The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 09:30, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
MOTIONS
Prime Minister
Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat) (09:31): I seek leave to move the following motion:
That the House:
(1) notes the Prime Minister:
(a) has taken his rorts to the streets, allocating more than 83 percent of the $3 billion Urban Congestion Fund to Liberal seats and marginal seats targeted by the Liberal Party;
(b) allocated funding to every Liberal seat that was marginal or under threat, as well as several marginal regional electorates held or targeted by the Liberal Party;
(c) did not allocate a cent to address congestion in 38 urban and regional city seats held by non-Government Members;
(d) incorrectly claimed the projects were election commitments, when the Urban Congestion Fund was established in the 2018 Budget;
(e) did not release any guidelines, did not formally call for expressions of interest, did not spend a cent from the Urban Congestion Fund in 2018-19, but did spend $17 million of government resources on pre-election advertisements telling us how good it was; and
(f) repeatedly sought to downplay and dismiss the serious allegation that his government continually spends taxpayer dollars for private political gain; and
(2) therefore calls on the Prime Minister to:
(a) correct his incorrect statement that Urban Congestion Fund projects are election commitments; and
(b) explain why his Government used taxpayer money as though it was its own personal marketing fund.
Leave not granted.
Ms CATHERINE KING: I move:
That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Ballarat from moving the following motion immediately:
That the House:
(1) notes the Prime Minister:
(a) has taken his rorts to the streets, allocating more than 83 percent of the $3 billion Urban Congestion Fund to Liberal seats and marginal seats targeted by the Liberal Party;
(b) allocated funding to every Liberal seat that was marginal or under threat, as well as several marginal regional electorates held or targeted by the Liberal Party;
(c) did not allocate a cent to address congestion in 38 urban and regional city seats held by non-Government Members;
(d) incorrectly claimed the projects were election commitments, when the Urban Congestion Fund was established in the 2018 Budget;
(e) did not release any guidelines, did not formally call for expressions of interest, did not spend a cent from the Urban Congestion Fund in 2018-19, but did spend $17 million of government resources on pre-election advertisements telling us how good it was; and
(f) repeatedly sought to downplay and dismiss the serious allegation that his government continually spends taxpayer dollars for private political gain; and
(2) therefore calls on the Prime Minister to:
(a) correct his incorrect statement that Urban Congestion Fund projects are election commitments; and
(b) explain why his Government used taxpayer money as though it was its own personal marketing fund.
There is not a program that this government will not rort for its own political—
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Deputy Leader of the House, Minister for Defence Personnel and Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (09:34): I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the member for Ballarat be no longer heard.
The House divided. [09:35]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (09:41): Is the motion seconded?
Mr GILES (Scullin) (09:42): I second it. This is pork 'n' ride. Another rort from a government of rorts and cheaters who will take responsibility—
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Deputy Leader of the House, Minister for Defence Personnel and Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (09:42): I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the member for Scullin be no further heard.
The House divided. [09:42]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Mr CONROY (Shortland) (09:44): Corruption, pure and simple—94 per cent to one seat on the Central Coast.
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Deputy Leader of the House, Minister for Defence Personnel and Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (09:46): I move:
That the question be put.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the question be put.
The House divided. [09:46]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (09:51): The question is that the motion moved by the member for Ballarat be agreed to.
The House divided. [09:51]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
BILLS
Health Insurance Amendment (General Practitioners and Quality Assurance) Bill 2020
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Coulton, for Mr Hunt.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr COULTON (Parkes—Minister for Regional Health, Regional Communications and Local Government) (09:54): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I'm pleased to introduce the Health Insurance Amendment (General Practitioners and Quality Assurance) Bill 2020. The bill amends the Health Insurance Act 1973—that's the HIA—to support simplifying Medicare administrative processes for recognition as a specialist general practitioner, GP, for Medicare purposes under the HIAand will align Medicare eligibility for GPs with the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme, NRAS, requirements. The bill also removes legal ambiguity in relation to the definition of a quality assurance activity in part VC of the HIA.
The current pathway to recognise a GP in the HIA requires a medical practitioner who has gained fellowship as a GP to apply to Services Australia for access to GP rebates and also to apply to the Medical Board of Australia, the MBA, for specialist registration in the field of general practice. Implementation of the bill will mean that Services Australia's systems will, through an automated data exchange, utilise national registration data held by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency, Ahpra, to determine this access, removing this duplicative process for GPs.
The NRAS commenced in 2010 and provides a nationally consistent process for registering specialist GPs. This includes mandatory reporting requirements for continuing professional development, CPD. Ahpra, in administering the national registration process, provides the most up-to-date and accurate data on all registered practitioners.
The bill will provide a new definition of 'general practitioner' as one who is a specialist in the field of general practice under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law 2009(Qld), as applied by states and territories. A corresponding 'national law' is also implemented by Western Australia. Outdated provisions in the HI Act providing for medical practitioners to gain access to higher GP rebates will be repealed. There will be grandfathering and transition arrangements made in the Health Insurance Regulations 2018 to ensure that GPs who are currently eligible for higher GP rebates will continue to be able to access these higher rebates. This includes the cohort of GPs who are or have been on the vocational register who meet the eligibility criteria. These are medical practitioners who do not necessarily hold fellowship in general practice as they were in practice prior to fellowship and specialist registration becoming a requirement.
The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, RACGP, and the Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine, ACRRM, will continue to be critical in setting professional standards for the specialty of general practice in Australia and will work with the MBA to ensure continuing quality in general practice. The bill will not impact on Medicare eligibility for international medical graduates or on Australian-trained graduates who are on a workforce program or a GP training pathway with either ACRRM or RACGP. The bill also makes a minor but important technical change in relation to the Commonwealth Qualified Privilege Scheme. It will not affect the operation of part VC of the HIA but will remove an ambiguity.
The Commonwealth Qualified Privilege Scheme under part VC of the HIA is designed to encourage participation in quality assurance activities that are aimed at improving the quality of the healthcare system. The purpose of the Commonwealth Qualified Privilege Scheme is to protect from public disclosure any personal and identifiable information that becomes known solely as a result of a declared quality assurance activity, and it protects certain healthcare professionals involved in the activity from civil liability.
To be eligible for a declaration, a quality assurance program must be funded under at least one of the Commonwealth Health funded programs covered by the definition. This bill will repeal an outdated reference to a former appropriation act and replaces it with the correct reference to the Federal Financial Relations Act 2009. Despite the previous reference to the outdated appropriation legislation, the bill also ensures that activities declared on or after 1 July 2009 are taken to have been valid declarations.
Conclusion
The introduction of the NRAS in 2010 for health professions has modernised the regulation of health professions by creating a single and national regulatory framework. Streamlining the process for GPs to be recognised for appropriate access to Medicare rebates removes duplication and red tape and allows for a simpler, more efficient process for GPs to qualify for GP specialty and reduces processing for Services Australia. I present the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 1) Bill 2020
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Chester.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Deputy Leader of the House, Minister for Defence Personnel and Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (10:00): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to introduce the Aged Care Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 1) Bill 2020.
This bill amends the way that home care providers are paid the government subsidy.
Providers currently receive the monthly subsidy for a home care recipient in advance using an estimate based on previous months. The provider then lodges a claim after the end of the month, at which time a reconciliation occurs. Underpayments of subsidy are then rectified immediately, while overpayments are withheld from future payments.
This bill will amend the legislation such that a provider will not receive a payment in advance but will be paid the monthly subsidy for a home care recipient upon lodgement of a claim with Services Australia after the end of each month.
This will not impact on the amount of subsidy available to a care recipient under their home care package.
This is an important step towards addressing stakeholder concerns regarding unspent funds and aligning home care payment arrangements with other government programs, such as the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
COMMITTEES
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights
Report
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (10:02): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report entitled Human rights scrutiny report 3 of 2020.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr PERRETT: by leave—I'm very pleased to speak to the tabling of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights third scrutiny report of 2020.
This report contains a technical examination of legislation with Australia's obligations under international human rights law, as required under the committee's statutory mandate. It sets out the committee's consideration of 12 bills introduced into the parliament between 10 February and 13 February 2020, and legislative instruments registered under the Federal Register of Legislation between 9 January and 5 February 2020.
As members know, the committee's mandate, as set out in the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011, is to examine legislation for compatibility with human rights: defined to mean the rights contained in the seven core international human rights treaties to which Australia is a party. In understanding how human rights are to be applied, the committee has regularly looked to the way in which UN human rights treaty bodies have interpreted the treaties, as well as to the interpretations by comparable regional, international and domestic human rights courts of other countries. While none of this is binding on how the committee carries out its scrutiny function, it can assist the committee in gaining a broader understanding of the content and application of human rights.
Where a provision in a bill or instrument appears to limit rights, the committee considers whether any limitation is reasonable, necessary and proportionate. To do so it asks three key questions:
whether the limitation is aimed at achieving a legitimate objective;
whether there is a rational connection between the limitation and that objective; and
whether the limitation is proportionate to that objective.
In undertaking its task, the committee has access to specialist human rights law advice, which guides the committee as to the application of these legal tests on a case-by-case basis. The committee's deliberations need to be underpinned by this legal advice, as having full consideration of well-established legal tests and precedents assists the committee to accurately identify the rights engaged by legislation and the permissibility under international law of any limitation on these rights. While we as parliamentarians are well equipped to consider debatable questions of whether a measure appears to be reasonable, necessary and proportionate, we do so based on this important legal advice. This is vital to ensure the legitimacy of the process of technical legislative scrutiny.
Where further information is required to determine these questions the committee writes to the relevant minister seeking clarification. In this report the committee seeks further information in relation to two bills and has made an advice-only comment in relation to two more. The process of requesting information from the legislation proponents reflects the committee's role in establishing and maintaining a dialogue regarding the human rights implications of legislative measures, which contributes to the broader respect for and recognition of human rights in Australia.
With these comments, I commend the committee's report No. 3 of 2020 to the House.
Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity Committee
Report
Mr PASIN (Barker) (10:05): I present the following report:
Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity—Parliamentary Joint Committee—Examination of the annual report of the Integrity Commissioner 2017-18—Report, February 2020.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
BILLS
Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2019-2020
Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2019-2020
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that:
(1) after six years in office the economy is floundering on the Government's watch;
(2) Australians are struggling with stagnant wages, with wage growth stalling further;
(3) net debt has more than doubled under this Government;
(4) the Government does not have a plan to boost wages or growth in the economy; and
(5) it is because of the Government's failures that Australia meets the challenges and uncertainties of the bushfires and coronavirus from a position of weakness, not strength".
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (10:06): We are talking about appropriation bills that underpin the budget and the way governments spend money. And today we've had an extraordinary example of how the government is spending money. We found out that $10 million was spent by this government for 'the noted country town of North Sydney' so that it could get a swimming pool upgrade, which is fantastic! When challenged on why North Sydney got $10 million in another example of the rorts that have been uncovered in the last few months, the mayor described this as a totally justifiable decision on the basis that people from the country would swim in North Sydney and this would justify a regional grant. I've heard of Pitt Street farmers but not Boorowa backstrokers—and that's what this is facilitating in this place.
The member for North Sydney is singing 'I've been everywhere man'—from Waverton to Wollstonecraft, from Mosman to Artarmon, from Chatswood to Cremorne, from Naremburn to Castlecrag! This is a joke. It goes to show you how bad this government is when they try to funnel into North Sydney $10 million of money that was supposed to support the regions.
But who knows, this could be a plan by the member for North Sydney to usurp the Deputy Prime Minister by becoming a National Party MP in North Sydney. I think this is what we are looking at; they could have a National Party MP from North Sydney. That's the type of A-grade rorting that the National Party has become renowned for—and now they're bringing it to North Sydney. What an absolute embarrassment it is that you could use taxpayer funds in that way.
And that's where the joke ends. The way this government spends money on rorts—be it sports rorts or be it road rorts—has made a joke of programs like this, which notionally should be providing support to communities. And it demonstrates yet again that this is a budget from a government with no plan. They have no clue, no idea, no plan and no care for the Australian people. When it comes to using a budget that might be able to, for example, deal with the skills crisis—every industry is saying they don't have enough people—we have a government with no plan for how to fix that and no funding to back it up.
It's costing people more and more to go to a doctor. Every time they go to a doctor the out-of-pocket expenses have jumped up. In my part of western Sydney, for the people who I represent, they've jumped up 40 per cent. Yet there's no plan by this government to make health care and access to it easier.
We've got clogged roads and clogged railways in our part of Sydney, and yet all we've got, when it comes to infrastructure, is an ad plan. We've got a plan that can advertise claimed spending but none of the actual dollars going to the people when they need it most, which is right now, and to also help the economy on the way through. Again, this budget has no answers for people who want to see those types of things—health, schools, broader education, infrastructure—fixed up; nothing. But you can get $10 million for a pool in North Sydney as you're trying to save people from losing their seats, potentially, either there or elsewhere. You'll be—
Mr Tim Wilson interjecting—
Dr Allen interjecting—
Mr HUSIC: I'm sure the member for Higgins, who's interjecting right now, will probably be a beneficiary as well, and the member for Goldstein, too. They are noted regional members! You could be the luminaries of the Victorian branch of the LNP. You should take that Queensland idea and bring it down here. I mean, look who you're competing with—this is going to be a walk in the park for you. Look at these luminaries that you're up against! You should definitely export this from Queensland. Bert van Manen's up there, the member for Forde—he could give you an idea on how well these things work. And I'm sure that there'd be others as well. Julian Leeser, the member for Berowra—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): I remind the member for Chifley to refer to members by their correct titles.
Mr HUSIC: I'm just a friendly person who just tries to refer to people by their names. But, Deputy Speaker, you rightly point out that I should use their titles. And we should make this a place that's less friendly—I agree! But the member for Berowra: I could see him in a Driza-Bone going through—what are some of the places in your neck of the woods?
Mr Leeser: Danglemah!
Mr HUSIC: And here you go! This is who you could be inspired by: the member for New England, in bringing the National Party approach to the cavalier use of taxpayer funds to your parts of the country. Again, this is a representation, an example, of how—
Mr Chester: He's here all week.
Mr HUSIC: Exactly, I am; I could be here all week because there are so many rorts, Minister, that we could talk about. But this is an example of this cavalier approach to the use of money being picked up from that part of the government benches and spread out over here. We can definitely get a sense, too, of the outrage from the general public about the way in which this has happened. They know this is a big issue: sports rorts and road rorts and the fact that people are missing out. People, in good faith, are putting in applications, wanting either to upgrade their local sports ground or to see infrastructure in their area upgraded; they believe they've got a good case; and they're denied. Why? Because, again, it's a government that only spends to save itself, as opposed to helping the Australian people. It's not good enough. In the urban infrastructure program, we've seen the member for Robertson do very well, but that's only one part of the Central Coast; that's not a broad approach to dealing with the Central Coast. People there are stuck in cars for hours, travelling from the Central Coast to Sydney for work, or on trains that they're forced to use because they don't want to use the roads. But only one part of the Central Coast gets the benefit of an urban infrastructure funding program. That goes to show you: this is not needs based; it's not evidence based; it's politically based; and it's got to end. Again, this is a budget that doesn't reflect a plan, an idea, a clue or a care for the people of Australia.
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (10:14): It gives me great pleasure to advise the member that his comments earlier were not actually accurate. Today I rise to speak to the appropriation bills, Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2019-2020 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2019-2020. These bills will provide additional monetary support for government programs, both new and existing, which will be delivered over the course of this financial year.
The Morrison government is able to deliver funding to projects right across Australia through our strong management of the economy, and it is this responsible economic management that allows the government to quickly act in the face of challenges such as devastating bushfires, floods and drought, or by investing in important measures to keep Australians safe in the wake of the coronavirus outbreak. It is also this strong economic management that, despite the many challenges that we've faced as a country over the past few months, allows for investment in vital infrastructure upgrades and local projects in communities all around Australia, including in my electorate of Robertson. Today I'll share just a few examples of the many, many projects that the Morrison government will be investing in to improve the lives of residents on the Central Coast.
Last year, the federal government announced a $35 million package in the government for additional car spaces at Gosford and Woy Woy train stations. This was part of a $541.2 million congestion funding boost for New South Wales under the national Urban Congestion Fund. The commuter car parks in Gosford and Woy Woy are regularly full by 7 am, forcing many to look for street parking that can, in some instances, be a very long way from the station. I heard from many frustrated locals who were desperate for more car parking spaces. Thanks to this investment by the Morrison government, these upgrades will make a monumental difference to the lives of many commuters on the Central Coast who travel to Sydney or Newcastle daily via public transport. Like many Central Coast residents, I'm keen to see the car parks at both Gosford and Woy Woy become a reality as soon as possible. I understand that scoping and development activities are already underway, with locations for the car parking and construction time frames to be released in due course.
