Tim Hammond's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Primary Industries Research and Development Amendment Bill 2017; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I'm delighted to rise following the member for Eden-Monaro, who not only has made a very impressive contribution to this debate but is also a most effective local member, particularly insofar as...
I'm delighted to rise following the member for Eden-Monaro, who not only has made a very impressive contribution to this debate but is also a most effective local member, particularly insofar as his recent role in providing an integral level of support to those affected by the bushfires that have ravaged his local community. He should also be commended in relation to that support he's provided. As I'm sure we are all aware, this bill amends the Primary Industries Research and Development Act to allow R&D corporations—or RDCs, as I will refer to them—regulated by the act to undertake marketing functions with funds raised by voluntary contributions, such as gifts, grants or bequests. Currently, spending on marketing is limited to money raised by a statutory marketing levy. I'm delighted to say—again, in a spirit of substantive bipartisanship—that this bill will go great lengths towards ending that restriction. Mr Deputy Speaker, as I'm sure you are very well aware, Labor supports the passage of this bill subject to, of course, the amendment moved by the member for Hunter, and I must say what a tremendous job he does as well as an advocate for regional Australia and certainly regional Australia insofar as it supports the primary production industries. Only four RDCs are governed by the Primary Industries Research and Development Act: Fisheries RDC, Cotton RDC, Grains RDC and Rural Industries RDC—and I'd like to come back to Fisheries RDC in due course. Whilst at first blush it might reasonably be said that for someone like me, as a member privileged to represent those in Western Australia who are from the inner city, the connection to primary industries appears remote, I'm pleased to say that that is not the case. Quite frankly, the importance of backing in primary industry is one which touches us all and one which has quite a connection to my own history on two levels. Firstly, I am delighted to say that from 2010 to 2013 the Fisheries RDC worked with Murdoch University, which is the university I previously attended. The work, to the tune of $300,000, was on the development of a model that would enable reliable estimation, from age and length data, of the mortality of fish species that undertake size-related, unidirectional offshore movements. That might sound a little esoteric but it really does relate back to, say, consumers in my electorate, as they regularly attend farmers markets in seeking to obtain the benefits of fresh local produce. I would talk about the subject of the research at some length if only time would permit, because I'm really just getting started, Mr Deputy Speaker. It relates to a famous species of fish called King George whiting. King George whiting, for those who don't know, is a tremendous species of fish that really could not be more removed from, let's say—without wanting to disrespect them too much—its poorer cousins the standard whiting or the sand whiting. The King George whiting is something else for a number of reasons. Firstly, in terms of its pound-for-pound ratio, it is quite the fighting fish. Whilst I was born in Perth and moved back to live in Perth, I spent some of my childhood growing up on Kangaroo Island. For those who do not know it, Kangaroo Island is renowned as an incredibly fertile fishing ground for King George whiting. As a matter of fact, I caught my first ever fish on Kangaroo Island, and guess what fish that was? An honourable member: A whiting? It was a King George whiting. I still remember that day when I hauled up my first ever fish and the wonderful shimmering colour and movement of the King George whiting appeared. I don't know whether it was a sign of things to come or whether my luck quotient peaked too early, but it was not just one fish; it was a famous double-header. The double-header of two King George whiting caught from my late father's boat off the shores of Penneshaw on Kangaroo Island is something that will be forever stuck in my mind. The reason it is important here is that the Fisheries RDC looked into research to make sure that we preserve this famous fish, the King George whiting, not just for my generation but for many generations to come. If this bill goes some way to making sure that other kids get the same benefit I did, that is delightful.
Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the 26th Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum | Delegation Reports | House debates
I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the 26th annual meeting of the Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum, held in Hanoi, Vietnam from 18 to 21 January 2018. I ask leave...
I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the 26th annual meeting of the Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum, held in Hanoi, Vietnam from 18 to 21 January 2018. I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. It gives me tremendous pleasure to present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the 26th annual meeting of the Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum, held in Vietnam from 18 to 21 January 2018. I had the great honour of participating in that delegation, which was led by Senator Williams from the other place and also included the hardworking members for Wright and Whitlam. I'm delighted to see the member for Wright here. His perseverance and tenacity in seeing this through to its end was only matched by his perseverance and tenacity in a number of the plenary sessions. The APPF is an assembly of members of national parliaments in the Asia-Pacific region which has met each year since 1993 to discuss matters of mutual concern. The issues the APPF deal with are mainly strategic, economic, social and cultural in nature. The APPF is important to the Australian parliament as a parliamentary association of members who share Australia's region. Key regional countries with which Australia has strong links send delegations to APPF meetings. These countries include Canada, China, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, South Korea, Thailand, a number of Pacific island countries and, of course—not to be outdone—our wonderful hosts, Vietnam. Each conference is structured around a number of plenary sessions, working groups, and a drafting committee that considers a range of resolutions arising from the discussions. Participating countries submit draft resolutions that form the basis of the discussion sessions, and subsequent conference resolutions are finalised through consensus. The sessions were under the themes of political and security matters, economic and trade matters, and regional cooperation. Reflecting the commensurate levels of hard work done by all delegates, four draft resolutions forwarded by the Australian delegation reflected those interests of the delegation members. Senator Williams took carriage of a resolution on food security in the Asia-Pacific region. He met a number of officials from the Vietnamese department of agriculture and prosecuted the case most admirably, I must say. The member for Wright devoted much time, energy and tenacity, speaking on combating international terrorism and trans-border crime. He also chaired a working group debating regional security matters of some complexity, I must say. The member for Whitlam—again, not to be outdone—spoke very eloquently on the importance of fostering regional tourism cooperation, and also chaired a working group on economic cooperation in the region. At the forum I was most privileged to be invited to attend the regular meeting of women parliamentarians as a representative of the Australian parliament. This reflected the long tradition of advocacy by Australian delegations to the APPF to give female parliamentarians a greater say in APPF deliberations and in the region generally. I am pleased to report that the APPF unanimously passed a resolution establishing a meeting of women parliamentarians as a standing item of future APPF meetings. I also attended working party meetings and represented the delegation on the drafting committee. In comparison to the numbers in some national delegations, it's true the Australian delegation was comparatively small. But what we lacked in numbers we made up for in tenacity, dedication and attention to detail. It meant that we did have a busy schedule, contributing to as many of the sessions as humanly possible. The forum provided an excellent opportunity for us to forge links with our parliamentary colleagues in the region and to discuss the many issues we have of common concern. On behalf of the delegation, I would like to thank the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for assistance with briefing papers for the forum meetings, and for the support provided in Vietnam by the Australian ambassador and his colleagues. The Parliamentary Library also provided most useful briefing material, which all of the delegation found incredibly valuable. Special mention at this point must go to our very own Mr Catchpole, the delegation secretary, who dedicated much time and attention to ensuring the delegation was kept on track, on time and on budget and turned up to where it needed to be. And, of course, we must also thank our very hospitable hosts, the National Assembly of Vietnam. Our thanks, in particular, go to the President of the National Assembly and her staff. Our hosts were exceptionally generous in their welcome and their hospitality. It was obvious that a tremendous effort had been made to ensure the event was a success. Special mention should also be made of support staff and student volunteers who were unfailingly helpful and enthusiastic and helped make the forum a most successful event indeed. I commend the report to the House.
