Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Speaker, thank you, and I congratulate you on your role since assuming the high office of Speaker. It has been a pleasure to be part of your parliament.

Last week, I was bringing this House up to date on all the things happening in the Riviera of Melbourne down on the Mornington Peninsula and in the Frankston area of the electorate of Dunkley. I was imploring the state Labor government to seize the opportunities of a number of projects, moving parts and funding avenues to transform its thinking from just a bit of a tart-up of Frankston Railway station, and a bit of a refurbishment, to seeing it as a catalytic opportunity for change, transformation and new opportunities in our city.

I was urging the state government to enable the Metropolitan Planning Authority to take over the oversight of that project—and a number of others that I detailed in this place—to seize this opportunity for a transit orientated development focused around the Frankston railway station. I was urging them to see the transport linkages and the opportunities for the future and our educational focus as the Fremantle of the east coast—these are all things that we could do. I was told by the state government, 'No, Bruce, you've got this all wrong. It's just a rejuvenation. A bit of a lick and paint job on the Frankston railway station. It's just a project. Let's not get too strategic.' That was the very point. It is not just a project, or it should not be just a project. It was about lifting the ambition and the opportunities, and I was outlining how we would do that.

Sadly in response to that, it is my melancholy duty to tell you the state Labor MP has given me a slap on Facebook. How is that for constructiveness? The Facebook slapper has come out and said, 'Bruce, you've got it all wrong. It's just a project. How could you possibly think about the longer-term vision and ambition for the city? You've got it so wrong, and, besides, we'll just blame the federal government for not putting money into our little tidy up of the Frankston Railway station.'

A couple of things come to mind: a fully owned asset of the state government, and a transport project that they are saying is 'just a project' in an area of constitutional jurisdiction they have on their own. There is a distinct lack of interest. They have no appetite whatsoever to try to lift the ambition and the opportunity, which would enable us to then engage federally around regional solutions and other funding avenues. The state Labor government and their front-of-house person—the state Labor MP—do not want to do anything that would make this project something more than simply a bit of a shine for the railway station. That is very disappointing.

To cap it off, what do you do when you are in trouble and you have no argument? He goes personal. He is a rookie. I accept he is finding his feet. But what a waste of an opportunity this seems to be. Sadly, he has swallowed the Labor 101 game plan book on if anything is not going right just lash out at everybody else and take no responsibility yourself.

Sadly, it segues into somewhere else where this has happened. There was another Facebook campaign where I got another slap. Isn't it terrible, the 'Facebook slapper' was after me again about the Frankston and district basketball stadium. This is a $12½ million project in and around the Kananook railway station. It is a fantastic facility that we needed to redevelop to turn it into a community hub, a focal point not just for basketball but also for participation, a resource for our community, something that would help keep our kids in schools and find pathways for new job opportunities. Guess what? Our coalition government has stepped up. I hoped I would get $5 million to support the project. I failed. I got $4.95 million. That is not a bad effort. In fact, it was nice to read on social medial I was known as the 'member for slam Dunkley' because it was such a huge boost for basketball and this facility in our area.

What was happening? I was getting slapped around on Facebook with people saying, 'Where's the fed's money?' There is the money—an important lion's share contribution. The biggest single contributor to this project is the coalition federal government—$4.95 million. Frankston City Council has contributed $4 million, the former state coalition government has contributed $2.5 million and the basketball association has contributed $1 million. Do you know what? We are $2½ million short. Do you know what the state Labor government could do? Anything—just turn up. They have not contributed a dollar. There has been lots of slapping on Facebook of people who are contributing to this project, but at this stage the state Labor government has not contributed one dollar to this project. At the state government level the only one who committed any resources was the previous coalition government—Dr Napthine's government.

Here is another opportunity. Rather than get all hot, sweaty and angry on social media the local Labor members of parliament—part of the state Labor government—could actually do something. They could make a contribution to see this project achieve its full potential to make sure we can invest in those extra stages of the works that would make sure it is a high-performance centre. It would be a chance to host some of the highest levels of competition and would be a real jewel in the crown of our community.

Similarly, we are getting on with other key projects. The Dunkley Community Safety Plan is progressing extremely well. It is great that the Mornington CCTV project is well-advanced. The final stages are coming together now—more cameras, better coverage and street lighting. This outstanding village of Mornington is a great retail, hospitality and family entertainment area during the day and turns into a nightclub and entertainment precinct in the evening—both making a great contribution to our local economy.

We need to manage the transition with care in the village main street area around Mornington. We have done that by the smart deployment of Commonwealth funded and backed CCTV technology, making sure the laneways from the main street to the car parking areas are safe, that the cameras are the best of breed and that it is all integrated.

The Mount Eliza project, which we have hoped for some time to get done, is also nearing operation and that is very exciting. In Frankston city itself, the CCTV rollout around the Beach Street Macca's and South East Water area is moving on. That is part of the Dunkley Community Safety Plan. There is a great initiative to put CCTV technology at the Mahogany centre and also at Seaford—that great alfresco dining area down on the foreshore.

At the Langwarrin shopping area the change in ownership has delayed our progress there, but this needs to be done to cover not only the shopping centre but also the area around the community centre and skate park. This is all happening. The anti graffiti technology, the kit on the vehicle and all of the supporting infrastructure that is needed is also underway, but we are not done.