In addition to boosting car-parking capacity for commuters on the Central Coast, the Morrison government is continuing to work on improving mobile phone coverage along the train lines between the Central Coast and Sydney. The first mobile base station was launched at Narara train station in October last year, along with free wi-fi at Lisarow, Mount Colah and Tuggerah train stations. The second of the planned 22 mobile stations is now almost complete, with the launch of Narara's Showground Road site expected in early March. Improving connectivity for local commuters is important, with one in four people living on the Central Coast commuting by train each day—a journey that can take more than two hours. Building the new mobile infrastructure will reduce mobile black spots and allow passengers to catch up on work or the news, and stay in touch with friends and family. While I understand the ongoing frustration of commuters with delays of this project's completion, I would like to acknowledge the strong collaboration between Sydney Trains, Telstra, and the federal and state governments on ensuring these vital upgrades are completed as quickly as possible.
The $70 million Central Coast Roads Package is another example of what is possible under a government that can manage the economy. In 2019, this government committed a record $70 million to improving 29 local roads that were in dire need of attention. This followed our local roads petition, launched in 2017; over 700 members of the community in my electorate raised their concerns and had their voices heard. It's only because of the Morrison government's strong financial management that we are able to invest this record funding, which will improve the experience of so many people who live on the Central Coast. I'm pleased to advise that Central Coast Council has already started work on these upgrades, with drainage work on Mutu Street in Woy Woy complete, and work on kerb and gutter replacement expected to wrap up in April. I understand that Central Coast Council are scheduled to begin construction on Glenrock Parade in Tascott next month. I understand that upgrades to 20 of the 29 roads will have commenced by the end of next year, which I'm sure will be welcome news to many who have been waiting years to see their roads upgraded.
We've also committed to $4.3 million in funding to Central Coast Council to upgrade vital roads, and install much-needed footpaths in North Avoca. It will see Tramway Road, View Street and Elgata Avenue fully reconstructed, including with curb and guttering and new footpaths. This commitment came about after a group of local mothers from North Avoca advocated for upgrades due to a number of concerns they had about safety in the area, particularly for pedestrians, due to the lack of footpaths. I understand that Central Coast Council has commenced the design process for this project, with a concept design scheduled to be prepared in the coming months. I look forward to seeing local families being able to walk with their toddlers and their prams down to the beach and the local shops without concern, when this project is completed.
The Morrison government has also provided a $9 million investment, a very important investment, for a women's residential drug and alcohol rehabilitation centre on the Central Coast, known as The Glen centre for women. This investment—I do believe this is an incredibly important announcement—followed a feasibility study that was supported by a consultation process involving over 400 women, including Indigenous elders and more than 40 organisations from community groups, peak bodies and research and service providers. Of the total $9 million in funding provided in the 2019 budget, $4.5 million will go towards building the new facility, with an additional $1½ million per annum for three years to cover operational costs. I'm delighted to say that The Glen centre for women is a step closer to becoming a reality with a funding agreement executed just this week. I understand The Glen will now turn their attention to identifying the most appropriate location for the women's centre to be built.
An additional health initiative funded by this government is the delivery of funding for another linear accelerator, which will boost cancer treatment capacity at Central Coast Cancer Centre. The $3.8 million investment in the 2019 budget provides for a third linear accelerator machine. The machines are vital in the treatment of cancer as they allow doctors to target cancer cells while protecting the surrounding healthy tissue. This extra linear accelerator machine will make a dramatic difference in my community once installed.
Another example of this government's investment in local communities is the $8.25 million upgrade of the Umina recreational precinct. This funding will allow for the redevelopment of the existing skate park, BMX track and basketball court, and a new football club house for Umina United Soccer Club, a new integrated community facility and additional car parking. It was clear after speaking to residents in my local community and receiving a petition with over 2,000 signatures that these upgrades would make a significant difference to those who are living on the peninsula. The redevelopment will not only improve social cohesion within the community but deter antisocial behaviour from our young people. In addition, the facelift will draw regional sporting competitions to the state-of-the-art facilities, boosting our tourism and local economy.
A concept plan is being finalised after 18 months of community consultation, with a detailed plan now available on the Your Coast - Our Voice website. Construction of the Umina recreational precinct is due to start in the coming weeks, with the upgrade expected to be complete by late 2020. I join with many others from right across the peninsula who cannot wait to see this fantastic project finally underway.
The government committed $80,000 to upgrade the scoreboard at Woy Woy Oval. This funding has allowed the local sporting clubs to use this ground to install a state-of-the-art scoreboard to further encourage the youth within the community to participate in local sporting events. The Morrison government also committed $1.45 million for a new amenities block at the Lemongrove Netball Courts at Ettalong Beach. I was happy to advocate for this project after seeing firsthand the poor state of their existing amenities blocks. These upgrades to sporting facilities will provide immense benefit to all who regularly utilise them.
Finally, we're a step closer to creating a world class health and innovation precinct in Gosford as $18 million was committed last year by this government to build on the vision of the Central Coast Medical School and— (Quorum formed)
This $18 million in funding will assist with the development of a precinct in the heart of Gosford to increase educational opportunities in the region and create a centre of excellence in integrated health care. Additional benefits of this investment will see several new degrees offered by the University of Newcastle. One of my top priorities is attracting—
Mr Burke: I seek to make an intervention under standing order 66(a).
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): Does the member for Robertson yield?
Mrs WICKS: No, thank you, Deputy Speaker. In closing, the Morrison government's strong—
Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand) (10:26): I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the member for Robertson be no longer heard.
The House divided. [10:31]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Mr KEOGH (Burt) (10:35): Last night, I, with many of our colleagues here in this chamber, attended a very important event. At that event, many of us held candles just like the one I'm holding. This candle was from the vigil that we held last night in honour, in mourning and also in celebration of the lives of Hannah, Aaliyah, Laianah and Trey. But this candle actually also represents the lives of so many women and children who have lost their lives to domestic violence every week, every year, throughout Australia.
Our condolences as a parliament, as people, have been expressed by the Prime Minister, the leader of the Labor Party—so many of us—and many of us last night. And of course I express my condolences to Hannah's family, their friends and the friends of her children. But I also want to express some deep concern about some of the reporting of that event. We've all expressed our concern that domestic violence continues to happen and be a scourge on our society here in Australia, but part of dealing with that—part of combating that—also has to be that reporting of these events is clear; that reporting of these events acknowledges the important things that have happened and doesn't skirt round the gravity of actions that have been taken by people that have caused harm and in way too many circumstances death.
On average, one woman a week is murdered by her current or former partner in Australia. One in three Australian women have experienced physical violence since the age of 15. One in five Australian women have experienced sexual violence. One in four Australian women have experienced emotional abuse by a current or former partner. Australian women are nearly three times more likely than men to experience violence from an intimate partner and they are nearly four times more likely than men to be hospitalised after being assaulted by a spouse or partner.
The litany of statistics, unfortunately, goes on and on—I have over a page of them. I encourage all people to look at the Our Watch website and view those statistics, because they are truly troubling. In particular, last year, 61 women died through domestic violence. This year already nine have died. And refuges across the country commonly tell us that, for every woman and family that they are able to help, two, three or four are turned away.
In my electorate, the electorate of Burt in the south-eastern suburbs of Perth, we have the highest rates of domestic violence in the metropolitan area. In the Armadale policing district, in the decade to last year, we saw family assaults increase from 746 to 1,899—that's a 154 per cent increase. Threatening behaviour against a family member increased from 66 to 367—a 4.5 time increase.
When I had the honour of becoming a lawyer, one of the things that I took on was joining the board of Starick services. Starick is a domestic violence service operating in the south-eastern suburbs of Perth. I had the great honour of being the chair of that organisation for some time and also representing it on an industry representative group to government. Starick provides two refuges in our south-eastern suburbs. It provides outreach services. It provides services in police stations and it provides assistance to victims of domestic violence in courts.
I want to read the story of one of the women that Starick has assisted. This is Anne's story:
When I first got married, I thought that I was going to have a wonderful life and fulfil all the dreams a newlywed could hope for. As an A-grade student throughout high school, I went on to run my own business, had just planned an around-the-world trip and was excited about life and the prospect of sharing that life with another.
I thought I'd met a man who was handsome, adventurous and brave but, instead, I was introduced to a crazy world that I could never have imagined or prepared myself for. I had no idea the transformation that was to follow over the next 14 years.
I didn't understand that domestic violence is like a little microscopic worm that sneaks into your mind and slowly kills you from the inside. You do not realise you are dying until it is almost too late, or someone comes and rescues you from an early grave.
I always thought the worm would look like a big, unkempt, nasty, thug that swore and punched holes in the walls but instead it was quiet and cunning and deadly.
I never fully understood the danger I was in until after I got out.
It started with my partner being disgruntled and a little bit unpredictable. He was not considerate and he was a fraction selfish. I thought this was nothing unusual. After all, newlyweds have their settling in period and I was sure I had a few things he didn't like, either. I decided to just try a little harder to be a better wife.
Well, to him being a better wife meant I should really spend less time with my friends, give up my business and be a stay-at-home mum. He said that most women would be envious of that privilege, and not to worry about my family too much since they clearly didn't understand what being a good wife was. After all, he said, they were divorced, so what would they know about how to overcome marital issues? He wanted me to sell my car because he said we needed only one and it was better for us financially.
Slowly but surely the worm continued to eat away at my common sense and freedom until one day, many years later, I had given him my $30,000 of savings, completely cut off all of my family and friends, attempted suicide and let him kill all my beloved pets.
He had sexually abused my daughter, groomed the others, smashed down every door in the house, made me miscarry, beat me up more times than I can remember, threatened to kill us all and stole the beautiful vivacious girl I once was from within me. I never laughed. I never smiled. I was a dead woman walking.
But still I wouldn't have labelled myself one of 'those women' who experience domestic violence. How can a normal, healthy, happy girl be reduced to a shadow of a person and not see anything wrong? Because the worm was eating me away. With each bite, it was making itself bigger and stronger and I was getting smaller and weaker.
Eventually, to my horror the authorities stepped in. What for, I thought? I'm a good wife. I'm looking after my kids. I don't drink or take drugs or live like a vagabond. I'm married. I'm a good person. I had NO IDEA that all the life had been sucked out of me.
But, fortunately for me, it was the first time a law was passed that enabled a magistrate to take out a Violence Restraining Order WITHOUT my permission, on my husband, to protect us all from this unreasonable and unpredictable man.
It was only then that I began to heal. I needed space and silence.
I didn't appreciate fully at the time the beautiful people who came along and walked every step by my side to support me and be my strength in times of complete weakness. I thought that they didn't really know my situation or understand, but they actually did. They knew my predicament better than I ever knew and if it wasn't for their continued support, encouragement and protection I would most definitely not be here today, and my seven precious children would be dispersed among the community, trying to make sense of it all.
I will remain eternally grateful to all the domestic violence support workers who have carried me over the years, in the courtroom and out, particularly the staff at Starick.
I am so very thankful for the women's refuges throughout Perth, the police who see the destruction first hand yet continue to care in the wee hours when nobody else can help, the magistrates who watch our declining culture day in and day out but choose to protect us, still, by putting boundaries in place, and all the people who become a voice for those who have lost theirs.
I wish to add my voice to those who are standing for those people who have lost theirs.
There are so many other stories like that. It is just but one of the compelling stories that I can tell from my electorate. But, as we stand and sit in this place and consider what we have seen, as we reel listening to these stories and the circumstances that we have seen reported in the news, it is incumbent on us to actually think about: 'What next? What can we actually do?' I think we need to remember the example in Victoria, where they held a royal commission into domestic violence. That royal commission in 2016 made 227 recommendations. One hundred and forty-three of those recommendations have already been implemented. I reference this not because I think we should have another royal commission; I reference this because there are now 227 things that every other state and the Commonwealth can think about doing, that we should be actually turning our minds to and making sure are implemented across this nation.
From my observation, from my work in this field and from looking at the recommendations of the royal commission, there are a few things that this parliament, this government, any federal government and any state government can look at doing. We need more refuges. We need more places in refuges. We need more refuges that can support families, not just individuals. We need more places in refuges that can support families and their pets. But we need more of them. We need more funding for those services. We can't just be funding the buildings. We need to assist in funding the services and expanding the services. It's not just about accommodation and homelessness, though that is exceptionally real; it's about the legal assistance services, the counselling services, the empowerment, the support in court and the support with police stations. We also need much more transitional housing, because it doesn't matter how many refuges we build if there's no place for people to go to then take their life back. They get full very quickly. We need more transitional housing. We also need more social housing.
All of these things are things that the federal government, a federal parliament, can be involved in funding. I'm not absolving the states of any responsibility in this, but this needs to be done together. We need to be doing it now. We've talked about it for too long. We also need governments to provide certainty in funding. Too often we have seen here funding that is announced for several years—and that is commendable—and then it is left to the absolute death knell or, in fact, after that funding has run out for governments to confirm only a one-year extension to that funding or program. Yet again another pilot not followed by ongoing funding, despite the proven efficacy of those programs.
On this side we have called for a national domestic violence summit. I think that is an important start. It's an important start because coordination at a state and federal level is absolutely necessary. We have seen some work on this in terms of the application of restraining orders crossing borders. Too often we see that even by leaving your own state you are not safe. But that is merely the beginning. Our state and federal governments need to work much more strongly together to ensure that there is an actual plan that picks up on all of the research, the inquiries and the royal commissions, what they've already recommended, and make sure that they become a reality. Not because it allows us to tick a box and not because it allows us to make some great announcement, but because it should allow us to look all Australians in the face and say that, as their elected representatives at a national or a state level, we are actually doing the things that will make a difference in keeping people safe; in making sure that we do not have unnecessary death, violence, emotional violence; and in making sure that people can feel safe in their own homes and that children are not traumatised by the people who are there to love them. This is something I know we are actually all committed to. I look forward to working with everyone here to make sure that this becomes an actual reality in our nation. It's for everybody that this candle represents.
Ms LIU (Chisholm) (10:48): The coalition government is delivering on the promises we made to Australians when we introduced the 2019-20 budget. This government's economic plan was clear and straightforward. Firstly, we would return the budget to surplus. Secondly, we would deliver more jobs while lowering taxes, meaning that hardworking Australians keep more of what they earn. Thirdly, one of the most important aspects of the budget was guaranteeing essential services like Medicare, schools, hospitals and roads. I have said countless times in this place that it is only a coalition government that can manage the economy so that we have the money to deliver essential services that Australians rely on each and every day.
Through this government's record health funding, we have strengthened Medicare, funded more hospital services and provided more affordable medicines than ever before. Since the coalition came to office, funding for public hospital services has increased by 80 per cent in my home state of Victoria. Even better is the GP bulk-billing rate in my electorate of Chisholm. It's as high as 84 per cent. In fact, 145,605 more GP visits were bulk-billed than in Labor's last year in government.
Delivery of essential services doesn't stop at health care. We have made sure that students are ready for university, TAFE and apprenticeships by improving student outcomes through record funding for schools. As a government, we are also equipping Australians with the skills of today and tomorrow by delivering up to 80,000 apprenticeships. I'm so proud of what the government is doing in this place. I can proudly visit the 34 public schools in Chisholm knowing that we'll increase funding by 55 per cent per student over the next decade. Under this government's Local Schools Community Fund, we have been able to further support our schools—
Mr Burke: I seek to make an intervention under standing order 66A.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Llew O'Brien ): Will the member accept the intervention?
Ms LIU: No. Let me just quote you some examples. Avila College—
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (10:51): I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the member for Chisholm be no further heard.
The House divided. [10:56]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Ms LIU (Chisholm) (11:00): I will just quote some examples. Avila College in Mount Waverley is able to upgrade its classroom technology. The $20,000 spent on this upgrade will make a real difference to the quality of education there. Laburnum Primary School in Blackburn and St Francis Xavier Primary School were both able to invest $20,000 to upgrade their STEM facilities. The Old Orchard Primary School in Blackburn North is able to offer a dynamic learning hub to its students. Education is one of this government's highest priorities and we will continue to invest in future generations.
Australians work extremely hard and should be entitled to keep more of what they earn. This government legislated tax relief for low- and middle-income earners of up to $1,080 for single-income earners and $2,160 for dual-income families. This immediately eases the cost of living. The ALP went to the last election promising $387 billion of higher taxes, and these are only the planned tax increases we know of. The Labor Party promised to raise taxes on retirees, on renters, on home owners, on family businesses and, sadly, on hardworking Australians. I simply do not know how the Labor Party can face the 71,469 taxpayers in my electorate of Chisholm currently benefitting from tax relief and say they would have been better off under Labor.
When our budget is strong our communities are strong because we are able to fund activities like the Stronger Communities Program. Helping local communities in the good work that they do is important, and something this government is proud of. Helping groups like the Blackburn Vikings basketball association replace their backboards and rings, or providing $600,000 to the Laburnum Cricket Club to upgrade their awning is important. The money this government is able to provide can make a real difference. We are able to do the small things that sometimes can go unnoticed.
The government has delivered the first balanced budget in 11 years, and our economy is predicted to grow faster than similar developed nations—the US, Canada, Japan, France, Germany and the UK—both this year and next. This is no accident. The economic leadership shown by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer means that our nation's finances are in a better place. The community I represent in this place is better off for it. Thank you.