Butorac, Mrs Hazel Dawn, OAM | Statements by Members | House debates
Indeed! As the member for Perth, it is an absolute privilege to have someone of Hazel's experience, competence, capacity and expertise around the place. We speak often and run into each other at...
Indeed! As the member for Perth, it is an absolute privilege to have someone of Hazel's experience, competence, capacity and expertise around the place. We speak often and run into each other at all sorts of community events. She is a tireless advocate for the most vulnerable in our society as well as a font of endless wisdom. I commend Hazel for all she has been able to achieve so far and congratulate her on her induction into the WA Women's Hall of Fame. Hazel, I must say, your star continues to shine just as bright in your local community, across the state and across Australia. Well done, Hazel.
I rise today to pay tribute to an extraordinary woman, Hazel Butorac OAM, who, on International Women's Day, on 8 March, was inducted into the Western Australian Women's Hall of Fame. Hazel has...
I rise today to pay tribute to an extraordinary woman, Hazel Butorac OAM, who, on International Women's Day, on 8 March, was inducted into the Western Australian Women's Hall of Fame. Hazel has long been an advocate for women and is passionate about supporting marginalised people. She was honoured with a Medal of the Order of Australia in 2013 for services through a range of organisations, including the Council on the Ageing WA, Mature Adults Learning Association, Midland Women's Health Care Place, Citizens Advice Bureau, Koolkuna women's refuge, the soroptimists and a host of others. Hazel is no stranger to this place. She is a former staffer of long standing and was instrumental in the creation of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 after finding herself in the frustrating position of being the sole typist and secretary to three male MPs and two male researchers.
Consumer Affairs | Adjournment | House debates
I was really struck by the government's announcements, both two days ago in relation to the new ministry and, more importantly, in relation to the reshuffle that occurred in December last year,...
I was really struck by the government's announcements, both two days ago in relation to the new ministry and, more importantly, in relation to the reshuffle that occurred in December last year, because something appears to have dropped off the radar of almost anyone on the government side—well, one of two things may have happened. Either it dropped off the radar or it was just a convenient omission. I should take this opportunity to say that it was not all bad news, particularly in December. We saw, for instance, the most appropriate recognition of the hard work that the honourable member for Durack has been doing for so many years; her ascension to the frontbench was entirely appropriate. But that might be a silver lining to what is otherwise a very dark cloud, and it's a very dark cloud because of this: a funny thing happened on the way to the drafting office, because there is no longer a minister for consumer affairs. I have many failings, and one of them is not paying attention to detail sometimes. But I looked at the list three, four, five times. It's gone, vanished like Houdini: no minister for consumer affairs. Now, that means either the government don't care about vulnerable consumers or they just find them to be an inconvenience—so much so that, if they just pretend they don't exist, the problem might go away. I'm really proud to be part of a Labor team that not only championed reforms for vulnerable consumers through the introduction of the Trade Practices Act but improved those reforms with the introduction of the Competition and Consumer Act, annexing of course the Australian Consumer Law. All of those things were done by a Labor governments for the benefit of vulnerable consumers. But it is not just us who are working for vulnerable consumers. I'd like to take this opportunity to acknowledge all the incredible hard work that the groups who champion the cause of vulnerable consumers do. In no particular order, they are CHOICE, who do a terrific job all around the country; the Consumer Action Law Centre, who do a great job, particularly in the financial space; my local team, Consumer Credit Legal Services, on Adelaide Terrace in Perth, that many, many moons ago I was once a member of; and all the other not-for-profit groups who stick up for and champion the rights of consumers every day of the week. What is the result of the government's omission? The result is telling and completely clear when you look at the litany of dropping the ball they have done in relation to vulnerable consumers. You may have heard me bang on ad nauseam about the way in which this government has pushed under the carpet reforms to protect consumers in the small amount credit contract, rent-to-buy and payday lending spaces. They just doesn't exist, as far as the government are concerned, notwithstanding the fact that they had legislation approved by their cabinet for introduction into this place—gone, absolutely gone. That does not happen on our watch. We have introduced such legislation. What else do we see? Today is the latest example of what happens to vulnerable consumers when this mob are left in charge. Every single day, the risk of injury increases as a result of faulty Takata airbags in vehicles. It was only today that we saw this government finally do something about them, although it was abundantly clear if not years ago then certainly by 16 August last year, when the ACCC said on the record, in response to questions from the House Standing Committee on Economics: … it's critical that the alpha airbags be replaced immediately. That should have triggered alarm bells. It should have triggered the Competition and Consumer Act. The minister had the power to stop it; the minister did nothing. Vulnerable consumers are left wanting every step of the way under this government. (Time expired)
Bankruptcy Amendment (Debt Agreement Reform) Bill 2018; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
Like the member for Isaacs, the most excellent shadow Attorney-General, I rise to support the Bankruptcy Amendment (Debt Agreement Reform) Bill 2018. In relation to the Bankruptcy Act, as we...
