and you'll see wonderful work being undertaken. Back in 1984, on 5 October, a group of concerned residents in Inala got together at a public meeting, and in 1985 the Inala Respite Centre was established. Over the past 30 years or so we have seen this centre grow to one of the best day respite centres in the nation. In 2016 I was proud to attend the official announcement that Inala Respite Centre would be merging with PresCare to provide services to over 180 clients in aged care, home care, independent living support, crisis and emergency accommodation. In particular, as the member for Newcastle indicated, such places offer care for younger people with disabilities as well. Sixty-five per cent of clients are aged over 65, and 35 per cent of individuals attending are young adults with disabilities.
I know from speaking to the directors and the volunteers that the one thing you hear about time and time again is the support of volunteers with caring. You cannot put into words the amount of gratitude that the community owe to the carers in our community. It may be $1 billion a week or $60 billion per year, but I have seen the smiles on the faces, particularly for those people who give so much. The people they love are in a safe and secure environment and are protected and looked after when the carers are given a well-earned break.
I acknowledge Kris Jones; Andriana Arman; the wonderful Shirley Davey, who has been the president of the centre for almost 20 years; Marj Tonkin; Charlie Vanderkruk; Joyce Swanson; Joanne Robinson; Margot Le Strange; and Sharron Charman. They are all local residents who are committed to making sure that carers and those people who need care are looked after and loved in our community. I understand that in the Oxley electorate there are 13,405 people who provide unpaid care and assistance to others. There are over 10,000 people who go about the work they do because they love and want to look after the people who need care. Today I salute the carers in Oxley and right around Australia.
Last week we celebrated Carers Week between 15 and 21 October. The theme for this year was Carers Count. The statistics certainly support that theme. There are 2.7 million carers in Australia and they provide unpaid care and support to family members and friends with disabilities, mental illness, chronic conditions and terminal illness or who are frail aged. One in eight Australians provide unpaid care and support to a family member or friend with a disability. There are 272,000 carers under the age of 25. This equates to around one in 10. Around 856,000 carers—that is, 32 per cent—are primary carers, those who provide the most informal assistance to another individual. The annual replacement value of this care—the cost were it to be provided by paid workers—is estimated at $60.3 billion. That's more than $1 billion per week.
We've heard a lot of statistics today. It's important that we raise those statistics and talk about those statistics, but behind every statistic is a personal story. Carers give up so much of their time and give so much effort. In caring for a loved one or a friend, these carers are emotionally, physically and financially drained, but they do it out of the love for their friend or family member. They really ought to be commended for putting their own lives often on hold so that they can help that person.
The statistics also show the disadvantage that carers suffer as a result of that love that they show. Their income suffers. In fact, the weekly median income of primary carers aged between 15 and 64 was 42 per cent lower than that of noncarers. Carers provide 1.9 billion hours of unpaid care annually in Australia. That's 36 million hours each week. Their work participation rate is significantly lower. Only 56 per cent of primary carers aged between 15 and 64 participate in the workforce, compared with 80 per cent of noncarers.
The government recognises the importance of what these carers provide to our fellow Australians. The government provides $8 billion in direct support for carers through carer payments for 250,000 people who are unable to support themselves due to caring for and loving a close friend or family member. The Turnbull government established the National Disability and Carers Advisory Council, which brings together leaders from business and the disability and carer sectors to provide advice on proposed policies and legislation affecting people with disability.
The government is currently developing a new integrated plan for carer support services, announced in the 2015-16 budget. As the first stage of this plan, we established the Carer Gateway, with an investment of $33 million, which provides carers with comprehensive information about the support available to them through a website, a national phone service and an interactive service finder. That gateway takes around 500 calls and receives over 15,000 website visits each month. The government's reforms to superannuation opposed last year by Labor allowed carers who have had interrupted work arrangements to make catch-up contributions when they are able to go back to work and allowed the spouses of carers who have an income less than $40,000 to make contributions to their partner's super. But I don't want to turn this into a partisan speech.
There wouldn't be a person in this building who does not recognise the important role that carers play in our society. Government could simply not function if we had to pay carers for the work that they do. I want to express my gratitude to all the carers in Fisher and throughout Australia for the fantastic work that they do. They ought to be congratulated.
Anyone at any time can become a carer. It's never going to be good timing. It's definitely not something that will ever be convenient. And, yet, there are 2.7 million unpaid family and friend carers out there. So I want to use this opportunity as we recognise National Carers Week to say to them: thank you for the sacrifices you make to enrich someone's life, thank you for the time you give and thank you for the outstanding contribution you're making day in, day out to our society.
Each and every week in this country unpaid carers spend an incredible 36 million hours caring for friends and family members who have a disability, mental illness, chronic condition or terminal illness, or who are frail and aged. When you choose to become a carer, it has a number of consequences, many of them financial. Not only do people lose an income; they also miss out on superannuation. So sometimes the lost-earnings impact hits carers, many of them women, further down the track. I saw my own mother and her sisters care for my grandmother as dementia claimed her independence. I've seen Fran, an inspiring mum who gives and gets joy from caring for her son, Josh, but—wow!—she works hard. I've seen husbands like Norm nurse their wives as age takes its toll so that home can still be home. Carers I speak to rarely complain about the challenges they face. Even when they have a battle with bureaucracy that would have me tearing my hair out, I see people who are enormously accepting of the path they have taken.