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) ( 11:03 ): I am very happy to rise to speak in support of the amendment to these appropriation bills moved by the member for Brand, and I'd like to take this opportunity to place on record a Change.org petition on climate change that was started by a constituent of mine, renewable energy expert Dr Richard Finlay-Jones. The petition notes a very successful legal action that the people of the Netherlands took against their government for failing to act sufficiently on climate change and really lays bare the frustration that so many Australian people have with the inability, and perhaps the unwillingness, of this government to take any real action on climate change, leaving us as a nation in a diabolical mess, with no plan to deal with this massive global issue. If the Morrison government continues to dismiss climate change as some fringe issue driven by the so-called usual suspects, as it is often reported by government, then they are in for a very big shock.
It's very clear from the more than 65,000 signatories to this petition that Australians are deeply frustrated with the Morrison government's diabolical lack of action on the climate emergency facing our planet. I share this frustration. It is unforgiveable that the Liberals have continually refused to act on the warnings of scientists about the dire impacts of climate change, especially in the face of this summer's unprecedented and catastrophic fire season. It won't surprise you to learn that Australia, under the Liberals, scored zero out of 100 for climate policy in the global 2020 Climate Change Performance Index, making us the worst performing nation.
Action on climate change isn't a sideline policy issue for many Australians anymore. It's the main game, and so it should be. Climate change is real. Australians can see it, they can smell it, and they feel it. And it's time for this government to take heed. To this end, I will be writing to the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, on behalf of the 65,000 Australians who signed this petition, to convey their profound dismay at his handling of this existential climate emergency. I will alert him to the petition and ask him to provide a written response to me that responds to the grave and urgent issues raised in the petition. I will forward any update to the signatories to the petition when I receive the Prime Minister's response.
I'd also like to draw attention to a growing issue amongst my constituents that are living in the western part of my electorate in Newcastle. Newcastle's western suburbs are a rapidly growing area, but residents know that postal services are simply not keeping pace. The closest post office for residents living in Minmi, Maryland and Fletcher is at Wallsend, which is a long way for residents to travel if they rely on public transport or, indeed, have any mobility issues. Meanwhile, Wallsend residents are seeing queues at their local post office continue to grow and grow.
Early this month, I called for community feedback on the adequacy of the local postal services and held community offices in Maryland, Minmi and Fletcher on the issue. I was amazed at the number of people who turned out, notwithstanding the searing heat of 44.5 degrees on the day, to back in a community proposal and campaign for a new post office. Indeed, dozens of people came to tell me that, while they loved living in Maryland, Minmi and Fletcher, the lack of a post office was a real drawback. Last year I wrote to the minister about this issue when I first became aware of it. I'm pleased to report that I've now received the minister's response. In it, he confirmed that, as a result of my letter, Australia Post investigated the issue in January and decided that, while the growth is strong, it doesn't justify a new post office yet. Well, I respectfully disagree.
The good news, however, is that the minister also said in his letter that Australia Post has advised that they will keep the issue under review and undertake another assessment later this year. I think this provides an opportunity for the community to let Australia Post, and indeed the Morrison government, know just how much support a new post office has and how necessary it is for these dynamic and growing suburbs in the western part of my electorate. This is why I've established a petition on my website and started a local campaign. I will soon be writing to every person in the local area to encourage them to join the call for a new post office, which western suburb residents so rightly deserve.
The Newcastle earthquake in 1989 stands as one of the darkest days in history for my community of Newcastle. It left property destroyed and lives shattered. At the time, the community banded together to help others by contributing to what was then called the Newcastle Lord Mayor's Earthquake Appeal Fund to pay for injuries and property damage caused by the earthquake. Recently, there have been some reports that the directors of this fund, which has now been rebadged as the Newcastle Region Natural Disaster Relief Fund, now plan to shut it down and transfer the remaining money to another charity.
The news of the fund's planned closure has dismayed one person in my electorate who still lives with the scars from that terrible day. That person is Jennifer Matthews. Recently, I met with Jennifer and her family. They described to me their confusion and anger at learning that $1 million of the fund had gone unspent despite there being no way for anyone who was hurt in the earthquake, or in any other natural disaster since then, to apply for that money since 1994. Ms Matthews was at pains to tell me that she wasn't just speaking out for herself and her family but wanted to see justice for other survivors in our community who may still be suffering from the impacts of the earthquake.
I have sympathy with the argument that the fund should not be wound up while survivors like Ms Matthews still suffer from damage inflicted on that day. People donated in good faith to a fund for a very specific purpose. Surely, that purpose is what it should be used for. I can also see that there is a strong imperative for the trustees of this donated money to actively seek out potential beneficiaries across our community before closing the fund down. I am particularly disappointed that the remaining funds seem to have been inaccessible to survivors since the disaster relief fund was formed in 1994.
I would hate to think that some Novocastrians may have died without getting the support they might have been entitled to access. Accordingly, I have written to the minister who has responsibility for charities—a senator from the other place. I have requested that the minister investigate the history of the actions of these funds and report back on whether they have complied with both the law and their own constitutions. I have asked the minister to advise whether there are any avenues for individuals to challenge the fund's closure or the manner in which the funds are disbursed. Today I call on the minister to fast-track this process and launch a formal investigation into the Newcastle Lord Mayor's Earthquake Appeal Fund and the Newcastle Region Natural Disaster Relief Fund so that people like Jennifer and her family are not kept waiting any longer.
Yesterday, the Joint Select Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme, of which I am deputy chair, held a hearing with Department of Social Services which revealed some deeply concerning information. The redress scheme has been fraught with problems: it has been slow, it has been confusing, it has been unresponsive. Indeed, at the current rate of payments being made, it would take 92 years for the government to deliver the redress if it were to reach the estimated 60,000 survivors. Today we have learned that the government has utterly failed to fix the massive issue of organisations not signing up to participate in the scheme. Indeed, we learned from the public evidence given that there are a staggering 280 organisations with active claims against them who have not yet signed up to the National Redress Scheme. Five hundred and forty-five survivors have pending applications relating to those organisations. They are 545 people who cannot move forward. The organisations had a duty of care to those people, who had horrendous crimes committed against them. There was an absolute betrayal of trust. They can't move forward until those organisations sign up to the scheme. They're stuck in limbo and the risk of retraumatisation for them is very, very real. This is a totally unacceptable situation.
The government has known about the deadline facing the organisations. It's less than four months away until all of those organisations have to be signed up. The government has known about that deadline for 18 months, yet the plan to ensure that all of those 280 organisations are signed up is very unclear. The time for asking nicely has long passed. The National Redress Scheme will fail survivors and their loved ones if this issue is not resolved. We put recommendations to the government in the last parliament that provided a pathway forward. The government needs to act on the advice that has been provided to it in order to get the organisations to sign up now.
The one lever the Commonwealth has at its disposal without having to go to the states and territories is that it can be very tough on the recalcitrant organisations by suspending their charitable tax concessions. That's one move it could do right now. If organisations aren't willing to fulfil their social and ethical responsibilities to this country, why should the parliament and the Australian people continue to give them lucrative tax breaks? The minister has talked tough on this, but we are yet to see any concrete evidence of how she plans to fix this mess. With only four months to go until the deadline, the clock is ticking. I put the government on high alert that I will be holding it to account at every step of the way.
In the remaining time I have, I would like to raise another terrible issue in my community, around payday lending. One of the most diabolical trends we've seen under this government is the hollowing out of the middle class. There is the Morrison government's abject failure to stem runaway housing prices and put a lid on climbing power bills. It has pushed so many Australians into financial dire straits. Indeed, we know that 2.1 million Australians are now under severe or high financial stress, which makes them highly vulnerable to offers of quick credit through products like payday loans or consumer leases. Then, through excessive fees and charges and interest rates of up to 400 per cent, people can quickly find themselves in an ever-expanding spiral of debt, with nowhere to escape.
The government have legislation before this House. It's legislation that Labor reintroduced to the House. They have refused to vote on it on each occasion. It is unconscionable. It's time to act. (Time expired)
Mr PEARCE (Braddon) (11:18): I appreciate the opportunity to speak in support of Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2019-2020 and cognate bill. Today I want to talk about Tasmania and the fact that Tasmania is now known as the turnaround state. For a long time, we were the nation's cellar-dwellers against almost every economic measure. The latest CommSec State of the states report proves this is no longer the case. In fact, today we have the fastest-growing economy in the nation. Tasmania's revival started in 2013 and 2014 with the election of the coalition government federally and a majority of Liberal governments at the state level. Our state growth has been around 3.3 per cent in the last 12 months and that was the highest rate of growth in almost a decade. On a per capita basis we have the fastest-growing economy in the country, almost double the national average. Importantly, though, our economy is broad-based, with almost every sector growing. Retail trade has grown in 50 consecutive months. Exports are particularly strong. And there's been a positive momentum in our strong economy which has resulted in increases in tourism, business confidence, population growth and infrastructure investment throughout our state.
I congratulate the former Premier of Tasmania Will Hodgman. We will miss Will. He's done a fantastic job, but we look forward to Peter Gutwein's leadership. Although Tasmania only occupies two per cent of the landmass of Australia, it receives nine per cent of the rainfall within Australia. But we also have 25 per cent of Australia's fresh water in storage, and this storage is important to my story today in support of these appropriation bills. Through our Tranche 3 irrigation, our irrigation systems have proved immensely positive for the state's growth. In this time of drought, and as it hits home, access to water is priority No. 1. We in Tasmania, and I as a farmer, recognise that irrigation water is liquid gold for all Tasmanian farmers. Access to water right across our irrigation schemes is allowing farmers to diversify, to value-add and to expand their existing farming operations.
The Hodgman and Morrison governments are jointly investing $170 million into our Pipeline to Prosperity Tranche 3 irrigation system, with the Don, Sassafras and Wesley Vale projects in the electorate of Braddon progressing through the planning and approval processes which will provide liquid gold to our farmers. Feedback has been extremely positive with the Don scheme near Devonport on track for likely approvals early in 2020, with construction likely to start late next year. Local farmers have also expressed interest in exceeding 5,000 megalitres, more than triple the 1,300 meg originally proposed for the Sassafras and Wesley Vale schemes. Our Pipeline to Prosperity is providing farmers in each district with the confidence to invest in growing their businesses even further. It is estimated that, when fully implemented, Tranche 3 irrigation projects could deliver 78,000 megs of water to farmer, create 2½ thousand jobs, and increase annual on-farm production by $114 million.
To date, Tasmanian irrigation has delivered 14 projects under Tranche 1 and Tranche 2, which had the capacity to deliver approximately 100,000 megalitres of highly reliable irrigation water to Tasmanian farmers—liquid gold! And we've put the infrastructure in place to ensure this is captured. The Morrison and Gutwein governments are in lock step with our plan to grow the farmgate value of Tasmania's agricultural sector. (Quorum formed)
I will continue with how irrigation and our liquid gold capture is improving the GDP of Tasmania and pushing it forward to being the industry leader in agriculture throughout the nation. I'm now going to talk about how we're going to get this agricultural produce to market, and that's important.
We're investing in roads too. The Morrison government's $100 billion transport infrastructure investment across Australia is important and moving Australia forward. My constituents, who are driving around Braddon, are not belting along a freeway. We don't spend much time in traffic jams, but this investment and what it will do is to ensure that everyone in my area can get home safely to their loved ones. As an investment in our area, it will also improve travel times and reliability. It will also make our national highway, the Bass Highway, safe for all road users.
The Cooee to Wynyard Planning Study is a great example of how the federal Liberal government keeps its promises in Tasmania, particularly in my electorate of Braddon. We said we'd pay for a study to be undertaken identifying the stress on this highway, and that study's been completed and it's thorough and it will move Tasmania forward, as it will our vehicles along that system.
During the election campaign the Prime Minister visited Braddon on many occasions, and further committed to a $40 million increase in delivering a recommended—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ): I'll interrupt the member for Braddon. The member seeks the call?
Mr Hayes: I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the member for Braddon be no further heard.
The House divided. [11:31]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ) (11:35): The member for Braddon's time has expired. The question before the chair is that the amendment be agreed to.
Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat) (11:35): This is a third-term government with no plan to get our economy moving again. Australians want a leader, not a salesman who goes missing when things get tough. Australians want a government that invests in the infrastructure we need, not a marketing campaign that offers nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Australians want a government that takes managing our economy seriously, that delivers economic leadership and an economic plan, not one which endlessly trumpets a surplus that they might not even deliver.
Over the last week or so we've seen the government pretending that the weakness in the economy is somehow the product of the coronavirus outbreak or the bushfire crisis, but this is a government in their seventh year. Yes, the impact of coronavirus on the economy will be substantial—just how substantial remains to be seen—but the problem Australia is facing is that the economy, on this government's watch, was already weak before the fires and well before coronavirus. The government may pretend that everything was fine until a few months ago, but that simply does not match the facts. If everything was fine before, or if the government had an economic plan, Australia would not have faced a per capita recession, Australians would not face stagnating wage growth and our economy would be better positioned to confront the challenges that are ahead.
Labor have supported the government's efforts to support bushfire affected communities, and we are ready to help deal with the impacts of coronavirus. But, in reality, this is a government that is failing the test that they set for themselves. This is a government which promised a surplus in their first year and every year after that. Instead, this third-term government have delivered six deficits in a row, and they are now clearing the ground for a potential seventh. In September we will find out whether the government's much-trumpeted promise of being 'back in the black' was untrue. But there is no doubt that between now and September we will see the government continue to engage in clumsy expectation management over the budget and that they will try to spin their way out of trouble.
There is no doubt that the government will continue their attempts to shift the blame and to do everything in their power to distract from the weakness that was evident in the economy well before the fires and well before coronavirus. Just yesterday figures were released by the ABS showing that construction was down by three per cent for the December quarter. None of us had heard of the coronavirus in December. You can't blame coronavirus for that fall in the construction figure. It is, frankly, in stark contrast to how Labor in government managed an enormous shock to the global economy during our term in office. The Prime Minister might want Australians to forget that the economy was already floundering on his watch, that growth was slowing, consumption was weak, wages were stagnant, public debt had more than doubled, household debt was at record highs and productivity and business investment were going backwards, but, when the challenges of coronavirus and the fires are gone, the structural problems for the Prime Minister's economic management are still there.
The Prime Minister cannot use the challenge of the fires and coronavirus as an excuse to not address the longstanding challenges in our economy. Action will still be needed to get our economy back on track and to move past the stagnation that has defined the seven years of this government. This ongoing weakness is no surprise to the Prime Minister and his government. They even admitted it to themselves late last year when they belatedly came to the realisation that our nation and our economy are crying out for more investment in infrastructure.
After calls from the Reserve Bank governor, senior economists, industry leaders and state governments the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister finally admitted that they and their government had got it wrong, that the economy did need extra support. After ignoring these calls for months—after denying there was a problem, after saying we were panic-mongering—the government finally faced up to reality and admitted that the economy was weak, and that one of the ways to get it back on track was to bring forward investment in infrastructure.
Unfortunately, as is all too often the case under this government, that plan, when it was released, was less an economic plan for the future and more a political marketing strategy to get them through the next few months. First the government announced they would work with the states to bring forward infrastructure spending, but then they wouldn't tell anyone what some of those projects might be. They were more concerned with the initial headline than they were with the actual program. It was more than three months after the Prime Minister wrote to the states and territories flagging that he was finally open to fast-tracking infrastructure investment that the first fast-tracked projects were finally announced. It was a long delay, but, frankly, under this government that is the norm.
Next the government, in their December Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook update, announced proudly that there would be additional spending in the Infrastructure Investment Program brought forward this year. According to MYEFO this funding was:
… to accelerate critical infrastructure projects across Australia to drive jobs, strengthen the economy and get people home sooner and safer…
Frankly, it is exactly what Labor, the RBA, leading economists and industry groups had been calling for for months: to invest in infrastructure, to inject stimulus into the economy now and to get the economy back on track. But a quick analysis shows that the money in MYEFO was in fact not all there. The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, the minister for infrastructure, were about $50 million short. Their budget update for this year was $50 million short for infrastructure investment. Producing a budget update that is out by tens of millions of dollars quite frankly speaks volumes about the Prime Minister and his capacities on the infrastructure spend in the economy.
To make matters worse, when faced with questions from a journalist, officials from the Deputy Prime Minister's department claimed there was no shortfall, and said funding for government advertising, freight subsidies, management of drones, community projects and external territories form a part of this bringing forward of infrastructure, the Infrastructure Investment Program. In other words, it's actually the usual business of the department. It's not any stimulus; it's what the department usually does. So they were $50 million short. When faced with a floundering economy and a clear guide on how to deal with it, the Prime Minister again came up with something that was really nothing more than a marketing document. This MYEFO update was sold by the government as a plan to play catch-up on infrastructure funding, but the figures used did not actually add up. It is well past time that the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister developed a real plan for infrastructure to actually support jobs, boost productivity and improve road safety. It isn't good enough for Australia to turn around our struggling economy; the government has to actually do better.
Of course over the past week we've seen another prime example of the way in which this government deals with infrastructure funding. I am again talking about the Urban Congestion Fund—or 'road rorts'. Not content with rorting sports grants to benefit themselves politically, the government have also decided to rort infrastructure spending as well. The Urban Congestion Fund was announced in the 2018 budget, a full year before the 2019 election. In the 2018 budget, the Urban Congestion Fund is announced. For that year, the Urban Congestion Fund sat unused—all $3 billion of it. For a whole year—a whole year!—while people were stuck in traffic in communities across the country, this fund sat there.