Like the member for Isaacs, the most excellent shadow Attorney-General, I rise to support the Bankruptcy Amendment (Debt Agreement Reform) Bill 2018. In relation to the Bankruptcy Act, as we know, these amendments reform the Commonwealth debt agreement system. The debt agreement system is a good thing in that it provides an alternative to bankruptcy, and it is increasingly being used in that way. The bill contains a number of measures that the government claims will improve the existing debt agreement system. The reason why this is very important at this point in time is the unprecedented level of financial stress that we see in Australian communities and families today. Further analysis released as recently as earlier this month confirmed what we hear and see in our electorates every day—that many households' financial situation is getting worse, with the culprit being living expenses. Forty per cent reported this as a key reason their situation is worsening. It is cited that almost 46 per cent of households surveyed also claimed the cost of necessities, such as fuel, utilities and groceries, is their biggest worry in relation to financial stress. The reason why these reforms are clearly required as an alternative to bankruptcy is apparent when we see the increased level of bankruptcies prevalent in our community. More than 32,000 Australians went bankrupt in 2017, which is a 6.1 per cent year-on-year increase, according to an analysis of bankruptcy figures by illion, who were recently recognised as the Dun & Bradstreet credit reporting agency. Now that has increased in itself, with a 4.7 per cent year-on-year hike recorded in 2016. When we look at the causes for that it is very apposite to hear illion's Chief Executive Simon Bligh saying: Consumer debt levels are rising steadily in Australia as a result of record mortgages and a surge in everyday essentials such as utilities, petrol and healthcare. As we know, those factors, combined with the very poor wage growth that we are seeing under this government, are putting pressure on the wallets of Australians. There is no coincidence here that the illion credit reporting agency is also seeing strong growth in the payday loans sector, which Mr Bligh says is often an early indicator of people getting in trouble in terms of paying their utility bills. That assessment is certainly confirmed when one reviews the data from the Credit and Investments Ombudsman. They released information to confirm systemic problems in the consumer leases and payday loans sectors. The CIOs recent annual report on operations reported that small- and medium-amount lenders accounted for 12.2 per cent of total complaints—the second highest, following debt collectors. Most of the complaints around small- and medium-amount lenders related to inappropriate finance, including irresponsible lending which made up over 56 per cent of those complaints. Just in case one is thinking that these are isolated incidents—and they are certainly not—according to the industry data released by the payday loans sector itself, in 2015-16 there were over 619,000 new payday loans, with a book of over $476 million advanced. Just in case you need any further evidence as to whether these credit arrangements are being taken up by those most vulnerable in society, let's look at those who are applying for small-amount credit contract loans. We know that two in five of those who entered a SACC loan in this period were unemployed, that one in four—26 per cent—of these loans were given to people receiving more than 50 per cent of their income from Centrelink and that one in six of these loans were entered into with a customer with an existing loan. In the second quarter of 2015, 75 per cent of lenders admitted to providing small amount credit contract loans to customers who have had two or more small amount credit contract loans in the previous 90 days. We also know that most people apply for these loans online—over 78 per cent in the second quarter of 2016. What it means is that these loans are quicker and easier to get than ever before. The average amount of a payday loan was $770. What we see is an effective interest rate on these loans of over 170 per cent on average. There are outlying cases that are truly horrendous in terms of the total repayment rates that are required. But if we average it all out we see an interest rate of over 190 per cent. This is in a landscape of unprecedented levels of financial stress. There are over 8.47 million households that are financially stressed—those with mortgage stress, behind in lower-end payments, declined some form of credit or constantly borrowing to repay existing loans. There is an extraordinary number of financially distressed households that have gone even further in relation to financial stress—those who are repeat borrowers with limited options and unable to find $2,000 in an emergency within seven days. We are dealing with 1.8 million households—over 20 per cent of all households are financially distressed. It means that reform in this area is absolutely imperative. But it also means that reform before vulnerable consumers get to this point in time is even more imperative. That is why it has been the Labor Party who has taken the steps that this government will not take to introduce reforms into this place by way of a private member's bill in the small amount credit contract space. The tailored bipartisanship, which is increasingly difficult to find under this government, started in a positive manner in relation to payday loans and the rent-to-buy arena. The mandated review, the small amount credit contract review, was undertaken and concluded in March 2016. To the credit of the Minister for Finance at that time, the review was considered very carefully. There is no criticism whatsoever of that process. In November 2016, the government did the right thing and published its response to the small amount credit contract review. The response was effectively an unconditional approval of the recommendations on the payday loan and rent-to-buy space—again, a positive step. That was in November 2016. Again, the reforms do not seek to shut down this industry and will not mean that financially vulnerable consumers do not have recourse. Parents with already stretched budgets, managing every dollar, faced with the fact that a washing machine has blown up and having five kids to get to school, need ready recourse to small amounts of funding in a circumstance where they can't otherwise obtain it. But it has to be on a playing field that is level and fair. And that is all these reforms sought to do. Again, to the government's credit, it took them 12 months but they went so far as actually committing these reforms to proposed legislation which simply seeks to do two substantive things in addition to providing regulatory safety in this area. Firstly, quite reasonably, they will look at insuring that the amount that can be borrowed to be repaid is ring-fenced at 10 per cent of a consumer's net income. That was agreed to by the government. Tick. Secondly, they seek to ring-fence the time it takes to repay the loan and the way in which one applies interest over that time period. Again, that was ticked off by the government. Tick. Despite some bumps along the road in the form of inaccuracies from the Minister for Finance as to how far down the legislative path these reforms were actually being pursued, the minister for consumer affairs, as he then was—now the Deputy Prime Minister—published in October last year that legislation which had been approved by cabinet—tick. That press release made it very clear that two things were going to occur. The first was that the legislation would only be out in the wild for consultation for two weeks—quite right, because none of this was new and it all had bipartisan support. The second promise by the now Deputy Prime Minister—who, again, to his credit has demonstrated a track record of keeping his word—was that the legislation would be introduced last year, in 2017, after a long, long wait for vulnerable consumers, who shouldn't have to wait any longer. The legislation, again, was substantively endorsed by the peak body representing vulnerable consumers, which is again understandable because it represented a reasonable compromise in relation to the regulatory protections. But then it sank like a stone. In circumstances where the community is crying out for a demonstration of bipartisanship in this place, we got so close and this government squibbed it. They shirked it at the last moment. Having gone so far down the road, having got the tick-off from cabinet, nothing more was heard. We have a change of ministerial responsibilities, and we know the payday lending sector is on the march. We know that there is a furious level of activity going on behind the scenes from this government, convening the now famous, or infamous, parliamentary friends of payday lending, to try to bury what was otherwise a sensible piece of legislation. It won't do. It is something which should be stopped, which should be discouraged and which we are surely all better than in this place. This government, instead of pushing off responsible legislation to the long grass, now has a choice, because the legislation is in this place. It has been introduced as a private member's bill by the Labor Party, which has not a single sentence, comma or full stop changed from the government's legislation that went through their cabinet process. It's now here, whether they like it or not. If the government were really interested and substantively concerned about protecting vulnerable consumers, as they purport to be with the introduction of this legislation, they would actually do the right thing here. They would actually be honest and say that the small-amount credit contract legislation is the right thing to put into place for the protection of all of those millions of households facing crippling financial distress. So the government have a choice. If they want to be responsible, grown up and honest, they can actually do what they always said they were going to do, which is back their own legislation, which is now in this place and which should not wait for its implementation in order to ensure that the increasing number of financially stressed and vulnerable consumers in this country have at least some level of protection to ensure that they are not in a situation where they stare down the barrel of another debt agreement arrangement as an alternative to bankruptcy in the way that this legislation otherwise provides.