One group that I see less often are the young people who become carers when a grandparent, parent or sibling becomes sick. I would like to take a moment to focus on them. There are probably more of them around than you would think. The average age of carers is 55. Being not far off that, I'd argue that 55 should qualify as young! But there are thousands who are really young. There are 272,000 carers under the age of 25. Carers young and older find many positive experiences in their caring roles, but research also shows that there can be negative effects on the health, wellbeing and education of young carers if they're not adequately supported. There can be barriers to socialising because they can't leave the person they care for or they may experience stress and anxiety from the responsibilities they're carrying at a really young age. There can be difficulty fully engaging in education, because of the time and energy caring takes. Many find it difficult to find part-time work that is flexible and able to accommodate them. We know they do it because they love and respect the person who is unwell or has a disability, but they definitely need recognition and support for their role.
Balancing work with caring responsibilities isn't a challenge that only young people face, with one in eight Australian employees being in a caring role this year. According to Carers Australia, carers tend to be economically disadvantaged, have lower general wellbeing than others, are more likely to experience poor health, have an above average rating on the depression scale and are more likely to experience chronic pain or injury associated with caring. So, basically, carers just don't have the time they need to care for themselves.
The rollout of the National Disability Insurance Scheme has been another major challenge for carers of NDIS recipients as they try to navigate the scheme. Rightly, the NDIS is, for the first time, focusing on the individual, but many of those individuals have volunteer carers. In the wake of the Productivity Commission's report on the NDIS, the head of the NDIS has admitted that there are flaws and announced new reforms. One of those flaws is that access to respite for unpaid carers is inadequate. I've had a mother who cares for her daughter tell me that the only way she was going to get the same level of respite that she had prior to the NDIS was by signing a declaration which said that, if she didn't get it, she would not be able to care at all for her daughter. This is a horrible situation for parents and partners to be put in. That there is an official document in which to make that sort of declaration is heartbreaking, demeaning and completely unnecessary. Access to proper respite care is vital for carers and for the sustainability of the NDIS. As so much of the support relies on unpaid carers, they deserve our heartfelt thanks.
Last week was National Carers Week. It's estimated that, if all of our carers in Australia stopped doing what they were doing and we paid for it as a nation, it would be valued at $60.3 billion to the economy. But I suspect that the number is actually much higher than that, because, with the carers that I know, you simply could not pay people to do what they do day after day. I know of two parents who have three autistic children. They come into my office from time to time, looking completely exhausted. Their hope for their children is that one day the five of them can sit around a dinner table and have a normal meal. They will spend years working to make that happen, and they already have. This is not something you can buy. With $60.3 billion, you simply cannot buy that love, that commitment, that hope for the future, that understanding of their children and that absolute perfect love which they have for them.
I have a neighbour who, every day, takes his teenage son out for a walk. His son is just starting to speak now. He's probably about 16. He's probably got about the same language skills as my three-year-old grandson. So you can imagine the life that this man has led. I know how exhausting it is to look after a three-year-old for one day. He's looked after a large three-year-old for a decade or more, and continues to do it. Like so many carers, his marriage has broken up, so he does it alone, as so many carers do. When we put the value of care at $60.3 billion, I think we're paying for time and professionalism. I know many great professional carers, but nothing actually replaces the extraordinary contribution that so many people make to their families.
The 2.7 million unpaid carers around Australia deserve our respect, our awe, even, and our thanks. That's what we do in Carers Week. More than a half of primary carers provide care for at least 20 hours a week, almost always to a family member. Given that only 56 per cent of primary carers of working age are in the workforce compared to 80 per cent of noncarers, even the economics of it demonstrates how much they give up to care for their family members.
I also want to pay tribute today to the many organisations that organised events during Carers Week to acknowledge the contribution of our local carers. About 10.4 per cent of people in Parramatta, or 15,689 people, assist family members or others in my electorate due to disability, long-term illness or problems related to old age. Many organisations showed their support and appreciation of them in the last week. The Transcultural Mental Health Centre, a support group for families and carers from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, held two events: one for the Afghani Carer Support Group, which was held at the Nabi Akram Islamic Centre in Granville, and another for Chinese carer support groups in Merrylands.
Flintwood Disability Services held a thankyou barbecue in Harris Park. Parramatta Community Health Services held a carers pamper day in Merrylands. The Parramatta District Men's Shed held a first aid workshop for carers. Community Care in Parramatta held an event for people living with dementia. Westmead Hospital held a carers morning tea and hosted a forum and expo in the children's hospital, and its support group for people living with cancer celebrated and recognised carers of people with serious or terminal illness. NADO, a not-for-profit that helps support people with disabilities, their families and carers, held a special event at Old Government House and Lachlans in Parramatta. Our local playgroup teamed up with MyTime to host a carers high tea at the community centre in Westmead. At Cumberland Hospital, they launched an interactive project that aims to build support networks within and outside the hospital through a participatory art project. It was facilitated by visual artist Elizabeth Day, mental health consumers, carers and family members, who were invited to handcraft fungi-inspired artwork for an aggregated installation called Myco Logic. The fungi was chosen because the roots of a fungus are so dense and intertwined, so they reflect the fact that people with disabilities need that broad community around them. It's a lovely project and I'm looking forward to seeing some of the outcomes. The collaboration runs until December and is based, as I said, on the image of fungi and their underground root structures. It's a metaphor for community and connection.