Apparently for the 2018-19 financial year there was no need to bust congestion. The government in that year saw no need to get people home from work faster, to improve roads and to ensure we could spend more time with our families and less time sitting in traffic for that whole year. For that year, the Morrison government did not bother to release any guidelines for this fund. They did not bother to open expressions of interest. They didn't write to the state governments. They didn't write to motoring groups and ask them what their views were about where congestion was across the country. They didn't ask local members of parliament—although we don't know what they did on that side; they certainly didn't ask any on our side. The member for Moreton very brightly wrote about a congestion project, not in relation to this fund—we all write to ministers outlining problems in our constituencies—and well done to the member for Moreton. But there was nothing, absolutely nothing. Even during that year, they must only have noticed the traffic jams in Liberal seats.
The Urban Congestion Fund was a $3 billion scheme, and 83 per cent of it went to Liberal seats and seats targeted by the coalition at the last election. Seventy per cent of it went to Liberal seats alone. The National Party didn't get a look-in on this one. That's unusual, I would have to say. Of the 160 projects across the country funded under the scheme, 144—more than $2.5 billion worth—went to Liberal and target seats. The Prime Minister made promises in every single urban Liberal seat that was marginal or under threat. More than one-quarter of the $3 billion was funnelled to just four Liberal seats.
Mr Christensen: Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek to make an intervention.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ): Does the member accept?
Ms CATHERINE KING: No. I note the member of the National Party getting up. Were you going to ask, 'Where was our share?' That's what he was going to ask, because the National Party got nothing, which is very unusual for the National Party, given the sort of rorting that's gone on in the regional development space.
Mr Christensen: You talk about rorting—Ballarort!
Ms CATHERINE KING: I ask the member to withdraw the comment that he just made.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member has been asked to withdraw.
Mr Perrett: It's unparliamentary language.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hold on. If the member could rise to his feet to address the chair, thank you.
Mr Christensen: I don't know what I've said that's unparliamentary. Just saying the word 'Ballarort' isn't unparliamentary. I didn't accuse anyone of anything; I just said 'Ballarort'.
Ms CATHERINE KING: I've just asked you to withdraw.
Mr Christensen: No, I'm not going to withdraw.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member assist the House by withdrawing the comment.
Mr Christensen: I'll assist you, Chair, by withdrawing, but not the member.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Perhaps we can continue with the debate. The member for Ballarat has the call.
Ms CATHERINE KING: So absolutely generous of you, Member for Dawson! More than one-quarter of the $3 billion was funnelled to just four Liberal seats: Higgins, Deakin, La Trobe and Boothby. The urban commitments even extended to the regional seats of Corangamite, Robertson, Fisher and Bass, all either held or targeted by the Liberal Party. They are pretty sensitive about this because they know, once the Australian National Audit Office has a look at this program, sports rorts will pale compared to what you've done with this one.
Meanwhile, 23 urban Labor seats and 13 regional city Labor seats missed out absolutely completely. On so many occasions, the relevant state governments or local councils didn't even know that the commitment was being made. Those in non-government seats did get some of the money spent on them; however, it's just that it came in the form of $17 million worth of taxpayer funded advertising telling us how good this program was.
Road congestion in our major cities is set to double over the next decade, but, rather than addressing that with a solid plan consistently looking at where road congestion is across the country, the government has only been guided by what would assist them most electorally. This is a $3 billion program. We talked about $100 million with sports rorts and $150 million with sports rorts 2. This is a $3 billion government program.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member seeks a point of order?
Mr Wallace: Yes. The member is using unparliamentary language. She just made a point about the word 'rorting' and now she's using it herself.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr Wallace: I ask the member to withdraw the unparliamentary language.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I indicate to the member that I asked the previous member to withdraw because it was directed at an individual. It wasn't a general comment. That was the basis on which I asked for the withdrawal. In the general term the member's talking about there's not a breach of the standing orders. I give the call back to the member for Ballarat.
Ms CATHERINE KING: As I said, road congestion in our major cities is actually set to double. We do have a significant problem with congestion in our major capital cities. You would think that when you're going to invest $3 billion worth of money into the Urban Congestion Fund that you'd actually do something about fixing urban congestion across the city, not just in Liberal Party seats. That's the shame and the scandal of what this government has done with this huge rort of a government funded program. This is a huge rort of a government funded program. Before I conclude, I also draw the— (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member's time had expired. Does the member want to stand and do that separately?
Ms Catherine King: Yes.
(Quorum formed)
Mr SIMMONDS (Ryan) (11:53): John Howard described the family as the stabilising and cohering unit of our society. He devoted so much of his government's energy into supporting Australian families to be resilient. His strength in supporting families helped to shape my commitment to serving my area and the families that live within the leafy western suburbs of Brisbane. I spoke about it a fair bit in my maiden speech in this place. I continue to devote much of my time to supporting the over 39,000 families of the Ryan electorate. It is with this in mind that I rise today to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2019-2020 and the related bill, to continue to outline what the government is doing to support hardworking Australian families that are pushing this country forward.
Through the government's sensible, economic management, we are able to give back to those hardworking Australian families. We are working, as a government, together to deliver more jobs. We're backing small business; building infrastructure; lowering energy costs; funding record investments in schools and hospitals; providing for more accessible and affordable child care; greater flexibility when it comes to paid parental leave; and increasing measures to help keep our kids safe online.
As I said, I'd like to take the opportunity to speak about a few of these investments today and the positive impact they are having on Australian families and the families of the Ryan electorate. I mentioned before that Australian families are working incredibly hard, and we want them to be rewarded for that hard work. We want them to keep more of what they earn so that they can set their own spending priorities for their own families. So we're making income taxes lower, fairer and simpler.
From 2018-19, around 4.5 million Australians have been receiving tax relief of $1,080 per year. That is up from $2,160 for a dual-income family. Overall, 10 million taxpayers are benefiting from lower taxes because of this government and its strong economic management. By the time our full tax relief plan is implemented, 94 per cent of taxpayers will pay no more than 30c in the dollar. In my electorate of Ryan, this means that 72,083 taxpayers will benefit from tax relief as a result of this government's enhanced personal income tax plan with 26,102 receiving the full tax offset. Because, unlike Labor, who when they run out of money come after yours, we want to give Australians the chance to keep more of what they earn and set their own spending priorities.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (11:56): I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the member for Ryan be no further heard.
The House divided. [12:01]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Mr SIMMONDS (Ryan) (12:04): No wonder Labor is trying to shut down this debate! First of all, they don't want to hear about how this government is passionately defending Australian families, how we are passionately supporting them, because Labor failed so considerably while in government and in opposition to support Australian families. What they wanted to do to the families of Australia, particularly last May, was burden them with $387 billion worth of new taxes, rather than the tax cuts that I've been talking about that this government has delivered—and they continue to want that.
Their hypocrisy continues to know no bounds, because we had the member for Ballarat stand up just before and criticise the $100 billion pipeline that this government is delivering to get people home to their families sooner and safer. When in government, she presided over what can only be described as a grants rort. When Labor was in government, when she was a minister, she had a grants program where more than a quarter of all projects funded were not actually recommended. As minister she made 34 decisions that diverged from the recommendations of the panel. In fact, it goes further. Despite the hypocrisy of the member for Ballarat's last speech, under her watch, 64 per cent of the 'not recommended' projects that she ended up adopting under ministerial discretion were in Labor-held seats. (Quorum formed) The Morrison government is intent on making sure that we support Australians and Australian families with our strong economic management in a way that Labor could ever hope to do simply because they can't manage money, they can't manage the money of Australians, and when you can't do that then then you can't deliver things like record funding for schools and hospitals— (Time expired)
Ms COKER (Corangamite) (12:14): I rise to speak to these two bills, Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2019-2020 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2019-2020, which seek to appropriate additional funding for the 2019-20 financial year, as reflected in the 2019-20 MYEFO, as well as bushfire related initiatives announced after the 2019-20 MYEFO was handed down. I support the amendment moved by the member for Rankin. As indicated by the shadow Treasurer, the Labor Party will support these appropriation bills because we do not block supply, but let's be clear: this isn't a tick for the government when it comes to their handling of the economy or the budget. After six years of the Liberals and Nationals, the economy is floundering and Australians are struggling, but the Morrison government has no plan to boost wages or grow the economy. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer shouldn't be using the fires and the coronavirus as an excuse for their longstanding failures on the economy. The economy was weak before the fires and before the virus hit. Growth had already slowed since the election and had almost halved since the Prime Minister and the Treasurer took over in 2018. Net debt has more than doubled under the government's watch and gross debt is well over half a trillion dollars—record highs. In 2013, when the government came to office, gross debt was $257 billion; in 2019, it was $542 billion; and it has been over $500 billion since 2017—well over 40 per cent of GDP.
Of course, we recognise the impacts of the bushfires and coronavirus, in terms of physical, psychological and economic impacts, but economic growth and wages growth were downgraded before the impact of the bushfires and the coronavirus outbreak. Almost two million Australians were looking for work or more work before the impact of the bushfires and the coronavirus outbreak. In January this year, the youth unemployment rate rose to 12.1 per cent from 11.6 per cent in December. There are a whopping 270,000 young people unemployed. Wages growth has been stuck at or around record lows for the last few years under the Liberals—around two per cent, on average, in the private sector nationally—and low wages and low growth mean that people and businesses don't spend and the economy loses momentum.
Living costs for families are rising way too fast. Recent data shows that childcare costs have increased by 35 per cent since 2013—around six per cent a year, on average. The much-heralded childcare reforms of 2018 have been neutralised by spiralling fee increases and out-of-pocket medical costs have skyrocketed. In Corangamite, locals pay $36 in out-of-pocket expenses to visit a GP and $59 in addition to the rebate to see a specialist. Thousands of young people are dropping out of private health insurance. That area is in crisis, with no solution in sight. Because of the government's failures, we have to meet the challenges and uncertainties of the bushfires and the coronavirus from a position of weakness, not strength.
Now, let's talk about a few areas of mismanagement, or worse, of this economy. For example, let's look at the government's rorts. Scott Morrison poured over 83 per cent—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Corangamite will refer to members by their correct title.
Ms COKER: My apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Prime Minister poured over 83 per cent of the $3 billion allocated from the Urban Congestion Fund into Liberal seats and seats targeted by the Liberal Party. In the lead-up to the 2019 election, the Prime Minister funnelled 144 of 160 projects into Liberal and targeted seats—more than $2.5 billion. He made promises in every single urban Liberal seat that was marginal or under threat. More than one quarter of the $3 billion was funnelled to just four Liberal seats: Higgins, Deakin, La Trobe and Boothby. This is rorting on a nuclear scale. The Prime Minister has misused public money to promote his political interests. He spends public money to buy elections, not to meet community needs.
Let's talk about vocational education. As we learnt last year from the federal education department's own data, the government have failed to spend almost $1 billion of their TAFE and training budget over the past five years, and all of this underspend is additional to the more than $3 billion already ripped out of the VET system. We've got TAFE campuses falling apart across the country, we've got state governments closing campuses and ending courses, and, all the while, a huge pile of money remains unspent. Employer groups across the country are complaining about skill shortages across almost every sector. The Australian Industry Group states that 75 per cent of employers report an inability to attract skilled workers. Under the coalition, there are almost 140,000 fewer apprentices and trainees than there were in 2013. That means a shortage of workers in critical trades and services.
In my electorate of Corangamite, there are 113, or 7.7 per cent, fewer trainees and apprentices today than there were in 2013. In the Minister for Education's own seat of Wannon, there are 1,044, or around 28 per cent, fewer apprentices or trainees than in 2013. If the coalition government can't train skilled workers, they can't build a skilled economy and they can't build the infrastructure of the future or support emerging new industries. Right now, they are failing miserably.
Let's talk about the NDIS. The NDIS should be a fantastic scheme. It has already helped many people, compared to the fragmented system we had before 2013. But the NDIS is suffering from slow strangulation by a National Disability Insurance Agency aided and abetted by the Morrison government. Last year, to prop up their dodgy budget surplus, the government sucked $1.6 billion out of the expected expenditure of the NDIS. The excuse given was that the demand simply wasn't there—that, if there had been the demand, then the money would have been available. What rubbish! There are hundreds of stories of the NDIA clawing back money from vulnerable participants. Usually the local area coordinator does the right thing and recommends what the medical and allied health experts say is required, but, after the proposal goes up the line to the NDIA, the plan usually comes back with cuts and deletions. Let me quote a constituent of mine, Trevor Ah Hang, of Portarlington, who wrote to me only last week:
I submitted a plan in October 2019.
It returned with significant cuts … The Coordinator submitted an appeal stating that the Transport funding was crucial as my Carer had developed Parkinsons, meaning I couldn't rely on her always being available to take me to appointments.
As for funding for group activities, NDIA had asked for progress reports from all parties engaged in the previous plan. Without exception they stated the progress gained over that year and how it was crucial to continue. So why ask for these details if someone is just going to say "Nuh!" and put a line through an item number with no explanation?
In late November I received a letter from the NDIS stating that they'd received an appeal on my behalf dated October 23, 2019 and informing me that under their guidelines they had three months to address the situation or notify me why they couldn't … that was over four months ago and I've heard NOTHING! No answer, no information, NOTHING. I've contacted them several times and the answer is always "the matter is before a delegate."
I'm at my wits end and have even told my therapist I'd rather be dead than dependant on the NDIS.
Trevor and thousands like him shouldn't have to go through this frustration. The NDIA should listen to the experts. Last December, the Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS, of which I'm a member, put forward some bipartisan and practical recommendations to improve the planning process. The government should adopt them all.
I also want to mention Neil Radley and the 6,000 younger Australians just like him who live in aged-care facilities simply because they have nowhere else to go. Neil came to see me last year here in parliament. Neil is in his 50s and became an quadriplegic a decade ago. He wants to live independently, in his own unit or house in the community. It's a reasonable proposition. The interim report of the royal commission into aged care has shamed the government into making a commitment that no person under 65 who wants to live independently will live in a nursing home beyond 2025. But how will they deliver on this promise? To date, only about 250 of the 6,000 younger people in nursing homes have been approved for disability accommodation. The hurdles and the paperwork make the application process torturous, and Neil admitted to me that he almost gave up. But, having gained SDA approval, Neil now finds that no investor in Bendigo will build disability housing. The NDIA says, 'That's not our problem.' This is how the government is able to say there is no demand and take $1.6 billion away from people with disability. Well, it should be the problem of the NDIA and it should be the problem of this government. They should be intervening and investing directly in disability housing, rather than allowing market failure to deny vulnerable Australians a decent future.
Now let's talk about climate change. Climate change is real. Australians have been able to see it, feel it and smell it all summer. The Prime Minister is unable to act on climate change because he is held hostage by hardline conservatives who think they know better than the world's scientists, and who don't even believe that climate change is real. Mr Morrison has no plan to invigorate the economy by developing—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): The member for Corangamite will refer to members by their correct titles.
Ms COKER: My apologies. The Prime Minister has no plan to invigorate the economy by developing new technologies and new fuels. I note that both Japan and Korea have made hydrogen the centrepiece of their future energy strategies. Australia could develop an export industry to replace fossil fuels, which are quickly becoming redundant. Investment in large-scale renewables has fallen off a cliff since last year—a drop of 60 per cent—because this government keeps attacking renewables and will not provide policy certainty in the investment community. Instead, the Neanderthals within the coalition have given $4 million for a feasibility study into wasteful and expensive coal-fired power at Collinsville.
Only Labor will ensure that by 2050 the amount of pollution we release into the atmosphere will be no greater than the amount we absorb. Labor will not rely on Kyoto carryover credits to achieve this target. Professor Ross Garnaut, an expert on the economics of climate change, in his recent book, Superpower: Australia's low-carbon opportunity, writes:
I have no doubt that intermittent renewables could meet 100% of Australia's electricity requirements by the 2030s, with high degrees of security and reliability, and at wholesale prices much lower than experienced in Australia over the past half dozen years.
Garnaut says that the innovation and momentum released by the adoption of renewable technologies will set our economy up for the next century. New coal-fired power will push up power prices and make businesses less competitive. The electricity industry and investors have been crystal clear: they won't invest in new coal-fired power. Australia's energy future relies in renewable energy, because it's by far the cheapest form of electricity generation, and because it helps in the fight against climate change. A target of net zero emissions by 2050 is supported by everyone. Every major business group, every state and territory government, and other major corporations all support this target—and still the coalition refuses to shift course. The real question is not what it will cost to address climate change but what the cost of inaction is. This is the question the Prime Minister won't answer. The cost of not acting is more important—and we've seen the frequent natural disasters, such as the recent bushfires.
In these appropriation bills, we are paying a premium to rebuild our communities and support Australians affected by these events—events that are induced or exacerbated by climate change. And we'll continue to pay that premium for years to come, unless we act on climate change. The cost of not acting is a decline in global economic output of between 15 and 25 per cent. That's a bigger hit to the global economy than the Great Depression. If we don't meet the obligations of the Paris Agreement, it will cost the Australian economy as much as $2.7 billion to 2050. That's 20 times more than the cost of taking action. The CSIRO says a carbon-neutral Australia by 2050 is one where wages are 35 per cent higher than in a future Australia where we do nothing. This government fiddles while we watch the nation burn. Labor will support these bills, but we give a huge fail to the government on so many aspects of their economic and budget management.