I have got a few more months in this place. I accept that I might not look like an athlete but I am trying to mimic what athletes do: whenever they are in a race they try to run their hardest near the finish line. That is my approach. We have got more to do. We are not resting on 20 years of public service. There is more opportunity to carry forward the Dunkley Community Safety Plan, to really support what is happening in the revitalisation around the foreshore precinct—again supported by funding from the Commonwealth. We want to get some secure lockers for the most popular beach in Melbourne, which is down at Frankston, so people can store their stuff there. There is lots happening. It is the Riviera of Melbourne, it is the place to be. There is a reason every season to come to the greater Frankston and Mornington Peninsula area, and I hope this account lets you know all the things that are happening in my community.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2015-2016 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2015-2016, because there are issues that the opposition are concerned about in relation to the proposed legislation. This government continues with its advocacy for the cuts that were first proposed in the 2014-15 budget, and it should not be forgotten that many of the provisions in the bills that were proposed by the former Prime Minister and the former Treasurer are now proposed by the current Prime Minister and the current Treasurer.

This afternoon I would like to refer to some of the failures of the government in relation to worker exploitation. I think it is clear that there have been increased instances of exploitation. It is becoming more common and, as a result of some of the good efforts by media outlets—the ABC, Fairfax and others—we are seeing greater levels of exploitation of workers in this country exposed. When we see systemic exploitation of working people it is important that there is some response by government. But, to date, there has been little or no effort by the Turnbull government to respond to such exploitation. In my contribution this afternoon I want to outline the opposition's policies in relation to this area because it seems to me that it would be left to Labor to fill the void that exists within the government. We have seen too many examples of exploitation of workers. Some very high-profile companies—household names, in fact—have been associated with exploitation. A very recent example where there has been very significant exploitation is 7-Eleven. Potentially thousands of workers have been involved and at least $100 million in underpayments. That is a great concern to Labor. But it is not only 7-Eleven.

Pizza Hut delivery drivers have been paid as little as $6 an hour—almost one-third of the minimum wage—under some sham contracting arrangements. Subcontractors who provide services to Myer have been significantly exploited. We have also seen workers providing services to Steggles chicken exploited. The injury to those workers is great. Many of these workers are low paid as it is, but to be underpaid so significantly and for such a long period does enormous injury to them and it also does enormous injury to the majority of employers who do the right thing. If we allow employers to undermine employment conditions in this country we are also injuring the majority of employers who pay conditions of employment pursuant to Australian law. We are punishing and putting enormous pressure on those good employers who do the right thing, because their competitors are reducing their labour costs unlawfully and therefore putting downward pressure on wages generally.

It is absolutely vital, given the prevalence of exploitation, that the government respond, particularly in light of the fact that the federal jurisdiction now predominantly covers the field in industrial relations. There was a time when state and federal jurisdictions shared industrial instruments, but it is predominantly the case now that the federal jurisdiction covers the field and so I would argue that it is the primary responsibility of the federal government to respond. To date there has been little or no response by the government.

On 15 October last year, the Minister for Employment announced a ministerial working group comprising the Minister for Employment, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, the Minister for Justice—who is at the table—and other ministerial colleagues. However, to date there has been no action by that working group and it is therefore incumbent on the Minister for Employment to explain what will be done.

I sought information in relation to this ministerial working group. In fact, on 11 December last year we submitted an FOI request to a number of departments, including the Attorney-General's Department, for access to documents relating to this ministerial working group. I asked questions of the role and the information that might have been provided to the Minister for Justice. The answer I received from the department in relation to the Minister for Justice's office states: 'I have identified that the Minister for Justice's office has no documents that fall within the scope of your request. A thorough electronic search for documents has been undertaken as well as making inquiries of those who may have been able to help locate relevant documents.'

We asked for any internal office briefs or covering notes to the department's briefs prepared by the minister's staff; any email correspondence between the minister and her staff, as the employment minister, or between members of the minister's staff; any email correspondence between the minister's staff and the staff in other ministerial offices, including the PMO; and records of any meetings or telephone conferences attended by the minister or her staff. The answer was that there was no information; no documents that fell within that scope. This really shows that there is no point in having a photo opportunity to announce a ministerial working group.

Mr Keenan interjecting—

I understand the sensitivity of the minister whose office had to actually explain that he had no role whatsoever; in fact had not entered into any correspondence with the Minister for Employment and had no details whatsoever in relation to these matters. The fact is the reason there were no details to the questions we asked is that this working group is not working.

The ministerial working group that involves the Minister for Justice, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and the Minister for Employment is not working because they have no interest whatsoever, I would contend, in examining and redressing the widespread exploitation that is occurring with respect to workers in this country. For that reason, we had to ensure that we filled the void left by the government because the government is not responding. We would have done this as a matter of course, but it became more pressing given the government has done so little.

The announcement we made on 1 February this year was to ensure that those rogue employers who do the wrong thing do not continue to do the wrong thing. For example, we would ensure we cracked down on underpayments to workers through significantly increased penalties for employers who deliberately and systematically avoid paying their employees. We would also ensure that we ramped up protection for workers from sham contracting by strengthening legal protections for workers' entitlements and increasing penalties. We would give the Fair Work Ombudsman more power to pursue employers who liquidate their companies in order to avoid paying the money they owe their workers. We would also introduce reforms to ensure that temporary overseas workers were not being exploited and underpaid, and that there is a level playing field for all workers in Australia. There is no doubt there has been a perverse incentive to exploit workers on temporary visas because they have no redress in law if they are being underpaid. We want to ensure that we sort that out.

In the absence of any effort by the government to redress what I think is widespread exploitation by rogue employers, Labor have announced those policies. Indeed, we have written to employer groups, employers, unions and others about these reforms and attached an exposure draft of the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Australian Workers) Bill 2016. I seek leave to table that draft bill.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is leave granted?

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Very generous.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In light of my observations about the failure of the minister, I do appreciate the fact that he was courteous enough to allow for the tabling of that exposure draft bill.

That draft bill has gone out to affected parties for consultation—something we do on our side of politics; we actually consult. We do not see too much consultation occurring from the government in relation to these matters. We will continue to have that conversation. We will introduce that bill in the Senate sometime in the near future—I think it might be 14 or 15 March—in order to have a debate about these significant matters because we cannot wait any longer for the government to act. There have been too many examples of exploitation that have fallen on deaf ears. The government chose not to act and we will fill that void. It is important that we do, because it is a race to the bottom when you allow a situation to continue in a systemic way that drives down wages through unlawful behaviour. We hope that the government will join us in the pursuit of that exploitation.