I want to celebrate and congratulate all the carers in Australia and especially in my electorate of Parramatta for the invaluable and important work they do in our community.
I just want to say thank you to the member for Newcastle for this motion, and I am pleased to stand up here in support of all the carers around the country. People become carers in different ways. For some people it's a very gradual process. Others might find themselves in the role much more suddenly. Either way, it's never easy, nor is it ever a burden. For the work you do, I want to say thank you—thank you to those people in Lindsay, the 4,979 carers, 313 caring for a child and 2,113 who are in receipt of the carer payment. Payments are the only way we are able to collect the statistics of who is caring for who.
I want to send a shout-out to Renee, a woman I have known in my electorate for a very long time, who has two children with autism, and to her mum, Janelle, who helps care for those two kids; to Belinda, who also has two children with autism and also works full time in disability; to Elise and Barry, for the care they give their little boy, Bobby, who acquired his disability through a very disgusting and horrible assault when he was an infant; to Bob, who cares for his almost 100-year-old mum, who's an avid Labor supporter; and to Bill, who cared for his late wife, Lisa, who battled with terminal illness. There are members of my own family who have children with special needs: my aunty, my cousin, my sister and my mum, who cared for my uncle—thank you to those people.
From 15 to 21 October we celebrated Carers Week. In New South Wales there are 850,000 unpaid carers looking after a family member or a friend. To say that this is a self-sacrificing job is an absolute understatement. It's estimated that each week in Australia we spend an incredible 36 million hours in these roles. To put that into perspective, replacing carers with paid care workers would cost taxpayers $40.9 billion annually. Every person in Australia should be thanking carers for the incredible work they do—taking on the role of carer can turn your world and your life upside down. There can be social isolation, and not the same leisure time to spend with friends, family, work colleagues or your other children. There are also financial burdens. It's not uncommon to hear stories of people swapping out paid work hours for unpaid care hours, or even having to leave work completely. I was one of those people. My son, who celebrates his 11th birthday today, was born with a disability and I was one of those carers for many, many years of his life, and experienced social isolation and having my life turned completely upside down. I wouldn't change it for all the tea in China, as they say, but it's hard work. So, to all of those people in caring roles, thank you.
Being a carer can be a very rewarding experience, although there is a lot of stress and anxiety that can come with it. For me, the reward is being motivated enough to come into this place and to do something about things for the long term, for all those other carers and children with disabilities who will follow me and my son. Having to juggle education or a job can be absolutely hard enough as it is, let alone finding a job, if you're a carer, that has flexible hours in it. All the research shows that if carers aren't supported properly there can be devastating impacts on health, education and wellbeing. As a community, it is our job to support, not just the people who need care, but those people who are providing it.
As an example of the great work in our community I'd like to mention PATH, the Penrith Association for People with Disabilities, their families and their friends. Originally established in 1981 by parents of children with disabilities, PATH has been providing information and advocacy to people with disabilities, families and carers. This year they held two events for carers, giving our carers the opportunity to meet each other and share stories. I want to thank the organisers of PATH and those people for the incredible work that they do and the success of their events. Sharing stories cannot be underestimated when it comes to carers trading tips and providing some comfort to each other when those hard times hit. Social media, when used correctly, can be a great place of support, but it is important to be able to come together and talk about those challenges and triumphs, especially when your six-year-old finally learns to use a potty. For all of your friends whose kids started using the potty at 18 months that's no big deal, but when your six-year-old finally has a turn, you want to celebrate it with people who understand just how big that milestone is. So thank you to PATH.
There are many other groups in my community that provide support. I'd like to thank everybody for the contribution they have made to our community and to Australia, and I hope they all had a very enjoyable Carers Week, spent some time on themselves and got to take a bit of time out.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) illicit drugs can cause untold harm in our communities and on our streets; and
(b) the Government:
(i) is committed to targeting the supply, demand, and harm caused to our communities by the scourge of illicit drugs; and
(ii) has made significant investments in our law enforcement agencies to do all they can to keep drugs off our streets;
(2) acknowledges that Australian law enforcement officers continue to confront Australia’s drug market and combat the criminal syndicates that peddle illicit drugs; and
(3) calls on all Members to promote greater awareness of the harmful effects of illicit drugs on individuals and communities across Australia and support our law enforcement agencies in keeping drugs off our streets.