Imported Food Control Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2017; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
Plenty of material with the new one!
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Consumer Protection | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services. Almost one year ago the minister said that legislation which would reform payday lending and rent-to-buy schemes would be...
My question is to the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services. Almost one year ago the minister said that legislation which would reform payday lending and rent-to-buy schemes would be introduced at the earliest opportunity. Is the minister aware that there are reports today of a Queensland rent-to-buy business which charges more than $8,000 for a laptop worth $1,900? Is this conservative government so inept that it has allowed this sort of behaviour to continue unchecked because it has delayed legislation to fix it?
National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Small Amount Credit Contract and Consumer Lease Reforms) Bill 2018; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I suspect none of us in this place will be unfamiliar with the scourge placed upon hundreds and thousands of vulnerable consumers all through the...
I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I suspect none of us in this place will be unfamiliar with the scourge placed upon hundreds and thousands of vulnerable consumers all through the community as a result of being trapped hopelessly in a debt spiral that is occasioned as a result of being caught up in an endless circle of a payday loan or a rent-to-buy scheme. They are technically known as small amount credit contracts, which have significant history in this place. Just to make it clear as to the size and scale of this problem, whilst individual examples are well known to all of us, when one sees the impact across the country of being trapped in a cycle of financial stress occasioned as a result of a payday loan or a rent-to-buy scheme, one truly gets an indication as to just how desperate the situation is and how urgent it is that we do something about it. In 2015-16, there were almost 620,000 new payday loans, with a book of about $500 million advanced. Two in five of those people who entered into a small amount credit contract loan during this period were unemployed, and one in four small amount credit contract loans were given to people receiving more than 50 per cent of their income from Centrelink. Tellingly—and this is really where that never-ending cycle of financial stress comes into play—one in six of these loans were entered into with a customer with an existing loan. In the second quarter of 2015, 75 per cent of lenders admitted to providing small amount credit contract loans to customers who had had two or more small amount credit contract loans in the previous 90 days. In relation to the burden placed upon households of those who are exposed to this debt cycle, it is important at this stage to reflect upon the impact on women as to trying to escape out of a cycle of poverty but at the same time requiring money to survive. While it has been the case that women have traditionally only taken up about a quarter of payday loans, that proportion is growing rapidly. There was an 80 per cent total increase in payday loans in 2015, but for women the increase was 110 per cent. Single mother families make up 15 per cent of these households, and 47 per cent of women using payday loans were from single parent families. It is the Labor Party that has a proud history of taking meaningful steps to put in place regulatory reform in an area that had previously been left unchecked for many, many years. Payday loans and rent-to-buy schemes often involve small-amount loans of up to $2,000. Labor enacted the National Consumer Credit Protection Act in 2009 and strengthened that regime in 2012. During that time in the other place Senator Gallagher and also Senator Cameron did some tremendous work in this space to make sure that there is regulation to protect vulnerable consumers. Part of that plan was to make sure there was also a mandated review of that space. That took place two years ago by way of the small amount credit contract review. That review put into place a number of recommendations in this space. While they were brought in by the government in November 2016, I'm very pleased to say that, in the blink of an eye, they had bipartisan support. At a time when, more than ever, our community is quite rightly calling out for this place to demonstrate more bipartisanship, I'm pleased to say that this was an area of reform that both parties immediately agreed could and should be brought into play for the benefit of hundreds and thousands of vulnerable consumers right across the country. What we've had since then has, quite frankly, been a tale of woe from this government. Despite the fact that the good intentions were well publicised, it took almost two years to get legislation to the table. But that did occur. It occurred on 23 October 2017 when the now Leader of the National Party and then Minister for Small Business, Minister McCormack, introduced draft legislation that had been approved by the government's cabinet processes, making it very clear, committing to paper in black and white, that this draft legislation would be out for consultation for two weeks and legislation would be in this place by 2017. That legislation again received bipartisan support from the Labor Party—nothing happened. Despite the promise that we would see some reform, nothing happened in this space. In a circumstance where the Consumer Action Law Centre, as the peak body for those groups, is willing to back these reforms, it is a travesty that the next step has not been taken in this place to have that bill introduced. This won't happen on our watch. Today we have introduced a private member's bill that is identical in every single way—every clause, every sentence, every comma, every full stop—to the draft legislation that was approved by the government's cabinet and published by the then Minister for Small Business and now leader of the National Party. We have introduced that today. The government, quite frankly, has a choice to show some leadership, to step up and vote for its own bill. In the name of bipartisanship, we make that offer today. I would also like to take this opportunity to publicly commend the member for Oxley, who will also say some words in this space, who has been fighting this fight at the front line in an electorate that faces financial challenges every single day. Not only has he listened; he has acted, and he's led from the front. He is to be commended in relation to doing his bit to protect vulnerable consumers. I commend this bill to the House.
Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill 2017; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I am delighted to rise to speak on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill 2017, which performs a vital community service insofar as it agrees to continue to support the...