With respect to some of the recent comments from the Minister for Employment in the Senate, the minister has made much of some alleged insulting and offensive comments to officers of a Commonwealth agency. If those comments were made then Labor condemn those comments from the building industry. I also want to bring to the attention of this House that, when we are having a conversation about the building industry, we must not forget some of the other challenges that confront agencies in dealing with what can be a very dangerous and difficult industry. I want to remind the government that this is a difficult industry.

On occasions, there are unsafe workplaces and I want to refer to just one site: the Royal Adelaide Hospital construction site. Jorge Castillo-Riffo, 54, was in a scissor lift and was crushed against concrete and sustained fatal head and neck injuries on 27 November 2014. I met his widow two weeks ago and there is still no resolution to that inquiry. On the same site, as recently as 20 February this year, Steve Wyatt, 63, died after being crushed between a scissor lift and the head of a low doorway while supervising the fitout inside the CBD site on Saturday afternoon. He was a highly respected electrical engineer who had 42 years' experience across the building industry. They are two deaths that happened on the same site—at the Royal Adelaide Hospital construction site.

I want the government to use the powers and the agencies of the Commonwealth to do better in preventing deaths in the building industry but also to examine why they happen. I understand the government has its agenda about other matters, but I would just say that we spend millions of dollars resourcing Commonwealth agencies that oversee the building industry and I am concerned that so little of those resources are put into preventing these tragic deaths. I would ask the minister and the government to consider deploying the resources of the agency to prevent these deaths and, if they do occur, examine how we can ensure that they do not happen again.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister is right when he says that there has never been a more exciting time to be an Australian, and as the member of parliament with one of the world's leading universities, the University of Queensland—which is in the top 10 in the world for commercialisation—in my electorate, I can say with great confidence and enthusiasm that there has never been a more exciting time to be the member for Ryan.

Australia is leading the world in this information age and, through the coalition government's unprecedented investment in science and innovation, the opportunities for Australians have never been greater. The coalition government's overarching policy on science and innovation is the National Innovation and Science Agenda. Released in December last year, the national agenda is geared towards exploiting Australia's natural strengths in science, innovation and technology, to secure Australia's future prosperity and high standard of living.

The Turnbull government's National Innovation and Science Agenda will create a modern, dynamic 21st century Australian economy, and will transition the Australian economy from a winding-down mining boom to a burgeoning ideas boom. The coalition government, through the National Innovation and Science Agenda, has committed $1.1 billion in funding to incentivise innovation and entrepreneurialism, reward risk-taking and promote science, maths and technology. This agenda involves a number of key measures delivered through the Department of Education and Training, including $1.5 billion over the next 10 years for the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy, NCRIS, to provide long-term funding certainty, as part of a broader package of $2.3 billion in new funding for research infrastructure; $885 million for a new research support program to provide flexible funding to our universities; $948 million for a new research training program to support our next generation of researchers; $64 million to encourage Australian students to study STEM subjects at school; the opening up of the Linkage Projects scheme from July this year to accept applications year-round from researchers and industry; and the introduction of the first-ever National Impact and Engagement Assessment, to assess the benefits of university research and encourage collaboration between universities and industry.

The National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy, NCRIS, is making possible some truly groundbreaking scientific research in universities and research facilities around Australia. One of the projects being funded is the Australian National Imaging Facility, a $130 million project which is providing state-of-the-art imaging capabilities for use by the Australian research community. The National Imaging Facility, which is being led by the University of Queensland, provides researchers with 12 new flagship instruments across 10 nodes based at five institutions. One of the flagship instruments funded by the NCRIS is a multimillion dollar 7 Tesla whole-body MRI scanner, located within the Centre for Advanced Imaging at the University of Queensland in my electorate. The Centre for Advanced Imaging, through the use of this 7 Tesla MRI scanner, is performing the most advanced cardiac imaging in the Southern Hemisphere. The MRI scanner provides still and moving images of the human heart which are used by researchers in the investigation of techniques relating to the diagnosis and treatment of heart disease.

In addition to our commitment of $1.5 billion to secure the future funding needs of the NCRIS the government has also committed $814 million in funding for two large-scale, internationally significant research projects: the Australian Synchrotron and the Square Kilometre Array. The Australian Synchrotron, which will receive $520 million in government funding over the next 10 years, is a world-class research facility that uses accelerator technology to produce a source of light one million times more powerful than the sun. It is the single largest piece of scientific infrastructure in the Southern Hemisphere, and has applications in a wide range of fields.

Some of the research projects in which the Synchrotron is currently involved include protein analysis to assist in the development of cancer drugs, an examination of the efficacy and safety of chromium supplements in dieting, and the development of an imaging process that reveals how cerebral malaria causes brain damage. The Square Kilometre Array, which will receive $294 million in funding from the government over the next 10 years, is a next-generation radio telescope project involving collaboration from more than 20 different countries around the world—and I acknowledge the great work done by Professor Peter Quinn. The Square Kilometre Array will be the largest and most sophisticated radio telescope on earth. These research projects are truly awe-inspiring and, while most of us struggle to understand the complexities of these large-scale, internationally significant research projects, we should not lose sight of the fact that we are all players in this information age. Science and technology touch us in our everyday lives whether we realise it or not.