I've spoken often in our parliament, including in my maiden speech, about the scourge of drugs, and particularly ice. I have seen firsthand how drugs can burn even the closest of bonds, and I've seen the intersection of welfare and drugs in our community. The National Ice Action Strategy recognises the complex and long-lasting impact of drugs in our community. We need collaboration at all levels of government, across health, education and law enforcement agencies, to beat the scourge of ice. The Turnbull government has made investments in tackling the supply of ice and other drugs through increased international cooperation, intelligence-sharing, better controls of precursor chemicals and greater law enforcement to prevent drugs reaching Australia. The joint ministerial responsibility for delivering the National Ice Action Strategy is with the Minister for Justice and the Minister for Health. COAG has agreed to establish a Ministerial Drug and Alcohol Forum of health and justice ministers from all states and territories that allows coordinated decision making in relation to drug and alcohol policy issues across Australia. Through the forum the Commonwealth is developing a new international ice strategy that consolidates existing law enforcement efforts to disrupt the supply of ice. Taskforce Blaze is a joint agency task force between the AFP and the Chinese National Narcotics Control Commission. It has intercepted more than 13 tonnes of illicit drugs destined for our streets here in Australia. The National Anti-Gangs Squad has seized $5.6 million in cash and illegal drugs, including more than 170 kilograms of methamphetamine. The AFP continues to collaborate with the states and territories to expand its rapid lab capability, which detects the supply of drugs through the international mail system.
The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission will also develop a national electronic system to give police real-time information about the sales of precursor chemicals and equipment used in drug manufacture. The National Wastewater Drug Monitoring Program is detecting ice hot spots and collecting data on how drugs are being used in our communities. The second National Wastewater Drug Monitoring Program report, completed earlier this year, tested for ice and 12 other drugs at 37 wastewater treatment plants across the country, capturing data on about 51 per cent of Australia's population. The report shows a small reduction across the country in ice use, but a massive challenge remains ahead of us. The wastewater report confirms that ice remains the most highly used illicit drug across Australia. Ice consumption remained highest in my home state of Western Australia and in South Australia, although there has been a decline since the historical highs in October 2016. The report also highlighted an increase in cocaine use here in the Australian Capital Territory and in Victoria. Importantly, this regular data allows law enforcement agencies to target criminals and the supply of drugs at hotspots. The data will also ensure that we continue to monitor health responses and better target services to the communities where they are needed the most.
The government has invested almost $300 million in treatment, education and prevention, with $240 million of this investment going directly to our primary health networks for additional drug treatment services. The rollout of the Local Drug Action Teams continues. There is a $19.2 million investment to support communities to better deliver locally based education to tackle ice use in their local communities. Targeted support services to help people on welfare to beat their addiction and to find meaningful work is particularly important—it is particularly important to me.
As part of the government's welfare reforms, a two-year drug testing trial across three locations will test 5,000 new recipients of Newstart and the Youth Allowance for illicit substances like ice and ecstasy. Newstart recipients will be able to include treatment for drug and alcohol programs as part of their job preparation plan. It is no good that young people who are on drugs are going to job interview after job interview and being told no, no and no, time and time again. We need to make sure that drug rehabilitation programs are part of their job rehabilitation plan. Being drug-free is an important part of their rehabilitation. For those people identified, there will be a $10 million fund in order to assist them to get onto the path of recovery. Drug testing can help. It can be the intervention that someone needs to make a positive change in their life. It's about making sure that people with drug problems get the help they need to beat their addiction.
Do we have a seconder for this motion?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
I thank the member for Tangney for putting this motion forward for us to discuss and debate this afternoon. I commend him for his contribution. Although I have a different view about compulsory drug testing, I thought the remainder of his speech outlined a serious problem and one which we in this place understand. I want to refer mainly to the issues relating to the public health aspects of illicit drug use and drug use more generally.
We're reminded by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's Australian Health Report Card 2016 that drug use is a serious and complex problem, which contributes to thousands of deaths, substantial illness, disease and injury, social and family disruption, workplace concerns, violence, crime and community safety issues. The use and misuse of licit and illicit drugs is widely recognised in Australia as a major health problem. It's recognised by the member for Tangney in his reference to the initiatives taken by the Commonwealth government, including the $240 million for primary healthcare services.
Illicit drugs contributed to 1.8 per cent of the total burden of disease and injury in Australia in 2011, and this included the impact of injecting drug use and cocaine, opioid, amphetamine and cannabis dependence. While illicit drug use is a significant issue in the context of Australia's health, tobacco continues to cause more ill-health and premature death than any other drug, and alcohol-related hospital separations are higher than those related to illicit drugs. Illicit drug use is a major risk factor for ill-health and death, being linked to HIV-AIDS; hepatitis C; low birth weight; malnutrition; infective endocarditis, leading to damage of the heart valves; poisoning; mental illness; suicide; self-inflicted injury; and overdose.
Just on the matter of alcohol, I commend the Northern Territory government for its recent announcements about its strategy to address alcohol misuse and abuse in the Northern Territory, including the introduction of a pricing mechanism on alcohol—that is really very important. Having alcohol pricing based on having a base line on alcohol consumption is, I think, really something which we ought to be adopting across the nation.
The law enforcement approach which the government is adopting in part, as well as its public health approach to illicit drugs, is commendable. Its law enforcement approach is to address the harms of illicit drugs through a mixture of demand reduction, supply reduction and harm reduction interventions. However, there needs to be more done through investment dedicated to public health approaches and a commitment to community led initiatives and rehabilitation programs.