I am delighted to rise to speak on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill 2017, which performs a vital community service insofar as it agrees to continue to support the wonderful medium of digital radio. Digital radio, as we all know, is an incredibly important service, over and above radio as a standard transmission that has provided information and entertainment in Australia for over 90 years, back in the day when it was known as the wireless. Of course, wireless means something completely different these days from what it meant back in the days of The Sullivans. In government, Labor introduced digital radio in Australia to supplement rather than replace traditional analog AM and FM radio services. Digital radio offers many features and benefits, including an enhanced choice of stations, clear reception, exceptional sound quality, song and artist information, and pause and rewind functionality. In order to receive digital radio services one needs a receiver or digital device with a DAB chip in it. For those at home not familiar with a DAB chip—I understand 'dab' can mean many things. The dab was made famous by Usain Bolt. I will not demonstrate one in this chamber, because it would be awkward, quite frankly. But in the context of digital radio, DAB means digital audio broadcasting. Digital radio services from commercial radio broadcasters and national broadcasters have been operating in the metropolitan licence areas of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth since 1 July 2009, as well as in Canberra and Darwin on a trial basis. We know that the rollout of digital radio across regional Australia involves significant cost and complexity, and it is being planned by the Digital Radio Planning Committee for regional Australia, which was formed in September 2015 following a federal government review of digital radio. I'm delighted to rise in support of the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill. It is another step in the chain of a long line of consistent actions taken by the federal Labor Party which demonstrate unwavering support to the medium of digital radio. Before the 2016 election, following the May 2016 budget, it appeared that the Prime Minister and those conservatives who yearned for simpler times were seeking to cut $5.6 million from community digital radio across the country. What that was likely to do was pull the rug out from under the feet of my local radio station RTRFM. I would like, at this point in time, very much to put a big shout out to RTRFM. RTRFM is a fantastic local radio station. Its premises are located in Beaufort Street, Mount Lawley, and it has gone from strength to strength for over 20 years in that space. As a matter of fact, I remember quite clearly back in my earlier university days—again, I'm on the verge of sounding terribly awkward—having long hair and a You Am I T-shirt, rocking out the first ever In The Pines event that was hosted by RTR in the Summerville Pines Auditorium at the University of Western Australia. Weren't those the days! In The Pines has survived, as RTR has survived, a not-for-profit radio station, but it had to adapt and progress into the 21st century. There was a real risk that this funding of $5.6 million over the course of four years, or $1.4 million per annum, would mean that a not-for-profit community radio station like RTR, which provides a service to many Western Australians, many of them living within in my federal electorate of Perth, would be jeopardised. So I was very pleased to be one of many to campaign to make sure this funding was restored, back in 2016. I was very pleased, back on 2 June 2016, to be able to that announce it was one of federal Labor's election commitments to ensure that that funding was restored. It was our way of making sure that digital radio, from a community point of view, was maintained and thousands and thousands of Western Australians, particularly younger Western Australians who really are into the sort of music that RTRFM puts on—it's mostly independent music—could continue to enjoy it. The reason it is so important that we maintain investment in digital radio, which is the reason why we agree to support this bill, is that it not only means we stay competitive insofar as an ever-shrinking global economy goes but also means that local stations like RTRFM in Mount Lawley continue to offer a foothold into the industry for those who are trying to establish themselves in the sound and music arena. RTRFM continuing on for so long means that budding sound engineers get their first go, up-and-coming rock bands get their first go and DJs get their first go—all in an environment where a not-for-profit community organisation pulls in volunteers who keep the show on the road. I am very pleased to say that the commitment to support digital radio at RTRFM is a commitment that is also matched by the state government. My great friend and colleague Simon Millman, the member for Mount Lawley, campaigned to support RTRFM prior to the state election. He was successful in securing a funding grant, in the range of $120,000, to ensure that RTR could continue to survive and prosper. While the In The Pines event has been going for 20 years, it is really dwarfed by the genesis of RTRFM, which has been going for 40 years. It was vital that community radio and digital radio received the level of support that we're seeing in Western Australia from all levels of government—local government, $120,000 from the state government and campaigning to restore the cuts to digital radio at the federal level. So, to Stu MacLeod and to Rewi Lyall and to all the troops at RTRFM, it is important that they know that, even all the way over here in sunny Canberra, we continue to support local ventures like not-for-profit community radio stations. This bill stems from reforms identified by completed statutory reviews of digital radio. The measures in the bill arise from consultation with the key digital radio industry stakeholders and recommendations contained in the Digital radio report, following the completion of statutory reviews of digital radio. One of the recommendations was that the government consider minor amendments to existing digital radio regulatory regimes to create a simpler, more flexible process for the planning and licensing of digital radio in regional Australia. Can I suggest that it is simply the way forward, in terms of managing that interface between government and many of these radio stations who survive on the smell of an oily rag, to make sure that we do everything we can to create a simpler framework, particularly as we move into that digital platform space. This bill contains a package of measures designed to simplify the digital radio framework and help expedite the rollout of digital radio to regional Australia by shortening legislatively prescribed time frames associated with the rollout. That's something that my good friend and most eloquent colleague the member for Bendigo will probably speak more on, given regional Australia is, perhaps, more her bailiwick than mine. If I started to describe the federal seat of Perth as being, remotely, a regional framework I would be in all manner of trouble. It is most certainly not a regional framework, but it does require the same sort of support, particularly in relation to making sure that our not-for-profit local community radio stations are supported. We need to be consistent in relation to that measure. We need to be consistent in relation to making sure that, as we evolve into the 22nd century and more and more Australians receive the benefit of digital radio, the platform is supported. In closing, I'm very pleased that Labor will support the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill 2017. It is yet another sign of our unwavering support to bipartisan politics in this place, which we see happening time and time again for the benefit of this great country. We have that support, in an unblinking fashion, both for the city and the country, and we will see that continuing ever more, particularly in the digital radio space. To finish, I offer one more shout out for the great people at RTRFM. Long may their services reign in all manner and method of broadcast, and we will continue to support them at all levels of government.
Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs; Report | Committees | House debates
I'm delighted and feel quite privileged to be able to rise to address this place in relation to this report as a member of the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs. At the outset, I would...