We are constantly adapting and evolving in the ways in which we live and work. Many of the members in this place, including myself, come from a business background. Some of us come from small owner-operated businesses, others from large multinational corporations. With almost 50 years between the youngest and oldest members of parliament, the collective experience of members spans, literally, decades. Some of us remember a time when, in business as in life, the internet was unheard of but, for most of us, our experience is one of pervasive interconnectivity between business and consumers. This interconnectivity has brought with it unprecedented gains in productivity, and it has changed the way we live and work and transformed the way we consume goods and services. One example of the way in which the internet has revolutionised the relationship between business and the consumer is eBay, which celebrated its 20th birthday last year.

But with increasing connectivity comes increasing risk. As businesses and consumers become more connected online, the pace at which commercial and personal information is generated, stored and utilised by business continues to grow exponentially. Just as the internet has made information a valuable commodity in and of itself, so too has it created the means by which a business's competitors and detractors can do serious and lasting damage by accessing, withholding and/or disseminating its sensitive information. Data breaches can cause catastrophic financial and reputational damage for a business and can potentially bring physical harm to individuals. Recent examples in Australia include the Department of Education and Training in Queensland, Aussie Farmers Direct, Kmart, David Jones, and the Maroochy Shire Council, as it was then known.

In this digital age, data breaches are soaring. Many businesses are oblivious to the risk and, when a breach does occur, they do not know where to turn. This is where AusCERT comes in. AusCERT, based at the University of Queensland in my electorate of Ryan, is an operational Cyber Emergency Response Team—the first CERT in Australia. It has been helping public and private organisations to prevent, detect and respond to cyber attacks, since 1993. AusCERT is self-funded, not-for-profit and independent of government. AusCERT's membership includes 177 schools, 46 universities and 12 TAFEs. Member organisations range in size from between one and 200 network users to more than 20,000 network users.

As part of its overall service, AusCERT provides members with security bulletins, an SMS early warning service, incident management services, a 24/7 members hotline, a malicious-URL feed, a remote monitoring service and a phishing take-down service. It also provides, on a fee-for-service basis, a virtual information security officer, and flying squads for organisations affected by cyber attacks.

As Australia's first-ever CERT, AusCERT was, until 2010, Australia's national CERT; however, this arrangement was changed by the former Labor government through the creation of the government-owned and operated CERT Australia, which assumed responsibility for the cybersecurity of Commonwealth government departments and agencies. Despite this, AusCERT continues to provide an invaluable service for the business community as well as state and territory government departments and education institutions, none of whom receive assistance from CERT Australia. With the ever-increasing threat of cyber attacks on non-government organisations, and with the heightened risk that comes with government-mandated collection of metadata, AusCERT remains, in my mind, an integral part of Australia's cybersecurity landscape.

It does concern me that CERT Australia refuses to partner with AusCERT as a fall-back service provider for non-government organisations. More alarming, AusCERT does not appear to play a role in the government's draft Cyber Security Review report. Given the emphasis on economic growth and innovation in the review's preamble, I find it extraordinary that the organisation responsible for servicing the non-government sector has not been invited to participate. We need to recognise the role that AusCERT plays in keeping Australia cyber-safe, and I believe CERT Australia should enter into a formal partnership with AusCERT and invite them to participate in the government's draft Cyber Security Review report.

Australians have been great beneficiaries of the industrial and technological advances of the last 250 years. After three industrial revolutions, and now in the midst of the information age, it is an undeniable fact that the poorest Australian today enjoys a better standard of living than the richest Australian did two-and-a-quarter centuries ago. And while there is still much to be done in terms of closing the gap in Australia, we should not lose sight of the fact that many of our regional neighbours also require a helping hand. As good neighbours, it is incumbent upon us to ensure that the benefits of education, modern medicine and technological advancements are shared.

Members in this place will know that I place great emphasis on the importance of our relationship with our regional neighbours. I take this opportunity now to highlight some alarming statistics. In Papua New Guinea, five women die from childbirth every day—the highest maternal mortality rate in the world. In Papua New Guinea, there is one doctor for every 17,068 people—in Australia it is one for every 302. In Papua New Guinea, there are just 51 doctors for a country with 700 villages, 800 languages and 85 per cent of the population living outside the capital city of Port Moresby. In Papua New Guinea, the per capita health spend is $67.00—in Fiji it is $453; in Australia it is $6,600; and in Vanuatu it is just $159. It goes without saying that modern medicine is of little benefit to a country that cannot afford to administer it and, through Cyclone Winston in Fiji and Cyclone Pam in Vanuatu, we see how natural disasters stretch the capacity of these countries' already underresourced public health systems and highlight the necessity of Australia's aid program in the Pacific.

There is no doubt that Australia is a generous provider of foreign aid. In this financial year, alone, the Australian government will provide an estimated $4.052 billion in official development assistance, making Australia the 13th most significant donor in the OECD. The Australian government has introduced a $50 million Gender Equality Fund, to strengthen gender equality and encourage the economic empowerment of women in our region, and maintains a $120 million Emergency Fund to assist in humanitarian and disaster relief efforts globally. The Australian government reacted swiftly and generously in its humanitarian response to Cyclone Pam in Vanuatu, last year, and we have done the same in response to Cyclone Winston in Fiji.

In the area of accountability and transparency the government has introduced a new performance framework, Making Performance Count: enhancing the accountability and effectiveness of Australian aid, to improve the accountability of aid spending and, in improving the transparency of our aid program, we have published and made available 25 Aid Investment Plans and an interactive map showing the distribution of Australian aid.

Australia has much to be proud of in the area of foreign aid and of the initiatives and priorities of our foreign minister, the Hon. Julie Bishop. But there is always more that can be done and, in that regard, I encourage the government to give priority to our foreign aid obligations in formulating the 2016-17 budget. I commend the bills to the House.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The legislation we have before us today—Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2015-2016 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2015-2016—demonstrates the difference between the Turnbull government and us on the opposition benches. Rather than attacking people who are the most vulnerable in our community and ripping services out of the community, our approach to the fiscal challenge is to make multinational companies pay their fair share of tax, reducing superannuation tax concessions for millionaires, increasing the charges to tobacco excise, ceasing the emissions reduction fund—in other words, stopping paying polluters to pollute—and not proceeding with the government's new baby bonus.