The Australian Drug Foundation has observed how grassroots community prevention programs can have a significant impact on reducing alcohol and drug problems, and community activities are best focused on a primary or upstream prevention, where programs aim to protect people from developing an AOD related problem. Additional funding is needed for these bodies and programs. A report funded by the National Drug Law Enforcement Research Fund found, similarly, that early interventions are important, and school and community based programs that engage with at-risk families and children may be critical for reducing levels of involvement in the most problematic forms of drug related behaviour.
Law enforcement data suggests that different users respond to police contact in different ways. While it may be an important catalyst in reducing drug use in some, it constitutes only a partial solution. For example, young adults who use amphetamine type stimulants may develop less favourable attitudes towards police through their substance related contact with police and that of their drug-using peers, and it is likely to be inherently negative due to the circumstances leading to their contact. Additional and diverse strategies need to be used to target different groups in recognition of the diverse reasons that people use illicit drugs—for example, a family history of drug and alcohol use is strongly associated with childhood trauma, which may in turn lead to an earlier initiation into the dangerous route of drug injection—and the fact that certain groups disproportionately experience some drug related risks. For example, people in the lowest socioeconomic status groups and people in remote and very remote areas are more likely to have used methamphetamines than people in non-remote areas.
This is an enormous problem for the Australian community but one which I believe we can address if we do it holistically, and I'm a very great enthusiast for a greater emphasis on public health initiatives.
I thank the member for Tangney for bringing this motion to the House. I'm very pleased to support this motion, which recognises the importance of remaining focused on the vital work of removing drugs from our streets. The government is committed to tackling the scourge of illegal and illicit drug use in our communities. The government understands, however, that there is no silver bullet when it comes to this issue and that substance abuse must be confronted in a wide variety of areas. We aren't naive about the size of the problem we face either.
The National Drug Strategy Household Survey 2016 found that some 3.1 million Australians had used an illicit drug at least once in the past year. That is 15½ per cent. It was 13½ per cent back in 2007. So we've seen an increase, between 2007 and 2016, from 13½ per cent to 15½ per cent.
Methamphetamine, or ice, is a particular problem in the country and is therefore a key focus of the government's national anti-drugs campaign. According to recent data from police, health and emergency services, the number of ice users in Australia is now significantly above 200,000, with more than 60,000 of these people using the drug at least weekly, if not more often. Importantly, we also know the flow-on effects of drug use in our society. Some 1.8 million people in 2016 reported being victims of a drug related incident. There is clearly a need to take action and turn around these shocking statistics.
The financial costs of the issue must not be left unchecked either. In 2016, the report into the social costs of methamphetamine conducted by the National Drug Research Institute found that the social cost of methamphetamine in Australia was over $5 billion in 2013-14. The primary contributors to this cost were crime, which included police and court costs, incurring some $3.2 billion; workplace absenteeism, which incurred a $290 million bill; the mistreatment of children, sadly, which cost some $260 million; and a $200 million bill for our health system.
It is clear that as a nation we must work together to solve this issue that has the potential to affect us all. I think it is important to remember in this case that it's not just those who are using drugs but also their families, friends and workmates and the broader community who may be affected. The government's national drugs campaign has three major focuses in this area: to prevent the abuse of the drug ice and provide help for those seeking to overcome an ice addiction; to empower parents to have conversations about drugs with their children; and to prevent the prevalence of party drugs within our youth.
One of the great things on the Gold Coast each year for schoolies is the team of Red Frogs that get out and provide support to kids who are enjoying schoolies week. They support them in many difficult situations, whether it's drugs or alcohol. They do get themselves into very difficult situations and the team from Red Frogs is there to help each and every year.
As part of the campaign Commonwealth health is committing more than $685 million to reduce substance abuse. In my electorate of Forde some $7 million is being spent on boosting drug and alcohol treatment services, particularly through the Lives Lived Well treatment centre in Beenleigh, as well as the Lives Lived Well residential facility out at Chambers Flat. The CEO of Brisbane South PHN opened the facility last year in Beenleigh and said it was an important stepping stone for those recovering from drug and alcohol dependence, and how right she was. Lives Lived Well provides a vital service for those seeking to overcome the devastating cycle of substance abuse. The key is that it's free and professional support tailored to the needs of the person with the drug addiction. I thank the member for Tangney again for bringing this motion to the House.
The impact of drugs and alcohol on families across this nation is one of our most significant national problems. I want to thank the member for Tangney for raising this issue for discussion in the House this afternoon. We know the statistics—one in six are using an illicit drug nationally. As MPs we get to see the human face of this problem and from all sides, whether it is parents who come to us anguished because they cannot find the help they need for their children, whether it's families who are having to lock sheds for the first time in what were previously safe neighbourhoods or install CCTV cameras in their own front yards, or whether it's young people who in their very best moments can acknowledge that they need help. There are thousands and thousands of people across this country who are affected by drugs and alcohol.
I want to begin by paying tribute to the people who work in this incredibly difficult area. It's very easy for us as politicians to get up and talk about these problems. What is difficult is getting out of bed every day and going to work and having to deal with people who are going through the horrendous withdrawals that are associated with coming off a drug such as ice, and having to do so again and again as you hold their hand, and support people who have to go through that process again and again, because we know that it's incredibly hard to kick these difficult habits.
The AFP play such a pivotal role in trying to protect our community by policing this problem, whether it's working with police agencies overseas or here in Australia. These are incredibly brave people who put their lives on the line for us every single day. I know I speak for everyone in the chamber when I say how grateful we are for their work.