I'm delighted and feel quite privileged to be able to rise to address this place in relation to this report as a member of the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs. At the outset, I would like to give the appropriate thanks to those who were involved in the very challenging work of putting such an impressive report together. It is entitled The power of education: from surviving to thriving. On that note, I pay tribute to our chair, the member for Durack, who I must say chaired proceedings in an efficient but also a very impressive manner in terms of keeping a large volume of evidence and information moving along; our deputy chair, the effervescent member for Lingiari; and of course, Madam Deputy Speaker, as the member for Newcastle. In my view, as very much a newcomer to this role, I was blown away by the depth of knowledge that you brought to the proceedings. I also acknowledge the other committee members and the secretariat, who played an invaluable role in ensuring things kept moving along so smoothly—Ms Brocklehurst, Ms Mazzarella, Ms Milligan and Ms Jones. My journey to having the privilege of being on this committee started a long way back. It actually started with a seminal moment in one's life, one of those forks in the road that steers one in a direction that one could never possibly anticipate, but in many ways it really was responsible for steering me here at this point in time. That related to the time and place when the Bringing them home report was released, in 1997-98, and it's apposite that we talk about this now in the context of the 10th anniversary of the apology to the stolen generation, particularly in relation to addressing the Closing the Gap targets. I will never forget walking into the office of Cedric Wyatt, who has now passed away, sadly. Cedric, for those who don't know, was then the CEO of Aboriginal Affairs in the state of Western Australia and was also the very proud father of Ben Wyatt, who is the current Treasurer of Western Australia as well as the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and, I'm very proud to say, a very firm, longstanding friend of mine. We used to knock around together in primary school. I went to Cedric to say, 'I'm interested in doing this paper at uni about this report that I've heard a bit about called Bringing them home. Is there any chance I could have a look at one?' He gave me a copy of this report. I read it from cover to cover at around the same time that I first saw our then leader Kim Beazley stand up in parliament, having read the document overnight, and being moved to tears about the nature and extent of the trauma suffered by the stolen generations as a result of their forced removal. What I didn't know then, and I subsequently learned, was Cedric himself was a member of the stolen generation. While he was a close family friend, I had never really appreciated not only the impact that being taken away had had on him personally but, again, that imperceptible level of trauma that filters down from generation to generation and that, in some special way, quite possibly drives Ben to want to effect the positive change that he does to this day. Analysing that report took me through the law to actually publishing a paper, because at that stage I had a question: what can we do to try and remedy this wrong? I knew instinctively that we had committed an irreparable level of harm on an entire race of people. I thought, 'We must do something to try and repair this damage.' At that stage in my life, I thought perhaps the answer was with the law. That took me to publishing a paper which was about trying to establish whether there was a fiduciary duty involved so that one could seek a remedy from the government, in so far as the establishment of the then inspectors or protectorates of Aboriginal people had a fiduciary relationship over the wards of the state. I fleshed out the fact that there might be a case there, or there might not be. Ironically, in 1998 many of those arguments were fleshed out in the litigation that became known as the Cubillo and Gunner litigation. It was at that stage where time, effectively, defeated the plaintiffs, not so far as the Limitations Act argument went but an equitable doctrine of laches, as it then applied. At that stage, again, it took me on the path of seeking justice for those who had been wronged, like the stolen generations, through the law. Ironically it took me over to cases that involved representing other Indigenous peoples who had been either dispossessed of land or dispossessed of entitlements, and over to Papua New Guinea to act on behalf of landowners against BHP for the damage done to the Fly River in relation to the Ok Tedi copper and gold mine. As I was being taken along the Fly River I was told by the landowners that the Fly River—it then had the colour and texture of a milky coffee—only 20 years before was so clear it looked like kerosene, in that you could see the bottom of the river without any trouble at all. The 50,000 land owners along the Fly River effectively had their economy taken away from them because they could no longer rely upon the river to sustain their market based subsistence. It is with some irony that I have the privilege in this place of being assigned responsibilities in the resources sector and I find myself dealing with the BHPs in this part of the world and managing those relationships. I then went over to represent landowners in Bougainville in the case against Rio Tinto, and again it was the same sort of thing. And at that stage in my life I thought that perhaps the answer to try and seek redress lay in the law, but it was clearly lacking in terms of its ability to deliver a meaningful remedy. That took me into this place in many ways. I had the great privilege of serving on this committee, and hearing the evidence from community leaders all over the country in relation to the ways in which the current system was failing them, and, more importantly, failing Aboriginal children, in so far as not landing the educational outcomes that were intended just to ensure that these kids had a level playing field. Madam Deputy Chair, you were there, and I suspect you recall as distinctly as I do, Wadeye—which is a community around 500 kilometres west of Darwin, and one of the largest communities in the country—at which a number of questions were asked of the principal. He was working his back side off like, everyone else there, in order to try and ensure that educational outcomes were delivered for these kids. The question was asked of the principal, 'How many kids are in the school?' There were 800 kids enrolled in the school; it was St Joseph's, I think, the only school in the community. Then questions were asked of the principle: 'Forget about the literature, the studies, the peer reviews and all that sort of stuff. In order to get these kids out of the school system with a reasonable degree of literacy and numeracy, how often do they need to be at school?' Well, the evidence was that they need to be at school perhaps 80 per cent of the time. When one thinks about that, that's every single week of your schooling life you're missing a day, so you're only getting to school for four days out of five. That's pretty significant, one thought to oneself—I certainly did. Then the question was asked of the principal, 'That's all fine. So how many of your kids are hitting that mark so you can send them out?' The principal said it was about 20. One reasonably thought, 'That's about 20 per cent of 800,' so the question was asked, 'Is that 20 per cent?' and the answer was, 'No, that's 20 kids.' So we have a system right now where 20 children out of 800 are actually heading out the other end with just a workable degree of literacy and numeracy. The evidence given at that stage was that one of the fundamental issues was food security. Children in these communities are not getting enough to eat. They are vulnerable to substance abuse and there are all manner of ways in which the opportunities just to get ahead are circumvented by virtue of obstacles or roadblocks in the way. What was very clear in all of this and what is reflected in the report is that there is no silver bullet to ensuring educational outcomes are achieved for Aboriginal people. But one thing I know is this: what is very clear from my time in the law and my brief time having the privilege to serve in this place is that none of this will change as long as we think we need to fix things by doing things to Aboriginal people. What is very clear from this report about the way forward is that, whether we like it or not, if we are ever going to effect some form of meaningful change for our first-nation people, we need to stop thinking we know the answers. We need to face up to the reality that the Uluru Statement From the Heart, as indelicate and unfortunate as it might be in fitting into our current paradigm of doing things, perhaps is the way to go. It might just be the way to go because that was the recommendation of the first-nation people, and that has to be something we take forward.
Payday Lending | Statements by Members | House debates
I'm sure you'll all agree that both the gallery and the community at large quite rightly expect bipartisanship from this place. There is a reform that is capable of bipartisanship right here,...
I'm sure you'll all agree that both the gallery and the community at large quite rightly expect bipartisanship from this place. There is a reform that is capable of bipartisanship right here, right now. It's been on the table for two years. They are reforms to protect those vulnerable consumers who are trapped in a vicious debt spiral as a result of vultures and mercenaries offering payday loans and rent-to-buy schemes in a circumstance where we see repayment obligations spiralling out in a never-ending story, as high as 800 per cent. We know there are times of need and times of crisis, where the fridge blows up, the washing machine needs to be fixed or a new one needs to be bought. But these reforms strike a sensible middle ground. The government had legislation ready to go through their cabinet in October last year with a promise that it would be delivered in 2017. Guess what? The parliamentary friends of payday lending, the conservative rump of the right wing, have struck, and at the moment, under the new assistant minister and the Treasurer, they are trying to pretend this legislation never existed. That will not do. The Labor Party has introduced the legislation word for word, sentence for sentence, comma for comma. The Liberal Party has the option: do you vote for your own legislation to protect vulnerable consumers or do you walk away? If you won't stare down your backbench, Prime Minister, we will. If you are too scared, we're not.
Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2017-2018, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2017-2018; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise to bring attention to a diabolical state of affairs that, at this point in time, affects over 650,000 Australians who are vulnerable: those who are crippled financially by an ever-present...