Mrs McINTOSH (Lindsay) (12:23): I'm here to talk about my community—and I hope I get a full 15 minutes before those opposite decide to shut down debate again and waste more of Australian taxpayers' money. I talk about the community spirit in Lindsay, and for good reason. We in this place are here to represent our communities, and work hard to deliver the best possible opportunities. We want to ensure that people can live, work and stay in Lindsay. That's why we are creating local jobs for local people. We don't want people to have to leave our community for jobs or education opportunities. We want the best of the best, right in my community of Lindsay. A big part of that is making sure that people can get around faster and more safely—whether it's getting to work, getting the kids to school or doing the commute home. I am very passionate about ensuring that people don't have to do that long commute to and from work, like I did for 10 years, for a good job. Part of this is around ensuring that we ease congestion on our local roads, because it's such a problem for many local people. Accessing car parks to catch a train or bus and commute to work each day is an issue many people face, and that's why the Morrison government is investing in more commuter car parking at Kingswood Station, north St Marys Station and Emu Plains Station. I'll be working very closely with my colleagues in the New South Wales government to deliver this much-needed infrastructure for our community.
Our biggest investment is the $5.3 billion to fully fund the construction of the Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport and the $3.5 billion for stage 1 of the North South Rail Link, which runs in my electorate of Lindsay from St Marys to the airport and the Badgerys Creek Aerotropolis. During construction of the Western Sydney airport, over 11,300 jobs will be created, and within five years of opening 28,000 full-time jobs will be created. The great part of this is that we already have 50 per cent of employment going to local people, and this includes jobs in construction, transport, logistics, rail, hospitality and professional services. Excitingly, there's a creation of whole new industries around STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—and even a space industry right in Western Sydney. The Sydney Science Park, a $5 billion integrated science, research and residential facility just north of the airport, has recently started construction and is another example of the airport's ability to create great local jobs and deliver and drive our economy in Western Sydney.
Another area I'm very passionate about is the health and wellbeing of people in the electorate of Lindsay. I talk about the Nepean River often because it really is the heart of the city, and even the Prime Minister has enjoyed the Nepean River, rowing there as a young child. The river is an essential part of our community, and it's important that we look after it for future generations. That's why I was proud to announce funding to keep the Nepean River healthy and to assist with removing weeds to ensure that we can all enjoy the Nepean River. It's something that's used by thousands of families weekly, and it's also where our Australian Rowing Team trains to prepare for the Olympic Games. Local organisations, such as Muru Mittigar and the Penrith and Hawkesbury river councils, will be assisting with the important work that's about to take place on the Nepean River so we can continue to enjoy it into the future.
I'm also committed to ensuring that we are driving our local economy and creating local jobs, delivering congestion-busting infrastructure, and delivering programs to ensure that our local people can reengage with the workforce and access the training and personal development they need for education and employment opportunities. It means employment opportunities for all members of our community. In saying this, I would like to acknowledge that Lindsay is home to nearly 6,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and it is important that we encourage our younger generation to access the best education and employment opportunities. That's why we secured funding for the Western Sydney Indigenous jobseekers program. This funding, which goes to Muru Mittigar, will connect local Indigenous students with job providers, and there's a guaranteed 154 job placements. I've often said that our community spirit in Lindsay is overflowing, and, by delivering the funding and infrastructure our local organisations need, we are making sure that our community spirit will continue to thrive. In saying this, the community hall upgrades are an important part of our local community, because this is where many of our community organisations go to deliver important services across the electorate of Lindsay. We've got four of those upgrades happening because of the Morrison government's investment in the community.
Another integral organisation is the Luke Priddis Foundation. This foundation supports children with autism and their families. Earlier this year we announced funding for the Luke Priddis Foundation digital hub to turn the foundation's offices into a hub to assist young people with ASD. We're also delivering funding for Panthers on the Prowl. This funding will be delivered over two years to fund the full suite of prowl programs. The school program will have a significant impact on children and already has helped 250 kids across the community. It is aimed at building self-esteem and social skills, and resilience and leadership, to help improve student engagement and motivation, particularly in children at risk of dropping out of school.
Another fantastic program in our community is the Saint Mary's school lunch program. We've secured funding for the ongoing delivery of this program. I went out and visited Christ Mission Possible. They pack lunches for hundreds of kids each day before they go to school. In talking about the importance of ensuring that children have healthy food before going to school, one of the election commitments I made that I'm so proud of was for the Cranebrook Breakfast Club, that we work together to deliver a new 12-seater van. This breakfast club not only ensures that kids have something good to eat before going to school; it has helped to increase the attendance rates of kids at school—
Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Opposition Whip) (12:30): I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the member for Lindsay be no longer heard.
The House divided. [12:34]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Mr CONROY (Shortland) (12:38): I'm pleased to make a contribution on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2019-2020 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2019-2020. First, I'd like to talk about Medicare, and the centrality of Medicare and bulk-billing to Australia. The health of all Australians must be our No. 1 priority, and the health of my community in Shortland is being threatened by changes to Medicare that came into effect last month. On 1 January this year, the Morrison government cut bulk-billing incentives to doctors in the Hunter region and 13 other regions throughout Australia, making it harder for doctors to bulk-bill, even for those who need it the most. Notices have gone up in many surgeries saying they will no longer be able to bulk-bill, while other surgeries have put up their fees. I've been inundated with calls from people telling me how worried they are, and with good reason. I don't blame the doctors for this. This cut is simply the latest in a long list of cuts to Medicare by Liberal governments.
The electorate of Shortland already has low bulk-billing rates. Fewer than 60 per cent of people are routinely bulk-billed, meaning two in five people in Shortland have to pay every time they see the doctor. Let me repeat that: two in five people in Shortland already have to pay to see the doctor. And, when they do pay, they are $37 on average out of pocket for every visit—an increase of 38 per cent since 2013. That's well in excess of inflation. And for specialist visits it's even worse: fewer than one in five people are routinely bulk-billed to see specialists in Shortland, meaning four out of five people are out of pocket to the tune of, on average, $80 every visit.
This cut to Medicare bulk-billing incentives will only make matters worse. Unfortunately, the lower Hunter combines some of the lowest bulk-billing rates with some of the highest rates of disadvantage in the nation. Windale and Mount Hutton are amongst the most disadvantaged communities in Australia with particularly high levels of children living in poverty. People living in these communities cannot afford to pay to see the doctor. Others who already pay to see the doctor cannot afford to pay more. When people can't afford to go to the doctor, they do one of two things: they either stay at home and put up with whatever is ailing them, making things worse in the long run; or they go to hospital—and we all know how busy and overstretched emergency rooms are. This does not even make economic sense as it costs far more for our health services to treat a very sick person in emergency than to treat a sick person in a doctor's surgery.
We saw evidence to a Senate committee during the GP tax debate which found that, if only one in 50 people who were deterred from seeing a doctor because of the GP tax then presented to the emergency department, the entire savings from the GP tax would be wiped out. I've no doubt that this is what will occur again. People will not go to a doctor, because of the cost increases brought on by this government. They will get sicker and they will have no choice but to present to the ED ward at Belmont Hospital or John Hunter. That will cost the taxpayers of Australia much, much more and it imperils the health of those individuals.
People are raising their concerns with me daily. For example, David from Caves Beach rang my office furious that his GP at Blacksmiths will no longer be bulk-billing him and his wife. The practice will now only bulk-bill people over 70. David is a self-funded retiree who has a health care card. Previously, he and his wife were bulk-billed. It is now going to cost them $65 to visit the doctor, and they go at least three times a month. It will have a huge impact on their budget. It's something those opposite haven't considered, despite all their professed love for self-funded retirees. Gordon rang to say the skin cancer clinic he attends at Belmont will no longer bulk-bill for surgical procedures. He is about to have a procedure for which he was bulk-billed last year, but this year he'll be out of pocket a staggering $250. It's not a major procedure, he says, but it is necessary and it is a lot of money. These are just two of the many examples of hardship.
I've been running a petition for my constituents to sign, and they've been able to provide insightful feedback which clearly identifies the importance of bulk-billing and how much Australians care about universal health care. Peter from Jewells wrote:
If you have an ongoing health problem it becomes a huge problem if you have to go to your doctor and he no longer bulk bills. If you cannot afford to go to your own doctor and you decide to go to the hospital you are told that you should have gone to your own doctor because the hospital is already overloaded.
Joan has a very clear call to the government:
It is bad policy to undermine the public health system in favour of demonstrably far less efficient privatisation of health services. With the current government's policy settings we are heading down the path of the US which has the most inefficient and expensive healthcare system in the world.
Cutting back Medicare for doctors after a decade-long freeze will sound the death knell of public health in this country. Please don't do it.
These are just a few of the hundreds of comments I've received from my constituents who are outraged at the recent changes. I've written three times to the health minister, and I'm asking him again today: please restore the bulk-billing incentives to doctors in the Hunter. The health of our community depends upon it.
This is also a good opportunity to provide an update on community groups I've been catching up with in Shortland. Supporting community groups in my electorate is one of the greatest and most pleasurable parts of my job, and I've been very pleased to have been able to grant more than $423,000 to 31 organisations in Shortland in three recent rounds.
Under round 5 of the Shortland Stronger Communities Program, 14 organisations have shared in $150,000—grants that they will match with their own financial or in-kind contributions. Under the Shortland Communities Environment Program, five groups have shared in $73,000 to continue their environmental work, and I look forward to the program being refined to make it a lot more accessible if the government chooses to continue it. Under the Shortland Local Schools Community Fund, 12 schools have shared in $200,000 to improve the education and wellbeing of their students. The projects are interesting and varied and spread throughout the electorate, from Cardiff in the north to Buff Point in the south.
Stronger Communities funding will allow Macquarie Care to enhance their amenities for homeless people living in their cars at Cardiff. Novacare Community Services will create a wellness centre for older people in Swansea. Northlakes rugby union club will set up a permanent canteen at their home ground, Slade Park, in Budgewoi. San Remo's Men's Shed will install a dust extractor for the safer use of woodworking machines. Novocastrian Swim Club will install an all-weather area for dryland training, socialisation and presentations. Redhead Surf Lifesaving Club will fence off a secure area to store and maintain board and ski trailers. And I thank and congratulate Redhead Surf Lifesaving Club for their recent part in a rescue of a couple of surfers who got into trouble in some rough conditions. Marine Rescue Lake Macquarie will purchase grounds-keeping equipment to maintain their pelican base. Swansea Community Cottage will install clear weatherproof blinds at their ARTea Gallery & Garden so that it can be used in inclement weather. Biddabah and Gwandalan public schools will upgrade their playgrounds. Warners Bay Scout Group will refurbish amenities in their hall. Buff Point Girl Guides will replace flooring in their hall. Charlestown Lions Club will upgrade their catering trailer.
Environmental grants went to three Central Coast Landcare groups for weed eradication: Budgewoi Beach Dune Care, Budgewoi Island Landcare and Gwandalan Landcare. Fern Creek Gully Landcare received funding to enhance the habitat for the threatened squirrel glider at Dudley. Belmont Wetlands State Park will continue its successful dune stabilisation and regeneration on Nine Mile Beach.
Local School Community Fund grants went to Belmont High, which will establish a student wellbeing centre. St Pius X Primary in Windale will create a reconciliation cultural centre, which is incredibly important, given the fact that half the students at that school are Indigenous and it has one of the lowest SES scores in the entire nation. Northlakes High in San Remo will install fitness equipment. Cardiff High and Blacksmiths primary will upgrade technology to their school halls. Windale, Caves Beach and Charlestown East public schools will improve their playgrounds. Dudley and Nords Wharf public schools will install new bubblers and water bottle refilling stations. St Brendan's Catholic Primary School, Lake Munmorah, will develop a play area and sensory garden for students with disabilities. St Francis Xavier Primary, Belmont, will invest in Lego educational robots for computer programming classes. I had a great visit to SFX last week, and I look forward to coming back so the kids can teach me all about these Lego educational robots. Great things are happening in schools and community organisations throughout Shortland, and I'm pleased to be able to support so many local organisations.
In the time remaining, I want to talk about a couple of portfolio issues. As the shadow minister for international development and the Pacific, it's an intense privilege to develop policies to support people throughout this world—because, ultimately, to state the blindingly obvious, we are all humans and we all have an obligation to advance human welfare wherever we find it. That's why it saddens me so deeply to remind the parliament of the $11.8 billion of cuts this government has imposed on our official development assistance budget. This cut not only undermines the soft power of Australia, not only undermines our ability to influence other nations; it costs human lives. I don't say that lightly. These budget cuts kill people. They literally kill people.
We're seeing three things. We're seeing the budget cuts. We're seeing diversion of resources to the Pacific step-up. And the Pacific step-up is a worthy initiative, which we support. We've got some views on how to improve it. We support the Pacific step-up, but it should not result in a step down everywhere else in the world. We're also seeing extreme cuts to health and education assistance, which is, as I said, costing lives. The impact of these cuts from the government—Senate figures came out highlighting this—is a cut in our official development assistance to South-East Asia of 30 per cent; cuts to assistance to South Asia of 42 per cent; cuts to assistance to Africa of 49 per cent; cuts to assistance to Latin America of 85 per cent; and cuts to multilateral organisations of 25 per cent.
This is having an extreme impact. This is hurting people. This is costing lives. And it is actually impacting on national security. For example, by the end of this year we will not provide a cent of bilateral assistance to Pakistan, the centre of Islamic extremism in the world. This is a very short-sighted approach. The cuts are hurting nearer to home. For example, we had a visit by the President of Indonesia a couple of weeks ago. It would have been useful to highlight during his visit that Australia has cut its overseas development assistance to Indonesia in half. The cuts to health assistance for Indonesia were a massive 86 per cent, and there were cuts to education of 57 per cent. These are very, very significant. We've cut assistance to Vietnam in half. This government has cut assistance to the Philippines, Laos and Cambodia by a third. Tragically, we've cut assistance to the poorest country in the entire world, Timor-Leste day, by 10 per cent in the period to 2018.
Ms Templeman: Disgraceful!
Mr CONROY: It is disgraceful, member for Macquarie. It is a damning indictment on this government that its policies are causing so much human misery not just in Australia but throughout the world. Cuts across all educational assistance were 41 per cent and for health were 32 per cent. Even within the Pacific region, a region that this government tries to claim it focuses on, we've seen significant cuts to individual nations. For example, assistance to Vanuatu has been cut by 42 per cent. Assistance to Samoa was cut by 14 per cent. Incredibly, health assistance to Samoa has been cut by 36 per cent. In the aftermath of a tragic and deadly measles epidemic, this government is cutting health assistance to Samoa by 36 per cent. We saw cuts to assistance to Tonga of 10 per cent, Cook Islands of 26 per cent, Tuvalu of 17 per cent, Kiribati of 9½ per cent and Fiji of 5.3 per cent. This is a government intent on destroying the overseas development assistance budget, which is incredibly short-sighted. Not only is it hurting and killing fellow human beings; it is hurting our soft power ability throughout the globe.
Quickly on defence procurement, which is one of my other responsibilities in the opposition: this government continues to preside over a massive mess in defence procurement. Thirty-six projects are running a cumulative 74 years late. That's right: 36 projects have been so mismanaged by this government that they are 74 years late and $10.3 billion over budget. The latest report from Defence has found problems with the Jindalee Operational Radar Network, JORN; deployable defence air traffic management and control systems; and battlefield command systems; MRH90 supply issues; problems with the Hawkeye; problems with the pilot training system; an additional two-year delay to satellites; a 3½ year delay to commando special operations vehicles; and a 1½ year delay to the Hercules upgrade. Thirty-six projects delayed 74 years with a budget blow-out of $10 billion. This means that our troops in the ADF aren't getting the equipment they need when they need it. It's a damning indictment of this government.
In conclusion, I'll be focused with my Labor colleagues throughout this year on holding this government to account and to fight for the best outcome for all Australians. I'll be particularly focused on fighting for outcomes in Shortland, a beautiful place to live. It's an area that continues to struggle under budget cuts from Commonwealth and state governments. I commend this bill to the House.
Mr THOMPSON (Herbert) (12:53): All forms of violence against women and their children are unacceptable in any community and in any culture. All levels of government, plus business, service providers and the community, must commit to continuous action and investment to stop violence before it starts, and to support women and children where and when they need it. Ending violence against women and their children starts with promoting equality between men and women and respect for all. There is no single cause of violence against women and their children; however, gender inequality sets the stage for such violence to occur. The fourth action plan will continue to address this issue through prevention, early intervention and response, including working with those who use violence to stop.
The rates of violence against women are highly concerning. One woman is killed every nine days by a current or former partner. Rates of sexual violence increased by eight per cent across Australia between 2016 and 2017. Complex violence, such as forced marriage and abuse, continues to emerge. Such experiences can be influenced by cultural beliefs and traditions, immigration and settlement in a new country and, in some contexts, religious and cultural values. Among other factors, these crimes need to be addressed and tackled head-on.