That is where the bipartisan comments from me will end, because there are aspects of the motion put forward by the member for Tangney that I take great issue with. One of those is lauding the government for all of the support that has been provided for people who are addicted to drugs. That's just wrong. What we know is that there is a severe undersupply of rehabilitation beds in this country right now. We've got the member for Herbert in the chamber. I was lucky to visit her quite recently and talk to some of the people who are working on this problem in her area in regional Queensland. They would laugh if you suggested to them that the government is doing a fantastic job at managing this problem. There were 32,000 requests made last year for the somewhere around 1,500 rehab beds that are available in this country. The wait for rehab beds in large parts of the country, especially in rural and regional Australia where some of these problems are at their worst in some respects, is months. Anyone who has come in contact with an addicted drug user knows that you have the briefest of opportunities when the person is willing to see the problem and accept help. If you tell them they have to wait months for a rehabilitation bed, you are dreaming if you think you are going to be able to do much to support that person.
That is just in regard to the public health and rehab aspects of this. I am in the justice portfolio on the Labor side of the House, and I am outraged to see some of the comments in the motion about how much is being done to support drugs work within the AFP. That is just wrong. The justice minister, Michael Keenan, loves to stand up in front of tables with drugs all over the top and talk about what a tough guy he is, but when he goes down into the cabinet room he is part of a cabinet, part of a government, that is slashing funding to the Australian Federal Police—$184 million will disappear from this organisation over the coming four years. We know that the Australian Federal Police will lose 151 of their staff between this year and next year alone. Through the estimates process in the Senate, we have dug into what this will mean to the Australian Federal Police, and they have told us very bluntly that this is going to mean cuts to some of the programs they're using today to fight illicit drugs in our community. We cannot allow a government to come into this chamber and say all the right things, talk about all their strategies and their bureaucracy and say what a tough government they are on drugs when on the other hand, when we look at the facts, we see very little investment in the rehabilitation we know is desperately needed by the families affected by this problem and a government that is gutting funding for the Australian Federal Police, the main national agency that is trying to get drugs off our street. We have to be frank about this. I'm happy to support the government if they put their money where their mouth is, but they are not doing that. That's why I have to say that I disagree with large parts of the motion before us.
I certainly felt we were pretty close to bipartisan agreement on the importance of combatting illicit drugs and respect for the work of the Australian Federal Police, but clearly that's not the case. I also find myself rereading the motion after the opposition speaker, the member for Hotham, has suggested it was about rehabilitation beds. That was not mentioned at all in the motion. Maybe she had a motion from last year and things got a little confused when her staff wrote the speech for her. In reality, we know that rehabilitation beds are a state government responsibility—of course, that was not apparent either on the speech horizon of the opposition speaker—and the Commonwealth government is fundamentally responsible for outpatient services. That $685 million is coming in very handy in the electorates of MPs on this side of the House, but I suggest that the previous speaker simply doesn't know what is going on in her electorate, as these contracts are let to large parts of Australia—urban, regional and remote—to ensure there are satisfactory amounts of counselling available for those who wish to break this habit.
I return to what we should all be agreeing on—we need to be employing a multi-targeted approach to beating illicit drugs. I want to make reference to two very important areas. The first one is drug testing in welfare, particularly with Newstart, and then I will touch on the area of pill testing at music festivals—another fascinating Labor Party solo flight here in the ACT, where they thought it would be appropriate to on the one hand ban illicit substances in a music festival but on the other hand set up a tent to test them inside. If that complete logical inconsistency isn't obvious to most people listening to the debate, we hear that they are promoting the use of an unreliable form of technology at those festivals. I understand how the Labor Party see this argument. Illicit drugs are everywhere, they are impossible to stop, and so let's just test every drug we can because the more safe ones that are out there the better things will be. When you talk to the experts, they tell you that just finding yourself a chemist and sending them to a music festival with a day pass and a fancy spectrometer and testing all the pills you can is not going to fix the problem. Things will go wrong, often and regularly.
The first reason is, whether you use colour imagery or IR spectrometry, these are not only unreliable tests, but they are subject to interference. When you take them out into the field—
An honourable member interjecting—
Yes, it does. It helps having a medical degree and not one in the union movement. When you're out under a tent in the middle of a music festival, using a spectrometer, then the reality is that interference is a major concern. This is the last technology available where you don't destroy the sample when you test it. We can do liquid chromatography, but that would destroy the sample.
An opposition member interjecting—
A government member: I beg your pardon? What did you just say?
An opposition member interjecting—
A government member: You are absolutely foul.
Order!
And obviously you are not going to have too many patrons coming in asking for drugs to be tested if they are destroyed in the testing process.
The second question is, what exactly happens when these drugs are tested and found to be contaminated? There are only two possibilities: contaminated or clean. Self-evidently, if someone knows a tablet is clean and they have already got some on board, there's a high likelihood they're more likely—they have an increased propensity—to take an additional one, thinking it's clean.
There is a greater concern about simple dose-related issues; MDMA is a toxic agent. People die of 100 per cent pure MDMA every year in most developing economies. What is the point of telling someone under the age of 20, with a still-developing frontal lobe, that the drug is safe and clean? What do you expect that person will do, apart from sharing it or taking more of it?