The Shortland electorate is the seventh oldest electorate in the nation. It has the seventh highest number of people over the age of 65. The people of Shortland depend on government to deliver services. There are 19.8 per cent of the population aged 65 or over and many of those people are on fixed incomes. Many of them rely on their doctor bulk-billing for them. Many of them do not relate to computer technology and find it very difficult when they go to a Centrelink office and are referred to a computer or are handed a telephone and told to speak to somebody on the phone. People like—and expect—to be delivered the services they elect governments to deliver for them.

Unfortunately—very unfortunately—over the term of this government, in this parliament, services have been ripped out of communities. My office has been contacted by many constituents who are disturbed by the fact that when they walk into a Centrelink office they are greeted by a person with an iPad and directed to a telephone or a computer. They find this intimidating. They find the lack of service very hard to cope with.

Rather than setting up a system where special services are designed to ensure that older Australians can access information, payments and services they require, the government is putting in place barriers to prevent people, particularly older people, from accessing that information and getting those services. It is a government committed to small government, in the sense that it does not believe in service delivery. If they can outsource it they will. If they can cut it they will. And the cuts are directed towards the most vulnerable—those people who rely the most on government to deliver services.

Last Saturday I was at one of my local shopping centres. This Abbott-Turnbull government is seeking to close the Belmont Medicare office. The Howard government closed the Belmont Medicare office and Labor reopened it in 2009. Now we have another Liberal-National Party government and they are—again—closing the Belmont Medicare office. Service delivery has changed. The staff do not provide as much hands-on service as they did before—because of the directives this government has in place—but, every time I go up there, there is someone at the counter. Last time I entered that Medicare office there were 10 people lined up to use the computer. When they get into trouble they can get assistance in the Belmont Medicare office. People come from as far south as Gwandalan and Summerland Point. The alternative for them is either to go to Lake Haven or to travel all the way to Charlestown. For a person who lives in Swansea or even Belmont—two suburbs within the Shortland electorate that have a high elderly population—travelling to Charlestown means that if they are lucky enough to have a full licence—many have restricted licences—they have to drive to Charlestown or catch a bus. If they have a restricted licence, it is outside the area where they can travel.

I really feel that some of the decisions that this government is making are to the detriment of the people I represent in this parliament. It shows a lack of understanding. If we look at health and the measures that this government has put in place to encourage GPs not to bulk-bill, once again this has impacted on people in the Shortland electorate. It has created a situation where people are avoiding going to the doctor. Changes to the PBS have led to rationing of medication by people who are on low or lower or fixed incomes. It is very short-sighted, because in the long term it will increase health costs within the community. Countless constituents have contacted me about this particular issue. I have been contacted by numerous constituents about Centrelink and the failure to deliver services there. I have been contacted by countless constituents about the fact that doctors are being encouraged not to bulk-bill.

That has been further exacerbated by measures in the last budget that will lead to pathologists no longer receiving the bulk-billing incentive. I have in my hand a letter from Pathology Australia where they highlight the impact that this will have. In this letter Pathology Australia said that it will lead to a situation where only those Australians that can afford to have pathology tests will be able to have them. Currently there are no out-of-pocket expenses, but when that bulk-billing incentive is removed there will definitely be out-of-pocket expenses. It is very important to note that 100 per cent of all people diagnosed with cancer have contact with and need services from pathologists. This will only lead to Australians becoming sicker. I think those on the other side of the House need to take this back their party room. They need to consider a little more the impact that the changes that they are pushing through their party room have on people in their electorates. These are real people that are fighting to have the finances to get the services that they need to keep themselves healthy and to get treatments that they need from their doctors.

I believe that that is very, very important. Just to give you a bit of insight, last month was Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month. The changes that will take place will have enormous implications for the costs associated there. A pelvic ultrasound will have a gap of between $10 and $101. A CT abdomen and pelvis scan will have a gap of between $48 and $145. That will impact on so many women. Ovarian cancer is a difficult cancer to diagnose, and if people are facing out-of-pocket expenses that will be a disincentive for them to have those tests.

The other thing that I would like to touch on quickly is education. This government has ripped money out of education and has failed to commit to the ongoing funding of the Gonski reforms, reforms that my local schools have told me have led to students improving their literacy and numeracy skills by two years. Labor has committed this year to funding the remaining years of the Gonski reforms. That means that all students in Australia will have equal access to education. It means that as a nation we will have a future. All students being able to access quality education means that as a nation we will be globally competitive.

Add to that our plans to provide 75 per cent of funding for vocational education to TAFEs. Add to that that we are moving away from the government's $100,000 degrees. These are all disincentives to undertake studies, particularly in the vocational education area, where people are being signed up by disreputable private colleges and incurring a debt of up to $20,000—I think that is about the highest that has come through my office—and then getting nothing for their money. They have been inappropriately signed up, because they were not up to the course they were being signed up for. On jobs, Labor has a plan for jobs. We will deliver real jobs on the ground. Saying that you are creating jobs and then, at the same time, having jobs going out of the economy is just unbelievable. That is what this government stands in this House and does all the time.

I have covered a lot of areas in my contribution to this debate. I would like to finish on this note: this government has no plan; Labor has a plan. Labor has a number of quality policies. At first, this government was going to introduce a GST. It got a little bit hard, so it did not go ahead with it. In talking about negative gearing, the government is looking at retrospective negative gearing. When it comes to a plan for the future, all we hear is a Prime Minister that stands up in this House and uses fancy words. He talks about innovation and about being agile. His contribution to the debate in this parliament is nothing but waffle. The Australian people want action. They do not want waffle; they do not want fine words. They want a government that delivers services to them.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is great to have the opportunity to speak on these very wide-ranging bills, the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2015-2016 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2015-2016. These bills provide an opportunity for me to reflect on negative gearing and the very poorly constructed policies of those opposite announced a week ago.