Prevention is the most effective way to eliminate violence against women and their children and is at the core of the fourth action plan. Primary prevention means stopping violence before it occurs. It means changing attitudes, behaviours and accepted standards that excuse, justify or even encourage violence against women and their children. Primary prevention activities are for the whole community, not just for those who've been impacted by violence.
Women of all backgrounds can experience domestic and family sexual violence. No two women's experience of violence are the same. The experiences of victims and survivors can help us understand what works for them. One in three women has experienced some kind of physical violence in their lifetime—that is from the Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012. One in six adult women has experienced physical or sexual violence by a current or former partner—that compares to one in 19 men. One in four women has experienced emotional abuse by a current or former partner. Australian women are most likely to experience violence in their home at the hands of a male current or ex-partner. Thirty-six per cent of women have experienced physical or sexual abuse from someone they know. Fifteen per cent have experienced violence from an ex-partner. And for 62 per cent of the women who've had experience of physical assault by a male perpetrator, the most recent incident was in their home. Once again, that was from the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Domestic violence is a vastly underreported crime. Of women who've experienced violence from their current or former partner, 39 per cent have never sought advice or support and 80 per cent have never contacted the police. Of women who've experienced violence by their ex-partner, 73 per cent experienced more than one incident of violence and over half had children in their care when the violence occurred. Eighty-nine women were killed by their current or former partner between 2008 and 2010. This equates to nearly one woman every week.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women, children and communities continue to experience high rates of violence. We must be clear that family violence is not a part of Australian culture or Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture. Culture and family are central, key protective factors that support Indigenous families to be free of violence. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women must be supported to make choices that will protect and promote their own and their family's long-term safety if they break the cycle of trauma and violence.
The fourth action plan recognises that preventing and responding to family violence starts by recognising individual family and community strengths. Solutions to address violence must effectively engage and equip Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women in decision-making processes. Service providers and governments must work with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and with the community controlled organisations to develop solutions that are culturally appropriate, trauma informed, holistic and can lead to healing for families and communities.
In Townsville—from the DV stats from the Queensland Police Service—the number of domestic violence breaches in 2019 was 466. The number of domestic violence breaches in January 2020 was 45. These are only the incidents that are caught by police. In reality, so many more cases would go completely undetected.
I think this is so much more important than just reading from a piece of paper. As a father with a daughter—and I have another daughter on the way in April—this sickens me to my stomach that these numbers and these stats are so high. I would not know how to control my emotions if something so horrible ever happened to my family.
I want to take this time to acknowledge Terri Butler, the member for Griffith, for what she said last night at the candlelight vigil and the support that I know that she has given to the family of Hannah and the three children who were murdered by someone the kids called 'Dad', by a violent former partner, which is nothing but unacceptable, disgusting and disgraceful and needs to be condemned not just by people in this place but everywhere in Australia. But we must do more. We always can do more in putting supports in place for people who have experienced domestic violence. We just must work together. This is never a time to throw mud at each other, because as a nation we are mourning and weeping over the loss of Hannah and her three children. This isn't a political thing. This is a gross blight on our community which is called domestic violence.
In Townsville a lady was recently stabbed by her brother and she died. These aren't isolated incidents. These are things that have happened throughout the country. With the national plan and working with people on the other side, the crossbench, the other place and states and territories, we must—we have to—link arms and work together. There is no number that is acceptable for domestic violence. No number is acceptable. Being a father really hammers this home. I look around and I see such strong women leaders in this place who give my daughter role models to look up to—regardless of where you sit, on either side. I know, and I speak for my colleagues and for the other side, that we will and must work together.
We have zero tolerance for domestic, family and sexual violence, which is why there is $340 million committed into the fourth action plan. But money is only as good as the service it provides. Whilst there is record funding provided, it is only as good as the services on the ground. The fourth action plan includes practical actions: primary prevention is key intervention; supporting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and their children; respecting, listening and responding to the diverse lived experience and knowledge of women and their children who are affected by violence; responding to sexual violence and sexual harassment; and improving support and services system responses.
On 25 November last year, the National Implementation Plan was launched. The National Implementation Plan sets out how we will work to address national priorities of the fourth action plan and outlines the approach for monitoring and reporting on implementation. The implementation plan can be found at www.plan4womenssafety.dss.gov.au, and I think everyone here will and should be looking at and talking about it in their communities. Like I've said, like people opposite have said, there is no acceptable number.
But this can't be just talk. Talk with no action is just a waste of oxygen. We need to be working together, working with people who have lived experience—from rural and remote communities to people who live in the cities. I know that I'll be talking to the leaders in my community, especially in the built-up areas that have Indigenous peoples like Palm Island, to see what works for them. This isn't one size fits all; this needs to be tailored to different people's communities, but there must always be the same sentiment that there is no acceptable number for domestic violence.
Last night at the candlelight vigil—I can't even describe the emotions we all had, but I never want to do it again. I never want to stand at another candlelight vigil for people who have died, who have been killed through domestic violence. I do not want to stand at a candlelight vigil and hear that children called this—I'm not allowed to swear in here—disgusting human 'dad', hear that he could do such a despicable thing. And Hannah left him, as we heard last night. She had left to seek help, to seek refuge. She was brave, she was strong. So for this to still happen makes everyone sick to the stomach. I encourage anyone who watches this—if you're in this position, if you are suffering domestic violence—to please get help. Please speak to the police, speak to your friends, speak your family, speak to everyone, because this just is not acceptable anywhere in the world. There's not much more I can really say on it. It just really kicks you in the guts. I didn't know Hannah or her three kids, but it has affected the whole nation. We need to be doing more. Thank you.
Ms O'NEIL (Hotham) (13:06): I just want to say a grateful thanks to the previous speaker, the member for Herbert, for that contribution on this critically important matter. Sometimes when things go sour in this chamber—one of the things I find really upsetting is when people start pointing fingers and saying that one side of politics cares about a problem like domestic violence more than the other. I could really hear the emotion in the member for Herbert's voice. We share that emotion, and it's really important that we use this as a moment of change for this conversation. Hannah Clarke's murder absolutely captured the attention of the country, and that's an important thing. Women like Hannah are killed every week in Australia and we need to do better. And there are things we can do. Isn't it frustrating: there are things we can fix about this problem, and we have the power to do it, so I really do hope that there's a big change.
It's also great to hear that strength of resolve about these issues coming from men. Of course, men have always spoken out about this, but it's really critical because we have to make it clear that men can't behave this way. Men are really important carriers of that message, and we see that through some of the great work being done by White Ribbon ambassadors. I also want to thank the member for Herbert for acknowledging the member for Griffith, who I know has had a really important role representing her community in this discussion.
I'll turn now to Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2019-2020 that is before the House at the moment. It comes at a pretty critical time for the country. This summer has been a very difficult one for many Australians. The country has been burning. Since we finished sitting last December, we've had catastrophic fires which have destroyed hundreds of homes. Thirty-three people died and a billion animals perished in the flames around the country. We've had forests and ecologies destroyed that will never grow back and support the animals that they did before. And it has not just been the fires, of course. We've had floods. We've had torrential rains. We've had this horrible smoke haze that has come over some of the major cities. It certainly affected the city of Melbourne, where I come from.
For the first time we've had literally millions of Australians experience the beginnings of what inaction on climate change is going to look like. Now, it's really critical for us to understand that the sorts of things that happened over the summer are occurring when we've had a single degree of global warming caused by humans. What we are looking at, unless we take very significant action, is three to four degrees of global warming—some scientists are now saying we're looking at five degrees of global warming—by 2100. Every piece of expert evidence we have tells us that in that environment we are going to be seeing catastrophes happen all over the world—countries will literally be experiencing inundation constantly; potentially hundreds of millions of people in our region will literally be displaced by climate change and its impacts.
I've spent a lot of time talking to my community about this problem since we left here in December, and the consistent message that I'm getting from almost everyone I speak to is this: something has to change. We just cannot go on like this. We cannot go on like this with all the extraordinary damage that can be done to our beautiful country and not take the proper response so that we can go to these global forms around the world, which have the power to actually reshape this problem, and make a credible argument that more needs to be done.
So we've returned here for the New Year and Labor has done the responsible thing: we've made the commitment to get to zero net emissions by 2050. The reaction to this tells me one thing: it is a confirmation of how completely broken climate politics is in this country. This is not a radical proposal; this is not anywhere near a radical proposal; in fact, it is a no-brainer of Australian public policy. Yet we have hysteria, we have craziness, coming at us from the other side of the chamber.
I'm going to talk about some of the reasons why this is such an important thing for the country. To start with, if we go no further on this debate at all, every state in Australia has signed up to zero net emissions by 2050. How can this be a stupid thing for us to do if every state in Australia has already signed up to it?
An opposition member interjecting—
Ms O'NEIL: My friend here says, 'Including liberal governments.' I want to go back to when Gladys Berejiklian committed to the state of New South Wales getting to zero net emissions. Do you know what the Prime Minister said to her? He said: 'Good job. Well done, Gladys Berejiklian.' And then when we say it it's 'stupid, ridiculous, crazy'. I want to ask those on the other side of the chamber to make their flagrant politicking and fear-mongering just a tiny bit plausible—please, just for the enjoyment of the fight!—because it's just so ridiculous. We got Scotty from marketing over there spinning this as some kind of revolutionary move. It is actually completely and positively mainstream—
Mr Tim Wilson: Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: the member should refer to members by their title.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr McVeigh ): I thank the member for Goldstein. The member for Hotham will keep that in mind.
Ms O'NEIL: No problem, Mr Deputy Speaker. The announcement Labor made a couple of weeks ago is completely and positively mainstream. In fact, 73 countries in the world have already agreed to it. We know that if we are going to meet our Paris targets, as the government insistently claims that it will do—and we know it will probably fail to do—it will require us to hit net zero emissions by 2050. We've got the biggest employing companies right across the country essentially falling over themselves to come forward with their plans for how they're going to reach zero net emissions by 2050. Today Rio Tinto, a very large emitter, has said they are going to hit zero net emissions by 2050. Yet those opposite, who are supposed to be showing leadership and running the country, are telling us that this is implausible and silly. Rio Tinto have told us that, to get to zero net emissions by 2050, they are going to spend $1.5 billion investing in making that change. Do you know what that means? It means thousands and thousands of jobs for Australians.
I think people are sick of being terrified in this discussion. The continental drift that is being created by the lack of policy leadership on the other side of the House is leaving people feeling that the government has lost control of how to manage this problem. What I want to talk to you about today is the action we can take and the huge economic opportunities that will come if we face the reality of this problem, like 73 other countries around the world have done, and actually plan for how we are going to transition our economy to net zero emissions.
If there is one thing I really want people to shift in their thinking about how we are talking about this issue in Australia today it's this: so much of the debate we have about climate change in this country pits the concept of economic growth, of jobs, against climate action. It tells us we're going to have to pay more if we take climate action. These conflicts are fictional; they really are. What we know from the best research that is being done on this is that if we make a plan, and if we make the transition well, we are going to have cheaper power, more jobs and faster growth if we take climate action.
So the first thing I want to talk about is climate action and jobs, because there is massive potential for us to employ thousands and thousands of Australians in new industries that will emerge or grow because we have a plan to take climate action. The Business Council of Australia—generally no friends of the Labor Party—have also made a commitment to net zero emissions by 2050 because they know that this is good for the economy and good for jobs but that we're only going to get those good outcomes if we have a clear aspiration and target and we have a plan to achieve it. The BCA have calculated that moving to net zero emissions by 2050 will unleash $22 billion of investment in Australia each year. When we hear those words 'investment in Australia', that equals jobs; it equals jobs and it equals future growth.
The CSIRO has also estimated that, if we continue on our current path, our GDP out to 2060 will grow by 2.1 per cent annually, but, if we target net zero emissions by 2050, we will grow, on average, by 2.75 per cent and wages growth will be higher. So for anyone out there who's having this conflict about, 'We've got to choose between a growing economy and climate action,' I want you to understand this: climate action means growth and it means jobs.
One of the issues that I think the coalition is having with coming to terms with this concept is that their counterfactual for what happens in a world where we don't have a plan to 2050 is that nothing changes. That is not going to happen. Change is inevitable, and it's not just being created by climate action. The workforce is going to change a lot between now and 2050. In 2050, I will be 70; I will be transitioning out of work—that is how far away we are talking here. Think about how different our economy, our workplaces and our working lives looked in 1990. A similar mode of transition is going to happen. The question for us in this chamber is: are we going to try to shape that in any way? Are we going to try to make sure that we get benefits as our economy transitions, or are we just going to stick our heads in the sand and pretend that, if we don't take action on climate change, nothing about our workplaces is going to change? It's wrong. It's a fiction. And I reckon any Australian that you talk to will tell you the same.
Deputy Speaker, I want to talk to you about one example of this, and this is very relevant to the debate about the thermal coal mining sector. There was a period of time in this country where, at its peak, thermal coal mining employed 200,000 people in its workforce. Today it employs 40,000 people. That's not because of the Labor Party. It's not because of any political party. It's not because of climate change and climate action. It's because of automation. These things are going to continue to happen. They are going to continue to change. And you've got two options here: a political party that wants to pretend that that's not really happening, to put its head in the sand and say, 'Oh no, if we just ignore climate change then nothing's going to change for the way that we work in this country,' or a political party that accepts the absolute reality of what is going on here—that things are going to look very different in 2050 and there's no way for us to pretend that we can completely stop change. We've got a choice: to shape it, or to ignore it and to pay the costs. We want to do the responsible thing and that is: to show leadership and make sure that we get the great benefits out of this change.
When we think about how we are going to do that, I can tell you that we have one guiding concern about how we deal with our climate policies, and that is: how we are going to deal with the employment and work outcomes of this. My political party was founded on work. That is what we do. We create and help Australians prepare for dignified jobs that support their families. So when we look at this climate change discussion, we're going to have a choice for Australians. They can go for this party over here—the party of Work Choices, who like to somehow pretend they've discovered credentials with working Australians—or a political party that's existed for 125 years for that express purpose. We are incredibly concerned about how we make sure we make that transition in a way that grows jobs.
The Labor leader gave a great speech on this very subject last year in Perth, talking about climate and the future of work. One of the things that he talked about was the explosion of opportunities that we are actually going to see in the resources sector should we make a proper plan to transition to a better climate future. One of the reasons for that is that we have such a huge endowment of rare earth metals here in Australia, and if we are planning properly for this future—if we've got a government that's willing to get the policy settings right—then we can see an explosion of jobs in this very sector. According to Northern Minerals, a rare earth mine can employ approximately 100 people. But if we think about how we can generate full industries that support these mines, then up to a million jobs can be created in this sector alone.
We've got some of the greatest reserves in the world of iron and titanium, the second greatest reserves of copper and lithium, and the third greatest deposits of silver. These are minerals that will fuel the clean energy economies of the 21st century. So there's a huge opportunity for us here, and it's one that we're not going to capture if we pretend that climate change isn't really happening.
Hydrogen is another one that is pretty obvious. Experts tell us that achieving 50 per cent renewable energy at home, while building a hydrogen export industry, could create 87,000 good well-paid jobs. So there is a great future here for resources, in particular. And that's just one example. We could go through a great deal of the sectors in our economy and talk about how climate is not about costing jobs here; it's about seeing the huge opportunities that we Australians have to capture, but we're only going to get there if we've got a plan.
One of the other issues here is the question about power prices. I keep reading these surveys that are done on Australians talking about, 'Do you agree that you need to take climate action?' and 'Do you agree that you will continue to do that if your power bills go up?' This conflict is a fiction. In fact, when the government was first elected almost seven years ago now, the climate change deniers over there tried to get a report on renewables up saying that renewables would drive up the cost of power, and they got Dick Warburton to do that report— (Time expired)
Mr STEVENS (Sturt) (13:21): Thank you for the interest that's been shown in the appropriations bill and, in particular, in its impact on the eastern and north-eastern suburbs of Adelaide, my electorate of Sturt.
Mr Brian Mitchell: We don't block them like you!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr McVeigh ): Order! The member for Sturt has the call.
Mr STEVENS: I'd like to start by addressing some of the principles and some of the rubbish that's been spread about the Urban Congestion Fund by those opposite, particularly in the South Australian context. I intend to talk about some of the very important investments that are going to be undertaken in my electorate of Sturt and across the state of South Australia.
I first want to say I've actually got a unique perspective on the Urban Congestion Fund, because, when the work was commenced on identifying these projects, I worked in the South Australian state government for the Premier. So I'm very aware of the way in which the decisions were made in my state of South Australia as to what projects we'd be choosing and funding as part of this program. So just to be clear, the first thing that occurred was the South Australian state government was approached by the federal government saying: 'What are your priorities as a state government to address urban congestion in the metropolitan Adelaide area? What is the view of the department of the experts—of the engineers, of the people that do the modelling—about where the choke points are across metropolitan Adelaide that you would like Commonwealth government funding support to address, so we can have an outcome that's going to see people getting to work and home to their families quicker and safer?' Those were the simple principles that were put to the state government—nothing more. Not 'But only in these electorates,' or 'Not in this area,' or 'Make sure this one's on the list.' It was a simple query as to what was the view of the bureaucracy and the experts, because of studies that were done, informed by engineering et cetera, as to what projects should be selected. The South Australian government asked their department to undertake this body of work. That was done, and a list came back. That list was put from the state government to the federal government. That's how we landed upon the important projects that we're investing in in South Australia through the Urban Congestion Fund. And those, of course, are across metropolitan Adelaide, and they're based on need and they're based on achieving an outcome, achieving productivity gain. I'm lucky enough that three of them are in my electorate.