Now let's tip to whether it's actually contaminated. The drug is actually returned to the festival attendee to take back with them out into the festival. What would a young person do with a drug that has been tested as 'contaminated'? First of all, they have dropped a couple of hundred bucks on the pill, so they might want to get that money back from the person that gave them the pill in the first place. So next thing we have people roving around music festivals trying to identify the dealer or the supplier, to beat them up. Is that the conduct we want at a music festival? What about someone who slyly pops it back into the ziplock bag and onsells it, saying, 'I just got it tested over here and it's okay'—onsell it to try and reduce your losses?
None of these things were thought through appropriately by the Australian Labor Party. They just could not wait to egg on the chemist and the biochemist to get down to a music festival, pop up a shiny tent and start doing testing of illicit drugs. There's been no thought about these outcomes. I strongly support the Commonwealth for being very judicious about providing any support on Commonwealth land for these kinds of policy solo flights in illicit drugs.
I don't need to say it; the public knows that the coalition is deadly serious—through both supply and demand—about wiping out illicit drugs. Sure, we may never win that fight, but the Labor Party's white-flag approach to pill testing in music festivals is a fabulous manifestation of what is wrong with the progressive approach.
I want to talk about a specific illicit drug that is gripping my community, and that is ice. Ice has been one of the biggest game-changers for government, law enforcement and communities. Our rehabilitation facilities are being inundated, our hospitals are admitting users on a regular basis and ambulance officers are responding daily to ice related health issues. The facts surrounding ice prove that we have a substantial epidemic on our hands. The consumption of the illicit drug methamphetamine is the highest tested across all regions in Australia. Of the European countries with comparable reported data, Australia ranks second out of the 18 countries for the consumption of methamphetamine.
The latest Australian Bureau of Statistics report confirms the fear associated with Australia's high drug usage. The country recorded the highest number of drug induced deaths since the late 1990s—1,808 deaths, or about 7.5 deaths per 100,000 Australians. The death rate from psychostimulants—methamphetamine or ice—has quadrupled since 1999 and is now the third-most-common substance associated with drug deaths. Over the last five years, this has increased in Queensland. Between 2009-10 and 2014-15, the annual rate of methamphetamine related hospital admissions in Queensland increased from 3.9 to 52.8 per 100,000 persons.
Fifty-one per cent of Queensland's organised crime networks are linked with ice. From 2014-15 to 2015-16, methamphetamine related arrests increased by 31 per cent. One in every three children who came into the care of the department of communities and child safety had a parent who used ice at least once, mostly within the last 12 months. These facts are horrifying and show the grip this drug is having on Queensland. If we're going to successfully tackle ice, we need a three-pronged approach. We need to address supply, demand and harm. There is no single solution that works. We need to take a health based approach that is focused on reducing demand through prevention and early intervention and through treatment programs that are flexible and community led.
We must work to reduce the harm caused by ice. We need to invest in law enforcement solutions that can target criminal networks and organised crime syndicates. We need to invest in specialised programs that provide wraparound support for families while also ensuring protection for frontline workers. In April this year the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, shadow minister for justice, Clare O'Neil, and I held an ice roundtable in Townsville. Representatives from the Salvation Army, Queensland Police Service, Queensland Ambulance Service, Townsville Hospital and Health Service, GPs, Townsville Aboriginal and Islanders Health Services and community mental health organisations attended. We listened to horrific stories, especially some of the violence that our ambulance officers face in their work from people high on ice. Ice use does not discriminate.
One thing that was very clear is that Townsville needs a youth drug and alcohol detox facility. At the last federal election, I committed $5 million towards the Salvation Army's youth drug and alcohol detox facility. This facility would be the first in North Queensland. Unfortunately, the funding was not matched by the Turnbull government, but our community was not to be denied this facility, and, through sheer determination and hard work, the Salvation Army raised the necessary funds to build that facility for the youth in the north. However, there is no ongoing funding to deliver much-needed support services. The Salvation Army are a beacon of hope to many across North Queensland. This facility is vital for our community. What is more, families of troubled youth in northern and western Queensland deserve this facility. I call on the Turnbull government to commit operational funding to the Salvation Army's youth drug and alcohol detox facility.
I rise in the chamber today in enthusiastic support of the member for Tangney's motion acknowledging the commitment of the Turnbull government and the hard work of our law enforcement agencies, health workers and support services in fighting illicit drugs, and in particular, crystal meth, or ice. New data from the ABC shows that 1,808 Australians died from drugs in 2016. While some were drug suicides, the vast majority were accidental overdoses.