I rise to bring attention to a diabolical state of affairs that, at this point in time, affects over 650,000 Australians who are vulnerable: those who are crippled financially by an ever-present debt spiral that they simply do not have the capacity to crawl out of. The reason they are stuck in that debt spiral under insidious and crippling circumstances relates to a largely unregulated area of finance and lending commonly known as payday loans and rent-to-buy schemes. They are finance arrangements that are commonly called small amount credit contracts, or SACCs. Quite frankly, what we have seen from this government in relation to its inability to do anything meaningful about reform in this area is disgraceful. The government got off to a promising start on the back of Labor's good work in putting regulation and restraint around this area—firstly in 2009, and then, secondly, in 2012, in relation to the National Consumer Credit Protection Act. It was a very good start. It put some efficacy into the area to make sure that the mercenary sharks who were preying upon vulnerable consumers in the payday loan and rent-to-buy space were reined in somewhat. One of the things that was built into those reforms in 2012 made sure that the industry was the subject of a regular review. That was the SACC review. The SACC review was implemented back in 2015, and the industry was covered very well by those in charge of the review. They reported back to government in March 2016. Understandably, these things take some time, and there is no criticism of the steps the government took at that point. The Minister for Revenue and Financial Services—by that stage, Minister O'Dwyer—had conduct of these reforms. In November 2016, to her credit, she published a comprehensive analysis from the government of the 22 reforms that were recommended in this small-credit space in order to make sure the balance was maintained between those who desperately need credit at short notice and those who wanted to provide it. Make no mistake, this is not a situation where Labor says that the industry should be shut down. We acknowledge, more than most, because we see it time and again, that struggling families and single-parent families—which I'll come to a little bit later on—who are working really hard to make ends meet and watching every dollar count, do have unforeseen problems that require ready access to finance quickly. Try telling a family of five or a single mum with five kids whose washing machine has blown up and who simply has no money to go and buy another one. There needs to be some form of credit available to make sure that the household can continue. The same goes for fridges. Perhaps we can park tellies and other bits and pieces, but we certainly do not shy away from the need to provide lending facilities in this area. Again, to her credit, the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services published a very comprehensive statement on 28 November 2016, and it is important to record for posterity that Minister O'Dwyer made it very clear that the government supported the vast majority of recommendations in part or in full. The press release from 28 November goes on to make it explicit which recommendations the government was prepared to support. They were: retaining existing price caps on SACCs, extending the SACC protected earnings amount requirement to all consumers and lowering it to 10 per cent of the consumer's net income, introducing a cap on total payments of a consumer lease which is equal to the base price of the good plus four per cent of the price per month, and introducing a protected earnings amount requirement for consumer lease providers—again, of 10 per cent of the net income for all consumers—equivalent but separate to the requirements of SACCs. We have small-amount credit contracts on one side and rent-to-buy or consumer leases on the other. These reforms are designed to capture both. So it was made very clear back in November 2016 where the government intends to go. We had stumble after stumble in 2017, and the community, quite frankly, were misled by this government in relation to the progress that was being made converting that government position into legislation. On 28 February 2017, Minister O'Dwyer on Lateline confirmed that 'there is no delay in enforcing these recommendations as legislation is being drafted as we speak'. That wasn't true. The reason we know that wasn't true is that Senator Gallagher, doing brilliant work in that other place in her capacity as shadow minister for financial services, asked in estimates whether the drafting had started for the credit card and small amount credit contract reforms. The Treasury official on 1 March 2017 said: We are not currently drafting that legislation. So we have absolutely nothing insofar as March 2017 goes. But, again, we get to a point, under Minister McCormack, as he then was, the minister for small business. Why this reform hasn't gone to the current minister for small business is for reasons that will be abundantly clear. Quite frankly, you can say a lot of things about the minister for small business at the moment in relation to his position on penalty rates, but the one thing we know about Minister Laundy is that he would not crack and he would probably back-sack, which is more than you can say for the assistant minister in charge of these reforms. Minister McCormack released the draft legislation on 23 October 2017 under very prescriptive terms. He said that the consultation window for the legislation was open for two weeks. He also said in his release of 23 October 2017: The Government will introduce legislation this year to implement the SACC and consumer lease reforms. It could not be clearer. The legislation was the subject of supportive submissions from the Consumer Action Law Centre as the peak body for other affected consumer groups. But then the reshuffle occurred. After that point in time, we know that Assistant Minister Sukkar appears to have carriage of this so-called legislation, presumably reporting to the Treasurer. But it gets worse, because we have seen absolutely no form of action from this government to take clear steps to implement this legislation—legislation which has bipartisan support. Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta—and I am sure you are not Robinson Crusoe—when you go out into your electorate, your constituents will tell you, as they tell me and those on the other side, 'You know what you guys need? You just need a little bit of bipartisanship. You need to show us that you can find common ground and something to put through parliament that you all agree on.' I'm sure we all share those kinds of conversations. Guess what? That's what we had here, and yet we see the inexorable creep from those on the other side who want to backtrack on SAC, so much so that we see the 'parliamentary friends of payday lenders' being formed to lobby the Treasurer in order to pretend that these reforms do not exist—to just make them all go away. We take this opportunity today to say that that will not happen. We will take every step available to make sure that that does not happen, and here's how. There are always parts of legislation and reform at the edges which could be refined and improved. But this is a circumstance where we have a consultation period for all sides of over two years—lines in the sand being drawn on both sides and a clear demonstration of bipartisanship. We get so far as to have draft legislation that has been through the government's cabinet process. It's been approved by government, and it's just being hidden away as if it doesn't exist. Well, here's what we have done as of today. We have said, 'Look, if you don't do it, we will. If you don't back SACC, we will. If you won't stare down your conservative backbench, we will. And what the Labor Party has done is what the government should have done the entire time, but for one of two things. It is absolute incoherent paralysis that surrounds them, because they are so engulfed in scandal, so engulfed in distraction, so engulfed in division that they cannot do their job. All they need to do is back SACC, and they have failed to do it. There is another plausible excuse, which is that it has finally happened, and we finally have exhibit A, in black and white: the relentless pressure applied by the conservative rump of this backbench on those more moderate, sensible forces on the government side. We have it in black and white. We have clear supporting statements from the minister for revenue, the then minister for small business, saying that this should be implemented without delay. Yet there is no sign of it from them over there, so we've done it. We have introduced a private member's bill in the National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Small Amount Credit Contracts and Consumer Leases Reforms) Bill 2018 that matches—word for word, sentence for sentence, full stop for full stop, comma for comma—the draft legislation produced by this government. So, the government has a choice, and it is a fork in the road of integrity for this government. Do they support their own bill in this place, or will they find a reason to kick it off to the long grass? And that can mean only one thing. It can mean only that those far right conservative forces have won. It can mean only that the Prime Minister is completely devoid of any authority whatsoever in relation to how his government runs and what agenda it purports to control. It can mean only that we will fail to see any meaningful progress whatsoever from this government in relation to truly protecting vulnerable consumers. To those 650,000 Australians who are hopelessly trapped in a debt spiral as a result of mercenary predatory sharks, all I can do is apologise for the failures of this government to take any meaningful steps when we got so close to actually making sure that there are responsible reforms in this area. It is a symptom of a sick government, it is a symptom of a lack of reform, and it has to stop now.