As time goes on, the tremendous pitfalls involved in these policies are becoming clearer and clearer to the Australian people—predominantly, the pitfalls with the policies put forward by those on the other side. When you look at the investor and homeowner market, for all constructed properties roughly 90 per cent of the banks lend to existing homes and 10 per cent lend to new dwellings. Then when you look at another bar graph of the mix that banks lend to, 70 per cent are homeowners and 30 per cent are investors. As I speak to real estate agents in my area, the issue that they are flagging with me about current policy positions of those opposite in this place is: if this policy ever takes effect in the market, you will have a position where you have 30 per cent of the investors being driven into 10 per cent of the new homeowner market. If you encourage 30 per cent of the investors to continue to invest in property, but if they will only get the tax benefit if they invest in new property, ultimately you will have a demand-and-supply problem—an under-supply and an over-demand of people wanting to buy new property. In turn, through the laws of economics and demand and supply, this will put upward pressure on new properties. There is a certain degree of inevitability that goes with that economic logic—it will push up new prices.

As a result of the remainder of the existing homeowner market, what will happen is that Labor will be pinning its economic credibility in espousing that new homeowners, wanting to enter the market, will be advantaged or better off. It is the opposition's intent to dilute the very property value that exists in a second-hand market by taking that 30 per cent out of the market that, traditionally, would have invested in it. So when you go to an election, make sure you campaign honestly and economically correctly in that your policy is built on the premise that, for most Australian homeowners existing in the market, you are diluting their single biggest asset—their home. It is unsustainable. On this side of the House, we oppose those measures. But I want to take the opportunity to thank the opposition for at least bringing a policy position to the table. That is what we are about on this side of the House. We are about engaging with the Australian public on having an adult, rational, intelligent debate in and around tax policy. I commend the Labor Party for bringing a position to the table, irrespective of the potential failings in that policy.

I want to also remind the Australian public of some of the other ill-thought-out policies that were rushed into this place—and, on occasions, that did not even come into this place—by those on the other side. I want to let history speak for itself. A policy decision the Labor government introduced had enormous ramifications throughout my electorate. I have three major selling yards in my electorate of Wright. I have the Beaudesert cattle yards. I have Moreton just on the border. I have Kalbar and, of course, the Silverdale saleyards. The instant effect of the poorly thought-out policy of shutting down the live cattle export trade overnight had immediate ramifications through my electorate. This policy position, with its ill-thought-out and ill-conceived genesis is not that dissimilar to the policy position that we have on the table at the moment. The pink batts scheme was conceived on the back of a drink coaster by a Prime Minister on route to a particular locality. Again, an ill-thought-out policy position which cost an enormous amount of Australians—hundreds of Australians—their homes, as they were, unfortunately and tragically, burnt to the ground. Losing one is enough. Regretfully, we had a loss of life in the rollout of that program. A percentage of money was spent on the program. The remainder of the funds was actually spent pulling the pink batts out. It was a policy failure it its absolute. Of course, then, I speak nothing other than the over-costed runs on our school halls scheme.

But it is important to start out by being very clear about what negative gearing is. Negative gearing is a very simple and basic concept. Just as businesses have a cost of doing business and are able to deduct those costs in calculating their profitability, people who invest in property can deduct their interest from their investment. You can deduct the cost of renovations, maintenance or whatever it may be on the investment property. You can also deduct the cost of interest. That makes sense because interest is a cost just as maintenance and renovations are costs. I think the average Australian business would find it novel in the extreme if they were told that there was some threat to their ability to claim interest as a cost of doing business. Equally, interest clearly is a cost for people who invest in property. It applies to investments in pretty much all investment classes. It is not just a special thing for investment property. If you borrow money to leverage into a share portfolio, interest will be your main cost.

Then we get to the question of what the Labor Party wants to do to negative gearing as it pertains to the property market. To paraphrase their policies as I understand them, it is to say that to extend to someone who wants to claim interest—negative gearing as it is known—on an investment property would only apply if there was a brand-new property. It would not be possible to negatively gear existing home loans, along with changes to the rate of capital gains tax that people would be required to pay. Therefore, for roughly nine million homes in Australia it would not be possible to negatively gear once Labor policy came into effect for any new investments past 2017.

For every single existing home in Australia, obviously investors are a very significant part of the market at the moment. As I suggested, they are just over 30 per cent. In the future none of the new investments in existing homes after 2017 will be able to make use of negative gearing. It is very difficult to see why investors are going to continue to invest in an asset class when they have just had the economic rug pulled out from underneath them in that they can no longer negatively gear on those properties.

Research suggests that somewhere around 30 to 33 per cent of investments in the existing property market is from investors, so it is significant. It is not just something that is conducted by excessively wealthy investors; it is a very widespread practice in Australia, and something around a third of existing homes are affected by this issue. The more fundamental issue is not just the impact upon someone who happened to have negatively geared but what happens to the prices for the nine million existing homes.

Negative gearing is primarily used by middle Australia. Labor is just playing economic envy. There are 10 times more negative gearers who are nurses, teachers or emergency service workers than those who are surgeons, anaesthetists of finance managers—more than 100,000 claimants compared with fewer than 10,000. According to the ATO, the greatest total loss of negative gearing over $1,200 in net rental loss is claimed by teachers, nurse, emergency service workers and clerks, compared with just $155 million claimed by surgeons anaesthetists and finance managers combined. In the short term, as I mentioned earlier, this will push up new home prices when supply cannot be quickly extended to meet the new demand.