The first one I want to reflect on is probably the most significant one in my electorate because it's right in the middle of my seat, the Magill and Portrush Roads intersection, where we're spending nearly $100. It's not just an intersection by the way; Portrush Road is part of Highway 1. This is the main artery of our country and our economy, and it carries an enormous amount of freight. It also carries a lot of commuters, of course. It's a very important intersection. It's one that was modelled as being the most congested in metropolitan Adelaide. That's why we chose it and are funding it.
The department, the experts, have said: 'You've got 65,000 vehicles moving through there every day. You've got an enormous amount of heavy freight.' Portrush Road, Highway 1, takes freight from the south-east of the state, and even from Western Victoria, through to Port Adelaide and up into the northern suburbs area. It's the designated freight route through metropolitan Adelaide. We've got schools along that route. We've got pedestrians and bike riders, all the way up to major B-doubles carrying stock, heavy machinery, produce and product et cetera along that corridor. It's vitally important that we take every opportunity when we're making these investment decisions on infrastructure to do projects exactly like this, because they lead to an outcome that's not only improving the economic productivity of our country, our state and my electorate but also providing safety and efficiency from a commuter point of view. This is a $98 million project that's jointly funded, fifty-fifty, because it's Highway 1—that's the way the funding mix tends to be between Commonwealth and state. We're going to see a transformation of that bottleneck in the middle of my electorate. We're going to see extra right-hand turn lanes, extra left-turn slip lanes and more through lanes for Portrush Road in each direction. We're really going to transform this from one of the worst bottlenecks in my electorate to something that's free-flowing, smooth and an excellent outcome for the people of my electorate. I'm very happy and grateful about that.
I'm also really grateful that the Labor Party's position is that they don't support projects like this. They're against it, which is welcome. I look forward to prosecuting at the next election, when this is open and everyone is achieving the benefits of this project and many others, that, if it were up to Labor, it never would have happened—this and many other projects in my electorate and so many other electorates not just in South Australia but across the country. It's a very odd political decision to make, but, I mean, they are in opposition. It's all making sense to me how they've been there for so very, very long. They're criticising and attacking significant infrastructure investments throughout this country that are going to provide great outcomes to the communities and economies in which they are benefiting. I welcome Labor's opposition to that.
I also welcome their opposition to the Fullarton Road crossroad intersection at the bottom of my electorate, bordering the member for Boothby's electorate. There are going to be so many commuters in her electorate who can't wait to see the great outcome from that intersection being upgraded. It's going to make it so much easier for people to get to and from their place of work, take the kids to sport, get home more quickly and have more time with their families at home or wherever they're undertaking their leisure. That's another great investment being made by this government, and, of course, one that's being opposed by those opposite. I look forward to prosecuting the fact that they don't want to see these sorts of things occurring when we go to the polls in a few years time. I'm going to be very excited about prosecuting that outcome. I know that the families and businesses in those areas in my electorate, the member for Boothby's electorate and the electorate of Adelaide, which is one that you hold—but you don't support spending money in one of your electorates. Good on you! Well done! We're looking forward to prosecuting that outcome.
The third significant one is the intersection of Glen Osmond Road and Fullarton Road, which is near the one I just spoke of, which, again, is on the border of my electorate and the seat of Adelaide. It's another project they don't support, evidently, which is going to bring a great outcome to my constituents and the constituents of the member for Adelaide. It's one that, again, the Labor Party thinks is not worth the money that we're investing. I say: 'Good. You're welcome to that position. It gives me comfort that that's your position. I'm glad that you don't support investing in my electorate or the electorates of other members represented in this parliament.' But I think you're going to get a pretty rude surprise from the people of the eastern suburbs of Adelaide when you take that proposition to the next election. You don't like seeing money invested in their local community. You don't like seeing the kinds of outcomes that we're going to achieve, particularly the safety outcomes. I've got seven junior schools along Portrush Road corridor in my electorate, which, obviously, have children coming and going in highly dangerous circumstances at times because of all this heavy freight cramming down that tightened thoroughfare all the time. We're going to fix it, and you're against that. Thank you for making that a fairly straightforward proposition for me to prosecute going into the next election.
This appropriation bill includes some other important projects in my electorate—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
New South Wales: Bushfires
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (13:30): When he announced small business assistance for fire-affected areas in early January, the Prime Minister said it would make it easier for people who have suffered direct fire damage or have been indirectly economically impacted to get back on their feet. Well, for too many small businesses in the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury it's not working out that way, and for some it is a time of desperation, with visitor numbers still a long way down and the bills a long way up. One business that was fire-affected has been successful, but they've endured weeks of uncertainty after initially being told they were not eligible. The fire burnt their property before Christmas, and here it is, more than two months on, and they're just getting some assistance now.
The experience of Megalong Valley businesswoman Glenda Lane is much more typical of the frustrating and distressing situation that people are facing. The Megalong Valley was threatened with fire for weeks on end. It was thanks to an amazing effort that no homes were lost, but properties and buildings were impacted, and business just dropped off completely. But Glenda and others like her are being told they're not entitled to grants or to any other support. Their only possible option is a loan, and the process for applying for that is another roller-coaster in itself. Remember, this is being asked of people who've been through the fear and threat of fire—for some, the fear, when they left their property as fire approached, that their property would be gone, that animals would be dead, and even that family members or neighbours might be gone.
These are people who were trapped by drought but not drought-declared; trapped by fire but their properties were not burnt to the ground. They need more. (Time expired)
Barrett, Mr Cale
Mr PEARCE (Braddon) (13:31): Congratulations to 23-year-old Penguin local Cale Barrett who took out the 2020 Oceania Snooker Championship on Sunday. It was Cale's first-ever victory in an open snooker event, and this breakthrough win has given him the option to compete in the World Snooker Tour in the next two years. Cale's snooker apprenticeship started many years earlier. His dad, Garth, attributes Cale's success to a misspent youth at The Penguin, the local pub which Garth used to operate. Cale was always keen to challenge local patrons whenever he could, and the result was an ever-growing pot of gold coins sitting at the end of the bar with Cale's name on it. Cale was first selected in the senior eight-ball team at age 13 and was the first person to simultaneously hold Australian junior titles in both snooker and eight ball. Cale is an outstanding role model for any young kid who is chasing their dream, whatever it may be: he trains hard, and, most importantly, he's persistent. Congratulations again, Cale. You're a good young fella. The snooker world is at your feet, and I wish you all the very best in whatever the future holds for you.
Wanneroo Giants Baseball Club
Dr ALY (Cowan) (13:33): I think it's pretty well known that I can't bat, I can't pitch, I can't throw and I can't catch. But I can cheer. And I will be cheering on the Wanneroo Giants women's team—which I sponsor—located at the Wanneroo Giants Baseball Club, the home of baseball in the north, at the Kingsway sporting complex. The club held a ladies day on 2 February, which I was unable to attend, so I caught up with the ladies team on Sunday, and they gave me my very own jersey: look, it's No. 1! I'm very excited about it. I'll be sure to wear my jersey the next time I throw the first pitch of the season—and maybe this time the ball won't bounce. I'm very excited about the Roo Girls, as they're referred to. They played a great game on Saturday, as they do each time they're out there on the diamond, with their enthusiasm, their passion and, of course, their sporting prowess. I want to give a shout-out to Greg Elliott, the president of the Giants, and to Dazza Riley, vice-president and life member, for their dedication and especially for their work in promoting the women's team. Player numbers at the club continue to grow, and the Giants are always snapped up to play for the Perth heat in the Australian Baseball League, as well as for the US league. One of the well-known names is Liam Hendricks, whose nickname is 'Slider' and who plays for the Oakland Athletics team in the US. And from the women's team: Makayla George and Caitlyn Eynon, good on you!
Lands Acquisition Act
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (13:34): I've spoken in this place many times about the injustice that sits within the Commonwealth Lands Acquisition Act and the compulsory acquisition orders that go with that. I've had a number of purchases on my patch that have come about as a requirement of Defence wanting to expand operations. I have backed all along Defence and the national right to do this, but I can tell you that the current act treats the landholders worse than rubbish. It is an appalling system. It can typically take up to 20 years to settle the claims that go with that.
I've been calling for a review into this area for some time. I'd like to thank the minister, Mathias Cormann, for granting that review. It is underway at the moment. I have been contacting those people who have been severely disadvantaged and affected by this compulsory acquisition act as it stands to make sure they get their contributions in. I have certainly put mine in. I've written a paper suggesting what I believe the new regulations should look like in this space. I call on anyone else in Australia who has been the subject of the Commonwealth Lands Acquisition Act to make sure they get their submissions in at this time and have their say.
Morrison Government
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (13:36): Coming from a classroom to parliament wasn't much of a change for me as sitting in this House is often like sitting in a year 9 English class. There are some similar characters. Obviously, the cool kids sit up the back. There are the kids who came up with few friends—and they sit with the other kids on the crossbench. And then we've got the kids who think they're cool—g'day to the Nats and their Akubras in the corner! There's the kid who does the bare minimum; he blame-shifts and thinks that, the louder he yells, the more his point comes across; but really he just annoys everyone. He sits at the dispatch box—he's the Prime Minister! As it happens he is also the kid who went on an overseas holiday during a critical assignment—just to get the cheap flights! And then there's the one kid who would probably gloat on the Monday 'Miss, I've already done the project; it's all good, Miss' and then on Friday, despite all the big promises, fails to deliver and we get all the childish excuses—'Miss, my homework got burnt in the bushfires', 'Miss, my homework's got coronavirus'. He'd be the Treasurer! To the Treasurer: growth is down, wages are flat, underemployment is at a record high and net debt has doubled. And now your surplus that never was looks gone. Your report card reads 'must do better'. Promise less, Treasurer, and deliver more.
Sydney Mardi Gras 2020
Mr SHARMA (Wentworth) (13:37): I want to wish everyone well who will be participating in the 2020 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras this Saturday night. Millions will be watching on TV and literally thousands will be lining the streets. Mardi Gras is an important celebration of gay and lesbian culture, and a symbol of the vibrancy which adds so much to Sydney's diversity. Since the first parade, in 1978, Mardi Gras has grown to the world leading festival that it is today, bringing thousands of tourists and spectators from across Australia and across the world to Sydney and its eastern suburbs. The march makes its way up Oxford Street from Hyde Park, through Taylor Square and onto Flinders Street, and finishes in Moore Park. It's an enormous celebration that has become a key part of the Sydney calendar. I congratulate those who work so hard to make sure Mardi Gras is a success each year—in particular, Albert Kruger, the chief executive officer; Kate Wickett, the co-chair of the board; and the rest of the organisers. I also want to congratulate all those who worked so hard on the successful bid for Sydney to host World Pride in 2023. I'll be marching proudly in the parade on Saturday night, as the local MP, for the second part of the march. Happy Mardi Gras!
Racism
Lyons Electorate: Community Events
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (13:39): For the past few weeks a house in my electorate has been flying banners from its windows sporting the Nazi swastika. Neighbours are understandably outraged and have called on the landlord, the Tasmanian Department of Housing, to take action. The Tasmanian Premier, too, has expressed his outrage. And I join them all. Unfortunately, it seems the department has no powers to act. I don't know whether the person flying this material is evil, deranged, ignorant or some combination of them all. No matter the motivation, there is no place for the Nazi swastika in Australia.
I want to state my support for the Tasmanian government taking strong action against this tenant in order to get this symbol of hatred and division removed from our community. There is no room in this country for it. The head of ASIO, Mike Burgess, warns us that far Right threats are on the rise in Australia. We ignore this evil ideology and all it stands for at our peril. Nazis are enemies of democracy and enemies of our nation, and they must be dealt with swiftly and with resolve.
On a more positive note, I'd just like to congratulate the Westerway Primary School, which this Saturday will celebrate its centenary with a big fair day. It's free to attend. It runs from 10 am to 3 pm. Many thanks to Zelda Browning, Andrea Long, Wendy Holdsworth, Rob Clark and everyone else involved in putting on what will be a fantastic day in the valley. Saturday also sees the official opening of the 2020 Junior State Surf Life Saving Championships at Carlton Beach. No matter where you are in Tasmania on Saturday, it will be terrific.
Bonner Electorate: Australian Academy of Martial Arts
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (13:40): I would like to congratulate the Australian Academy of Martial Arts on the official opening of their new training facility, or dojo, in Mount Gravatt last week. As AAMA continued to grow, the need for a few dojo became apparent, when they approached me about community grants. I was more than happy to help. I was very pleased to be able to support this upgrade with a $185,000 Morrison government grant to help the club continue its 47-year legacy in the Mount Gravatt community.
At the official opening, I met with AAMA founder, Shihan Graham Keller, who provided us with a special martial arts demonstration. With a 47-year legacy in the region, it's so important that we support our local sporting clubs to help them remain a part of their community for years to come.
The funding contribution from our government not only helped build this fantastic new dojo; it also means the volunteer operated club will be able to continue offering affordable karate tuition fees for families. Martial arts is a great inclusive sport for women, children and families. Teaching philosophies such as courtesy, self-discipline, self-defence and fitness, I'm glad the Morrison government is helping AAMA continue its teachings in the community for all ages and abilities.
I also would like to acknowledge the state government and the Brisbane City Council for their contribution to complete this project. An inclusive community is a happy community.
Mayo Electorate: Telecommunications
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (13:42): Poorly maintained copper services are a regular complaint in Mayo. High rainfall erodes ageing infrastructure, and, in many places, the bushfires has destroyed it.
I'm concerned that the copper network damaged in the recent fires in my electorate will not be repaired to the standard we can expect from the $297 million subsidy paid to Telstra to deliver landline services. I have constituents who had landlines damaged in the 2015 Sampson Flat fire who were still waiting for permanent repairs as recently as October last year. This cannot be repeated. We understand fire damage takes time to repair, but to have no landline service and poor mobile phone service is causing enormous distress. Trying to explain that problem to overseas call centres adds to the distress, as do promises of satellite phones that have never arrived.
These issues need to be addressed. My office has made every effort to assist constituents. I will say the local Telstra and Optus teams have been diligent. I'd like to thank Mark Bolton from Telstra for providing timely information. I'd also like to thank to Kym Morgan and Jill Bottrall from NBN for bringing free satellite wi-fi to Cudlee Creek and then to Kangaroo Island, where various sites remain. All these services have made an enormous difference to the connectivity of these fire affected communities. It takes time to recover from bushfires, but, as we rebuild, let's do this better.
Australian Space Agency
Mr STEVENS (Sturt) (13:43): Last week it was my pleasure to attend the opening of the new Australian Space Agency at Lot Fourteen, the site of the former Royal Adelaide Hospital, on North Terrace in Adelaide. I reiterate, as I've said many times before, how grateful we are in South Australia to the Prime Minister and Minister Andrews for their decision to base the Australian Space Agency in South Australia.
It is a phenomenally exciting opportunity for my home city and state to be the cradle of what is going to be a booming new industry—the space industry. The allied sectors of that include cybersecurity, ag-tech, machine learning, and all the most exciting future growth industries. They are all going to be linked to the space sector. The fact the decision has been made for the agency to be headquartered in Adelaide means that my home state is really going to be the engine room for the space industry into the future. It's important that we understand this is an opportunity; it's not a guarantee. I'm going to be working very hard, both here in Canberra and back home, to make sure that we maximise every opportunity available to us in South Australia, but the basis of that opportunity is the decision that was made by this government to base the space agency there. I was lucky enough to be with the Prime Minister, the Premier and Minister Andrews at the opening last week, and I'm so excited about the future it's going to provide for Adelaide.
Vocational Education and Training
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (13:45): New education department data shows that about 620 apprentices and trainees in Darwin and Palmerston have been lost under Scott Morrison's third-term Liberal government and it's holding our Top End community back; it's holding our economy back. Around Australia, that figure is 140,000. There are 140,000 fewer apprentices and trainees now than there were when those opposite took government. It is hurting not only the Territory's economy but our nation's economy. As a result, we now have a shortage of bricklayers, plumbers, hairdressers, bakers, electricians, mechanics, panel beaters and other critical trades. The Prime Minister's skills crisis is holding back local businesses and denying local jobs. We've got great businesses up in the Northern Territory and they want to grow and hire more staff, but they've been let down by the failure in education, the failure to properly fund the TAFE sector. Don't just take my word for it. The Australian Industry Group says that 75 per cent of businesses report that they are struggling to find the qualified workers that they need. That's what happens when you rip $3 billion out of this vital sector for the growth of our economy and this nation.