Banking and Financial Services | Statements by Members | House debates
'Once more with feeling', as they say in the classics. I tell you what, it is the blind leading the blind over that side when it comes to reforms to the small amount credit contracts. These are...
'Once more with feeling', as they say in the classics. I tell you what, it is the blind leading the blind over that side when it comes to reforms to the small amount credit contracts. These are more commonly known as payday loans or rent-to-buy schemes. Hundreds of thousands of vulnerable Australians are being ripped off as a result of a lack of action on behalf of that side over there. What do we hear? In a circumstance where we have bipartisan support to get these things fixed, where we saw draft legislation with bipartisan support, we hear that scurrying, scuttling sound. It sounds to me very much like a crab walk. They reckon that we get organisers coming from the trade union movement. I hear from over the other side the slow but sure sounds of an organisation starting called 'Parliamentary friends of payday lenders'. I just hope that the litany of parliamentary friends does not include those who I see opposite. I'm sure it wouldn't, because these are otherwise upstanding individuals. There is the member Tangney and the member for Wright, but I'm not sure about the member for Berowra or the member for Fisher. The parliamentary friends of payday lenders are on the march. They are determined to make sure that vulnerable Australians are not protected. They are determined to make sure that people are being left behind. What could they do with the stroke of a pen? What could they do right now? They could introduce the legislation that the consumer action legal group have said is okay to protect Australians today. But they are doing nothing.
Perth Electorate: Stronger Communities Program | Statements by Members | House debates
I would like to give a big shout-out to the wonderful group Inglewood on Beaufort, who were responsible for putting together the Great Monster Hunt on the weekend. The Great Monster Hunt is a...
I would like to give a big shout-out to the wonderful group Inglewood on Beaufort, who were responsible for putting together the Great Monster Hunt on the weekend. The Great Monster Hunt is a terrific community based initiative made possible through the Stronger Communities grants process. Inglewood on Beaufort are a voluntary not-for-profit group who have gone to great lengths to make sure Beaufort Street, north of Walcott Street, is thriving as a village-like community. The Great Monster Hunt involved young kids all going into a competition to design their own monsters, which they did at the local library. Having designed their monsters, the top 16 were selected to have monsters then transposed onto adhesive material which was then carefully hidden around the forecourt of the library so kids could go on their own great monster hunt. I took my two girls down, aged six—on Thursday—and two, and they had a great time foraging around, finding these terrific little creatures. Well done to Inglewood on Beaufort for constantly coming up with new and inventive ways to make sure our local communities thrive. We were absolutely delighted to support the City of Stirling with the Stronger Communities grants. It's precisely these sorts of projects that see us go from strength to strength in our local community.
Perth Electorate: Optus Stadium Infrastructure | Constituency Statements | House debates
It has been my privilege to attend a number of events at Perth's new stadium—or the 'craypot' as it is becoming affectionately known—since it opened this summer. Notwithstanding a...
It has been my privilege to attend a number of events at Perth's new stadium—or the 'craypot' as it is becoming affectionately known—since it opened this summer. Notwithstanding a streaker and Australia's loss to England in the one-day international, the facility is absolutely magnificent, world class and second to none. I encourage all Australians and overseas visitors to come and visit the craypot. It is a tribute to both the McGowan Labor government and also the previous government in relation to the world-class standard set both in terms of the cultural infrastructure and as a viewing venue for sports. Like most of these things, there are some kinks to be ironed out. Tremendous work is being put in to make sure that that is being achieved: managing the traffic flow in and out of the facility, and facilitating getting a cold beer and a hot pie. For those who don't know, the stadium is not in my electorate but is directly across the Swan River. That's where it becomes relevant to the federal electorate of Perth. As many in this place will know, the planned footbridge from East Perth over to the stadium has not yet been completed. Whilst it was very impressive to see some enterprising young men and women with their tinnies ferrying people from one side of the river to the other, my sense is that's not a sustainable, long-term solution. The footbridge was due to be delivered in June 2016, but the overseas contractor failed to meet deadlines. I'm pleased to say that, as part of a McGowan Labor government initiative of increased local content, it is now being built at home. However, both now and into the future, we are seeing a knock-on effect on some of my constituents in East Perth, Mt Lawley and Maylands of being inundated with an influx of punters who are parking in suburbs of my electorate and then heading over to the stadium. It's happening already and it's likely to get worse as the footbridge gets up and running—pardon the pun—but there is a solution. It's all well and good to identify problems but we also need to work on solutions. There was a similar problem around Perth oval in Highgate in my electorate, but parking permits on match days solved those local traffic problems. Basically, signs are updated every few months with prohibited parking bays to make sure locals don't miss out. The City of Vincent should be commended on such an approach. Today, we start the conversation at all levels of government—City of Vincent, Bayswater, City of Perth, my state colleague Simon Millman and myself—to make sure that locals are not impacted by this thriving and magnificent stadium venue.
Payday Lending | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services. I refer to reports that a group of government backbenchers, known as the parliamentary friends of payday lending, have enlisted...
My question is to the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services. I refer to reports that a group of government backbenchers, known as the parliamentary friends of payday lending, have enlisted the Treasurer to water down the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services' payday lending legislation. Why is this government protecting unscrupulous operators in the payday lending industry by watering down this important legislation, instead of protecting vulnerable Australians who are already doing it tough?
I think it's safe to say that the one thing that we can all agree on in this place, no matter where we sit, is that when we are out in the community we constantly hear from mums and dads and from...
I think it's safe to say that the one thing that we can all agree on in this place, no matter where we sit, is that when we are out in the community we constantly hear from mums and dads and from those people who vote for us about the need for genuine bipartisanship in this place, and more of it. Well, have I got a deal for you! To her credit, the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services put into place reforms called the SACC reforms by way of review back in 2015 and 2016. For those who aren't aware of what the SACC reforms do, they go to the heart of the payday-lending and rent-to-buy industry. Those reforms were released in March 2016. The government commented in relation to those reforms in November 2016. The government, to their credit, recommended in principle to support all of those reforms. Those reforms will help vulnerable Australians achieve some relief from a relentless debt spiral that comes from entering into payday loans and rent-to-buy schemes that they cannot afford. Federal Labor support those reforms. The minister supported those reforms. So why, you might ask, has it taken from November 2016 until the present day to actually get something meaningful to vulnerable Australians done? Well, the answer is that the government are not taking the step they need to. I challenge them to put their money where their mouth is. (Time expired)