This government will not implement anything as rushed, distorted and potentially disruptive as those on the other side. This government is focused on growth, jobs, innovation and improving the nation's infrastructure. This government recognises the economic transition well out of the mining boom with the introduction of there on 300,000 jobs to the economy just last year. The annual jobs growth rate is 2.6 per cent, well above the decade average of 1.8. Recently we had our finance ministers meet at the G20. Australia is the envy of the world with 25 consecutive quarters of growth, and we are transitioning well with a focus on jobs and a focus on a very solid plan. Every lever of our economic policy is directed at building on this strong performance. I suppose that is why people rate the performance of the current Prime Minister well against an alternative, Labor-led economy.

Recently there was a Newspoll on the front page of The Australian. An overwhelming 58 to 22 per cent of the Australian public supported the coalition's strong plan on managing the economy. That is why we have opened up overseas markets by signing historic free trade agreements with Japan and Korea as well as the multinational Trans-Pacific Partnership deal and why we are working currently with China and Indonesia. Three of the world's most influential economies are right on our doorstep, and we need to make sure we build those relationships with our economies. I am starting to see the benefit of those flow through to our saleyards, as I alluded to earlier, with the extra demand in the live cattle export trade being taken up, giving potential buyers the opportunity, if unhappy when faced with prices at the saleyards, to head back home, load their cattle into a boat and send it to another market. It is that flexibility in the marketplace that allows for the elasticity and upward trend of prices. We are experiencing prices in our markets that we have not seen for many years. I would even say that the current cattle prices are as strong as they have ever been. Of course, there are other significant issues—for example, our current exchange rate—which have an impact on that as well. Just over 70c provides that market incentive in the free trade market.

This government is investing more than $50 billion in infrastructure. In my electorate alone we have several large-scale projects going ahead, which means a great deal for my constituency base. This includes Bromelton international rail precinct, with just on $10 million of investment from the federal government, partnering with the private sector's $30 million. It will in the long term bring 1,500 jobs to the local economy of Beaudesert. The Toowoomba Second Range Crossing has over $1 billion worth of funding, an 80 per cent contribution from the federal government and a 20 per cent partnership from the state. I welcome it. The project will provide and drive economic growth as our transport corridors become more economically enhanced, removing up to 24 sets of stop lights and improving the travel time for cargo transport operators up to half an hour as they make their journeys.

I would also like to acknowledge the government's plan and its ongoing commitment to the national bridge program. Within my electorate I have four shire councils which are wholly engulfed in my electorate boundaries of Wright. The 'scenic rim' has no less than 132 timber bridges that need repair or maintenance in my electorate. Our national bridges program is an incredible investment in the future and will help shires partner with federal government.

Regarding the environment, this government has reinstated the Green Army project, which has been a resounding success in my electorate, with over 20 projects.

I would like to also quickly touch on the NBN rollout. Under Labor, in my electorate I was not going to see one piece of fibre in my electorate for another eight years. We are currently now well and truly in front of Labor's forecast of when telecommunications was going to be rolled out in my electorate, and without a doubt it is the single biggest issue that unites my electorate.

We have a plan for the future. It is an economy which is transitioning from the mining boom. We have an interest in addressing bracket creep and paying down debt. I commend this bill to the House.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for External Territories) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to address my remarks in this debate around issues relating to northern Australia. In the first instance, I want to talk about farming and horticulture in particular.

You would know that there is often a lot of discussion in this place and elsewhere about the importance of the Ord River, and it has been an important investment in developing northern Australia and there is a lot more to happen there; there is no question about that. But this week we have had in the parliament members of the NT Farmers Association, including their CEO, Shenal Basnayake, and their president, Simon Smith. They represent an interesting group of people in the Northern Territory; horticulturalists who produce from a very well-established vibrant and productive part of my electorate of Lingiari—that is, the Top End part of it.

The greater Darwin horticultural area has a total value of $180 million to $280 million per year, which is quite substantially more than is produced from the Ord—

Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Twice as much.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for External Territories) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In fact it is twice as much as is produced by the Ord, as my friend the member for Brand points out. That is not commonly understood or known. Mangoes are $60 million to $80 million; melons are $50 to $60 million; and over $40 million of Asian vegetables are produced each year. Vietnamese and Cambodian farmers alone are turning over more than $60 million in produce. This is a good story—a really good story—and I know these farmers are incredibly proud of it. Their success is driven by hard work and by the most important fact, which is that they are connected to their markets.

We know here in this place, or we should know, that market driven cropping is the only way forward for horticulture in the north. Rural area farmers are very concerned that, in the instance of the Northern Territory government, planning will limit the potential for expansion of their industry. And I am afraid that, sadly, the conservatives in this place and elsewhere, and particularly in the Northern Territory government, seem to have little understanding of the potential of this industry—and not only its current value but its future potential. Recent planning documents do not even identify existing farms, let alone zone potential horticultural areas that could provide future economic growth to the farming industry.    

That should be an issue of concern to us. I hear a lot from the government benches around developing northern Australia—water, dams and the like—but these very important issues around planning, around understanding what there is and how to exploit the existing capacity to produce more, are not properly understood. There seems to be no real appetite to get that understanding, and that is a matter of grave concern.

Decisions have been made which have affected farmers around issues to do with labour. There is no understanding of this labour market, of the need for itinerant workers and how they should be paid or the hours that they can work. They are being penalised by decisions that have been taken by this government. That is a sad indictment of a government which purports to understand the importance of economic development and economic growth in northern Australia. In this particular instance, they have not only shown their ignorance; they have failed to understand and listen, or even open their ears to the possibility of listening, to the demands which have been properly made of them.

As NT Farmers CEO Shenal Basnayake said recently:

… with the expected increase in population in the Darwin region and with some parts of the Litchfield subregion already being developed for residential purposes, farmers were coming under increasing pressure.

'If we see what the government is doing, inviting investors in agriculture, we need to give them product that they want to invest in,' Mr Basnayake said.