The numbers that define Australia's drug problem are distressing to contemplate. One very big number is that illicit drugs, especially ice, are costing Australia an estimated $4.4 billion annually, due mainly to health care, crime and other economic costs. Beyond the high financial cost, there is of course a horrendous human cost. The evidence of broken lives is both compelling and plain to see. Contrary to recent evidence of a slight fall in ice use, statistics for drug use in overdose deaths show dramatic year-on-year increases. Australia's annual overdose report 2016, from the Penington Institute, reveals that drug overdose deaths in Australia continue to climb, showing a shocking 61 per cent increase in the 10 years from 2004 to 2014. This is an appalling statistic, one that leads the Penington Institute to describe Australia's overdose crisis as severe. And, contrary to popular misconception, it's not young urban Australians that are accounting for the explosion in drug use and overdose deaths. In 2014, overdose deaths per capita were, and continue to be, far higher in rural and regional areas, showing an 83 per cent increase between 2008 and 2014, with the abuse of prescription drugs accounting for even more deaths than illicit drugs. Between 2008 and 2014, there was an 87 per cent increase in prescription opioid deaths in Australia, and that statistic skyrocketed to a 148 per cent increase in rural and regional areas. It's perhaps worth noting that the second national wastewater drug monitoring report, showing test results for 13 illicit drugs at 37 different sites across Australia, capturing data for about 51 per cent of our population, found that ice remains the most highly used illicit drug in Australia.
This motion correctly acknowledges that the Turnbull government is deeply committed to turning the tide on Australia's drug problem by allocating significant resources to a sophisticated, multilayered approach that addresses both supply and demand and also harm caused by illicit drugs, especially ice. The government's National Ice Action Strategy does just this. On the supply side, the government is improving resources for law enforcement to police our borders and streets and to stop the supply of ice and other illicit drugs. On the demand side, we're investing almost $300 million to boost funding for treatment, after-care, education, prevention and community engagement—all aimed at reducing demand and delivering effective support to help users quit. Commencing in November 2015, Taskforce Blaze, an ongoing joint operation between the Australian Federal Police and the Chinese National Narcotics Control Commission, has provided incredibly successful results and is helping stop the flow of ice into Australia. To date, some 13 tonnes of drugs and precursors, including six tonnes of ice, have been stopped as a result.
Like other members of this House, I too have seen evidence of what drugs do to families and communities. Just last May in my electorate of Fairfax I joined the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection with senior law enforcement officers, including from the AFP, Queensland Police Service and Australian Border Force, for a special roundtable briefing on the drug problem. My eyes were opened not just to the extent and cost of the problem but to the dedication and resourcefulness of our enforcement border agencies. Each and every one of us have a job to do to help resolve this scourge of drugs. (Time expired)
I agree with the member for Tangney that illicit drugs are causing untold harm in the communities of Australia. The effects of harmful drugs like methamphetamine have been taking a significant toll on our cities, regions and remote areas. But what I can't agree with him on is that this government is taking reasonable steps to curb this. Time after time, this government has demonstrated it's not listening to the experts on how to best manage the damaging effects of drugs and drug addiction. Just look at the measures the government has introduced to begin drug-testing recipients on welfare. The government stand behind this measure despite overwhelming consensus from experts in the community that it will do more harm than good.
Good policy actionable policy that would achieve its goals needs to be supported by evidence, but that is not how the government operate. If they were interested in formulating policy that reduces the rate of drug addiction in our society, they would have consulted healthcare professionals, like those from the Australian Medical Association, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians or even the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre. But they didn't consult with them. We know this because each of those organisations, as well as many, many more just like them, have expressed really significant concerns about the drug-testing trial. These experts have warned that the trials will not assist people to overcome addiction but will instead push them into crisis. This could mean poverty, homelessness or potentially even crime. But the government won't listen.
I represent a really, really vulnerable electorate. There are a number of people in Longman who struggle with substance abuse. It's these people, their families and their communities—our communities—who are being let down by this government. But fortunately for the people of Longman they have a fantastic state local member in the Hon. Mark Ryan. Earlier this year, I attended the Ice Regional Community Engagement Summit in which the Hon. Mark Ryan, in his capacity as the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services, was heavily involved. It made it very, very clear that, while the federal coalition government would rather demonise those suffering from addiction than help them, the Queensland Labor government, under Premier Palaszczuk, is taking meaningful steps forward, like an $18 million package to be implemented over four years, to increase awareness, support families and better equip those frontline services to respond to ice use and its harmful effects in Queensland.
This is in addition, of course, to the $43 million investment to increase specialist alcohol and other drug services; the $6 million to establish new, and enhance existing, drug and alcohol brief intervention teams; and the additional specialist alcohol and other drug treatment clinicians across six hospitals and health services. The Queensland government's approach is based on reducing supply, reducing demand and reducing the associated harms.
Whilst this Liberal government is using people suffering from addiction as a political tool to justify cuts to welfare, the Queensland Labor government recognises these addicts for what they are—people. They're people who need help, people who need support. Demonising these people is an easy option, so it comes as no surprise that that is what this government is doing. But, if anything, its approach is likely to exacerbate the problem we are seeing in our communities. What this government needs to do right now is show a little compassion. As I said, Mr Deputy Speaker, we're talking about people, people who need support. This government needs to show compassion and recognise that only through awareness, treatment and support will we be able to reduce the effects of drug addiction, not just now but in the long term as well.
I will support any actionable evidence based measures that will help ease the effects of addiction on our communities, so I'm more than happy to stand here and support the Queensland Labor government's plan, which the Hon. Mark Ryan presented at the recent summit in Longman. But the federal coalition government—they've got a lot to learn.
The time allocated for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order for the next day of sitting.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:22