'You need to make sure those things are available.

'They’re not going to invest in 2.02ha blocks.'

And they are not. Whilst urban encroachment is an issue, the fact is that there have been farmers who have sweated their guts out for a long time now, producing a great deal of wealth for the north and for themselves. But it is not only there that we need to think about the potential of the north, and the Northern Territory in particular.

I want to refer to a very innovative group of people in Wadeye. The Ngepan Patha is a highly functional women's group in Wadeye, and they have undertaken a very important initiative. They are involved in art, material design and production business, and they have added a new and potentially game-changing initiative to their commercial portfolio. This is important. They have been working in with the prawn aquaculture industry in the development of a natural cooked prawn preservative that has potential for considerable added value to that product. This is a women's group, working in Wadeye in the Northern Territory. The local plant is indigenous to several regions in the north of Australia. Originally known colloquially as the 'billygoat plum' and these days more commonly known as 'Kakadu plum' in the Northern Territory and 'gubinge' in the Kimberley, it can be processed to produce a powder. The powder appears to be much sought after by major prawn producers. This plum powder extends the life of cooked prawns from three to 10 days with no loss of quality or taste. It consequently is valued at $450 per kilogram. About 10 kilos of plum go to make one kilo of the powder.

The careful development of this initiative by working with a research facility, major commercial and investment entities and most particularly with the local Wadeye community is producing very good results. Ngepan Patha coordinator Margot and her team need to be congratulated for their work. I know that they are working in conjunction with people in the Kimberly who are working on the gubinge, and they are working around setting up a cooperative enterprise to exploit the possibilities of this particular product.

I spoke earlier about the NT farmers and what they are doing to represent the interests of the broader horticulture and farming community across the Northern Territory—horticulture is producing a tea-tree up north at Ali Curung, around Katherine and in the Darwin rural area. But this particular group of Aboriginal people in Wadeye are not being properly recognised. What we have heard about Wadeye in the past has pretty much all been negative, but here we have got a group of people with initiative to develop a new enterprise using local produce harvested by themselves and made into a commercial product which has a real impact on the potential shelf life of prawns. That sort of integrated approach to developing the north is something which we need to properly understand more. There is a lot more activity happening in the region than that, of course.

I also now want to talk about something which I am very committed to and very concerned about, and that is health issues in remote parts of northern Australia, particularly in Aboriginal communities of my own electorate. Recently, I had the great opportunity to accompany Professor Brian Owler from the AMA around a number of communities over a couple of days. I hosted him. We visited Kintore in the west, and Urapuntja and Ampilatwatja in the east. Our purpose was to talk to health professionals in Alice Springs, Baker IDI and Flinders University. These discussions were about what the health status was like.

We learnt a great deal, and the great deal that we learnt was a matter of great concern. At Urapuntja, for example, we were talking to the people from Baker IDI, and they pointed out to us that the highest incidence of type 2 diabetes in the world is in this region. And shockingly, they had identified a seven-year-old girl with type 2 diabetes. If that does not worry everyone in this chamber and everybody who may be listening—not that there are too many, I suspect, given that the broadcasting light is not on—then understand this: the implications of this on the government's expenditure are enormous not only on health directly but also in other areas such as housing and education. Yet when we talk about these issues more generally, we ignore the interconnectedness of them. We do not see the whole; we see a part. If we want to address this issue of diabetes, the impact it has on end stage renal failure and the high incidence of renal disease in Central Australia and elsewhere, then we need to get back to a very basic discussion about what is required.

When we were at Kintore, and indeed in Alice Springs, we visited the Purple House. The Purple House is a renal treatment facility set up by people, in the first instance, from Kintore, the Walungurrucommunity, who auctioned paintings, raised $1 million and with support put two renal chairs in their own community in the Western Desert—not commonly understood in this place, nor appreciated. Now they operate in a number of communities, not only in Central Australia but also in Western Australia, providing patients with end stage renal failure the capacity to be treated in their own communities. But when we ask this question and we talk about the importance of putting this infrastructure in place, we then have silly debates going on around this place around what our primary concerns should be and where the money should come from when fundamentally we have no choice. If we want to alleviate poverty, and if we want to address the health needs of these people I have identified and Professor Owler was able to talk to, then we need to do a great deal more than we currently are.

We need to understand that we require an integrated approach across portfolios. For example, if we want to address issues to do with FASD in education in the Northern Territory, we should not be relying on the education department to do the diagnosis. It requires the participation of health professionals. Yet we know in Central Australia there are insufficient health professionals to do more than one diagnosis a month. We know that this is an issue reaching chronic proportions in some communities.

We will never address issues to do with preventing chronic disease until we understand the importance of addressing maternal and child health transition to early education, and making sure healthy children are made healthy adults. Otherwise, what we are going to have in this place in 25 to 50 years' time is the next generation of people standing up here, as I am today, complaining about the lack of infrastructure for the support of diabetes and renal failure, and the failure to understand the importance of preventative health measures to stop these things happening in the first place—to stop the onset of these chronic diseases. If we do not do that here then we are abdicating our responsibilities as Australians. We have a responsibility across this parliament to understand the importance of this. We should not be arguing about the money; we should be making sure the money is made available. If we do not make sure the money is made available, what we are committing ourselves to is ensuring that this generation of people with chronic diseases are going to die young—and the next generation, who are in their early teens today, will die young.

If we ever want to close the gap, we have got to change our minds and do things very differently from what we are doing currently. That requires a lot of hard work and a lot of thought and it means getting out of the silos of particular portfolios, understanding we need a whole-of-government approach to these things and appreciating that it requires investing money. Let us not argue about it. It needs to happen—otherwise, as I say, the plight of these people which exists today will not be alleviated.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The member will have leave to continue his remarks when the debate is resumed at a later hour.