Internet Content
Mr THOMPSON (Herbert) (13:46): Despite being the youngest member in this place, I must confess: I'm not very tech-savvy. I know some incredibly talented people here and around the country who are very tech-savvy, but there are also people who seek to use this platform for the most hideous reasons. Technology is an increasingly important part of our everyday lives, whether it's getting photo updates of what your child is up to at day care or using an iPad or iPhone as a part of the child's learning or entertainment. I confess that I'm guilty of handing over my iPhone to my daughter, and she walks around and pretends that I'm on the phone or she tries to watch TV shows. However, increasingly, along with many other parents, I am becoming acutely aware of the need to protect our kids online. We established the world's first eSafety Commissioner and so far we have reached over 452,000 students, parents and community groups through the e-safety outreach, investigated over 42,000 cases of illegal online content and addressed over 1,300 complaints about serious cyberbullying against Australian children. We must keep our kids safe from cyberbullying and the horrendous things that happen over the internet. I know that I speak for everyone in this place when I say that we will always work together to protect our children.
Climate Change
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (13:48): This is the New South Wales Liberal government's climate change strategy document. It's titled, in big, bold letters: Achieving Net-Zero Emissions by 2050. If you read over the page, in big, bold letters, it says:
Net-zero emissions is consistent with strong economic growth ...
They've even published a nice little graph that shows how the New South Wales economy will be better off if net zero emissions are achieved by 2050.
This is the South Australian Liberal government's South Australia's Renewable Energy Future document. There, once again, in big, bold letters, are these words:
South Australia is taking a lead in targeting net-zero emissions by 2050.
The Tasmanian Liberal government is committed to net zero emissions by 2050. In fact, every single state and territory government throughout the country is committed to this goal. They joined companies like BHP, Rio, Qantas, the Commonwealth Bank, Telstra, the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Energy Council and 73 other nations in calling for net zero emissions by 2050. Why? Because it's the right thing to do by our economy, our environment and, importantly, our kids. The only organisation of people in this country who won't accept net zero emissions by 2050 is the Morrison government. When, Prime Minister, will you accept the science of climate change? When will you realise the facts about economic growth and climate change? When will you join with Labor and accept net zero emissions by 2050?
Budget
Mr SIMMONDS (Ryan) (13:49): I often say in this place that the Labor Party are all about politics over people, and today they have proven this point yet again. Earlier in the House I stood to speak about the importance of supporting Australian families and about how we on this side of the chamber reward their hard work by allowing them to keep more of what they earn. Now, you would think that this would be an issue important to all of our elected representatives. Surely, ensuring families to get ahead is a priority for all of us. Well, not the Labor members opposite. While I was speaking about how the Morrison government is supporting families with tax cuts, childcare subsidies, flexible paid parental leave and infrastructure, the member for Moreton stood up and moved that I no longer be heard. Why? Because Labor are about politics over people. Labor are pranksters, not policymakers. Labor are about jibes, not jobs. Labor are about road-blocking, not road-building. Labor can't be trusted to manage our economy. Labor can't be trusted to come into this place and respect the Australian people.
We will continue to respect the Australian people, their hard work, their taxes, their priorities, and no amount of parliamentary gains by Labor today or any other day will distract this government from focusing on the Australian people and what we need to deliver for them.
Oxley Electorate: Forest Lake
Mr DICK (Oxley) (13:51): I rise to condemn the decision announced yesterday that will see a new high-rise apartment complex built on The Esplanade in Forest Lake. Two thousand locals spoke out and signed a petition to oppose this development. Three hundred submissions were lodged by residents about the impact of this development on the lifestyle and amenity of those living on the lake.
I congratulate the Forest Lake Action Group, the local businesses and the many volunteers who, led by our local councillor Charles Strunk, stood up to the Brisbane City Council. Over the last 16 years, the LNP-dominated council have used their massive majority to ignore residents. This shoddy, arrogant process of ignoring residents must end. The high-rise will have a major impact on our local environment, increase parking problems around the lake and overshadow what has always been a scenic community meeting place. I stress that this is a high-rise development in a low-density area. Our community has been utterly betrayed by the LNP Brisbane City Council, who are putting developers' profits before the needs of residents.
I live nearby the lake. My office is at Forest Lake. I stand with residents and will fight tooth and nail to make sure we do not see any more inappropriate developments for our community. The fight is not over. Our community must send the Brisbane City Council a strong message: no more high-rise for Forest Lake.
Fisher Electorate: Community Forums
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (13:52): I believe it is important to connect Canberra and my community directly by giving my constituents the opportunity to speak with ministers often, and face to face, about the issues that matter to them. I commend this government for the fact that ministers have already made the journey up to the Sunshine Coast 42 times since my election in 2016, and I note the member for Swan will be coming up very, very shortly as well.
In the next two weeks, I'll be hosting two more forums in Fisher to talk about some of the most important issues for my constituents. On Friday 6 March, at 2 pm, I will host the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management at the Beerwah community hall, where he'll be answering locals' questions about the government's response to this summer's devastating bushfires, as well as the ongoing impacts of drought in Queensland. On Tuesday 10 March, the Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology, Senator Hume, will join us at Venue 114 in Bokarina, from 4 pm, to talk about the future of retirement incomes in Australia over the next 30 years, and what support current and future retirees can already access. I'm very grateful to both ministers and, in fact, to all ministers for taking the time to come up to the Sunshine Coast. I would encourage all of my constituents to take every opportunity to come and listen to what they have to say.
Family Court of Australia
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (13:54): I was saddened today to read a judgement delivered in the Family Court in Brisbane yesterday—saddened, but not surprised. The judge had to vacate a trial that had been set down for three days because this Morrison government cannot manage the family law system. The ban to prevent the perpetrators cross-examining their victims commenced in September 2019. The government ran out of money to fund the scheme the same year. They then put in a few more dollars to top it up and, again, the funding has now run out in February. Real families now cannot continue their family law trial without representation, and there is no funding left. We knew this would happen. It was predictable.
At the time, the shadow Attorney-General and the shadow minister for family violence said, 'There is one glaring and very, very major omission: additional funding for Legal Aid to make it all work.' Families who are experiencing family violence are being put on hold because there is no money for their matters to proceed. The judgement gives some details about the state of the Brisbane registry. There are more than 35 trials that can't continue because the Morrison government has not provided the funding necessary to protect victims from being cross-examined by their perpetrators.
This is a government demonstrating practically that it doesn't care about families fleeing family violence. If the Morrison government cared about families more than they cared about their precious surplus, they would actually put some investment into the Brisbane registry. This is a disgrace, and I ask the Attorney-General to remedy it as quickly as possible.
Mallee Electorate: Aged Care
Dr WEBSTER (Mallee) (13:55): I am delighted to highlight the incredible work being done by a number of not-for-profit aged-care providers in my electorate of Mallee that have recently been recognised at the Leading Age Services Australia's Excellence in Age Services Awards night. Princes Court Homes in Mildura won the Organisation Award for its outstanding contribution to the community over the past 60 years and its continued innovation and resilience in recent times. I congratulate CEO Jenny Garonne and Chair Lyn Heaysman and their entire team, who are so deserving of this award. The awards to Princes Court Homes continue as they joined Chaffey Aged Care and Jacaranda Village, all based in Mildura region, along with Murray House Aged Care, based just across the border in Wentworth, New South Wales, who together were awarded the Team Award for their collaborative initiatives focused on enhancing the lives of older people in north-west Victoria.
I had the pleasure of meeting with these wonderful organisations last week, and they expressed their concerns about current funding models and regulatory burdens that put pressure on their volunteer boards of management. I'm committed to working with these organisations and Minister Colbeck to address the challenges facing the industry so that we may ensure the effective delivery of quality aged-care services in my electorate of Mallee well into the future.
Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (13:57): The plot thickens when it comes to the sports rorts saga, with more evidence of the Prime Minister's office's involvement. Frustration and anger is growing in communities around Australia, including within the Coromandel Valley Ramblers Cricket Club. This club has next to no facilities. They applied for a Community Sport Infrastructure grant to construct a clubroom. Sport Australia gave their application 90 out of 100.
An opposition member: Ninety—that sounds good!
Ms RISHWORTH: It was. If there was a fair playing field, the Ramblers would've received this funding, but of course they missed out. The anger and disappointment felt by so many across the country was articulated by Roslyn, a parent who has two sons who play for the club. As Roslyn outlined, it's not just a sporting club; it's a grassroots group of volunteers who go above and beyond to mentor and support their young players. They deserve support from this government. Roslyn asked me, 'Is there anything you can do to highlight the enormous lack of fairness at the recent funding process?' Well, that's exactly what I'm doing for Roslyn and all of those young people and parents here today. Parents like Roslyn have questions for this Prime Minister, and they deserve answers. To what extent was the Prime Minister's office involved in vetoing deserving, highly rated applications, leaving young people without the facilities they deserve?
Bribie Island Community Arts Centre
Mr YOUNG (Longman) (13:58): On a more positive note, run solely off volunteer muscle, the Bribie Island Community Arts Centre is well-known across the electorate of Longman for being the creative hub of the Bribie Island community. The arts centre began as a Chamber of Commerce project to celebrate Australia's bicentenary and was designed by leading gallery architect Paul Wallace and was opened on 11 December 1988. Today the centre is one of Australia's largest and busiest arts centres, with space for display, retail, workshops and studios and catering for more than 20 kinds of arts and crafts. Many groups such as quilters, photographers, playgroups and garden clubs use the space to meet and create. The centre attracts over 30,000 visitors a year and there's a growing community of artists and crafters who foster creativity in the local area. Last month, I was pleased to be able to present the arts centre with a cheque for $20,230 to install air conditioning in the centre. The funds were granted through the Morrison government's MUSTER grants, which provide grants for projects to build community resilience and increase the ability of communities to connect, contribute and thrive. Thanks to this grant, visitors and volunteers can enjoy the centre more in summer conditions with air conditioning, and it will drive more people to visit the centre. It's just another example of what a strong economy can deliver to local communities.
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
Member for Kennedy
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:00): This is only a short indulgence. I note the member for Kennedy is not here today. No-one can replace the member for Kennedy in question time, but it is his wedding anniversary today and we wish him and Susan all the very best for their many years together. I understand it's their 50th wedding anniversary, and we congratulate them on this important occasion.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:00): Just briefly: yes, I join with the Prime Minister in congratulating my mate Bob on his wedding anniversary and wish him all the best.
The SPEAKER: I wish him and his wife all the best, too, on their special day. And it's one less difficult question I've got to deal with!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Aged Care
Ms McBRIDE (Dobell) (14:01): My question is to the Prime Minister. The aged-care minister has said about the closure of an aged-care home in my electorate, 'Decisions of this nature are a matter for the organisation's management,' and refused my community's requests for assistance. How can that be the government's position when it gave more than half a million dollars to an aged-care home in the member for Nicholls's electorate, a home which is now closed?
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service and Cabinet) (14:01): One of the things that we have done is to establish a Business Improvement Fund for aged-care facilities in rural and regional areas. That was announced in January. In particular, we have established that program precisely to address the issue of aged-care facilities in rural and regional areas—
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for McMahon!
Mr HUNT: that are facing pressures. So that is what we have done. That fund is there. That is available to people from all electorates—
The SPEAKER: The Minister for Health will resume his seat.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney will cease interjecting. The Minister for Health will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business.
Mr Burke: Thanks. On direct relevance: the example that the member for Dobell is giving is of government money that has gone to a nursing home that is closed.
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The minister is being relevant to the question.
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for McMahon is about to be watching back in his office! The Minister for Health has the call.
Mr HUNT: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker; you gave me a moment of hope there! Directly, in relation to the member's question with regard to her facility, I'm not aware of the dates or the details, which were not provided. I'm happy to deal with them. But the Business Improvement Fund was announced in January.
In relation to the other facts put forward: they are incorrect, and I say that because the program of working with the administrator with regard to Murchison began last year and has been an ongoing program of working with the administrator, and it also has an independent contractor advising it.
Morrison Government
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (14:03): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the House why it is important that targets set by the government to meet key challenges are accompanied by plans to achieve them? How is the Morrison government continuing to outline plans to meet such targets?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:03): I thank the member for Robertson for her question, because she understands that, to have a credible target, you have to have a credible plan to achieve it, and if you don't have a credible plan then that reflects poorly on the credibility of the target that has been set and, worse than that, it reflects terribly on the credibility of those who put forward such targets without a plan.
Our goals, the targets that we've set ourselves as a government over many years, have been accompanied by such plans—credible plans that we have taken to the Australian people on numerous occasions—and we have delivered on those plans. So we deliver on the targets that we set before the Australian people. We set ourselves a target at the last election that we'd be able to legislate to ensure that 94 per cent of Australians would not pay a marginal income tax rate more than 30 cents in the dollar. We had a plan to achieve that target, and we legislated that plan here in this place. Those opposite had it each way. They were against it and then they were for it; they were against it and then they were for it—backwards and forwards, as the each-way opposition leader always is.
We had a plan when we were first elected to create one million jobs, and more than 1½ million jobs have been created as a result of the credible economic plans of the government. We had a plan, as we took to the last election, to create another 1¼ million jobs. We had a plan to keep our AAA credit rating. Under this government, under extreme pressures in terms of global forces and domestic pressures with droughts and other things, we've been able to maintain that AAA credit rating as a result of the strong financial management of the government. We had a plan to stop the boats. It wasn't a goal; it was a plan. It was achieved, and it continues to be achieved under the strong policies of this government. We had a plan to expand our trade, and we have lifted the trade covered by export agreements under this government from 26 per cent to 70 per cent and have the first current account surplus in decades. We had a plan to rollout the NBN and to get 500,000 people into the NDIS, and we are delivering on that plan. We had a plan to increase the budget for defence to two per cent of GDP from the worst levels we've seen that we inherited from those opposite—prewar levels of investment for defence—and we are delivering on that plan and we are delivering on that target.
When we set targets, our government has plans to achieve them. That's why the Australian people trust this government to deliver on plans. At times like this, when we are putting plans in place to protect Australians from the coronavirus, they know that we will get through this because we have a plan. (Time expired)
Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:07): My question is to the Prime Minister: The Prime Minister has claimed that his only involvement in the corrupt sports rorts scheme was passing along information. Why then, on the day before he called the election, did the Prime Minister obtain a colour coded spreadsheet from Senator McKenzie with project sheet 'intended to approve' listed by party and electorate?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:07): I would refer the member simply to the evidence provided today that Sport Australia advised the committee this morning that they received a brief from Senator McKenzie, dated 4 April 2019, approving the third round of the Community Sport Infrastructure Grants.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for McMahon is now warned.
Rural and Regional Australia
Mr CONAGHAN (Cowper) (14:08): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Will the Deputy Prime Minister outline to the House how the Morrison-McCormack government's plans are meeting their target to invest record amounts in rural and regional Australia?
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure,Transport and Regional Development and Leader of the Nationals) (14:08): I thank the member for Cowper for his question. In his electorate, we're seeing the result of government investment and the ways it can shape a community's future. The member knows that all too well. He got elected because he fought hard. He advocated hard for the people of his Mid North Coast electorate. This government has a plan for regional Australia, just like the member for Cowper has a plan for his people. We know that regional Australia is the engine room of our economy. When the regions are strong, so too is our nation. When the Mid North Coast is strong, so too is New South Wales.
Infrastructure plays an integral role in our plan for the future. That important word 'plan'—a blueprint, a vision to unlock potential, whether it's in Cowper, Port Macquarie or Coffs Harbour; wherever it is—is backed by a $100 billion infrastructure rollout over the next decade. Our regional communities are driven by industry, driven by agriculture, driven by tourism and driven by services, just to name a few. They need good infrastructure and they need a good plan, and with the Liberals and Nationals in government that is what they're getting, both at a federal level and, in New South Wales, at a state level. And by ensuring a strong economy, we create opportunities for businesses to grow, for small businesses to prosper and hire more people. Because it's small businesses that have enabled this nation to have 1½ million new jobs created since we came into government. It's a good plan. It's a good blueprint.
Round 3 of the Building Better Regions Fund held tourism in focus. When we invest in regional tourism, we boost development. When tourists travel to a regional community they can see the vibrancy that's out there. Regional Australia is not broken. I've said it time and time again. Regional Australia deserves visiting. Regional Australia deserves investment. People should make, should consider, should think about that tree change and get out to regional Australia and see the vibrancy, see the development, see the prospects, see the future that is in regional Australia—just like in the member for Cowper's electorate.
Take EPIC Stadium in Coffs Harbour, in the member for Cowper's electorate.
Mr Albanese: Is it part of the plan?
Mr McCORMACK: It is part of the plan, Member for Grayndler! It is certainly part of the plan. A $6½ million investment in the community through the BBRF is now open and running world-class events. We were there for the Aussie Rules grand final. I won't tell you how the member for Cowper's drop-punt went into the crowd, but he was there. He was there with the local mayor, he was there with me, and we were there with a lot of supporters. And they were thrilled because he advocated hard for that stadium and he delivered. All part of the plan. All part of the blueprint. A project which Coffs Harbour City Council general manager, Steve McGrath, said was only made possible through joint funding from the Australian government. He understands, as good general managers do, that we've got a plan. We're rolling it out. We're investing and boosting regional Australia— (Time expired)
Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:11): My question is again to the Prime Minister: Can the Prime Minister confirm that 73 per cent of the projects approved by Senator McKenzie in the spreadsheet she provided to him were not recommended by Sport Australia, and that he obtained the spreadsheet from Senator McKenzie the day before he called the election?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:12): What I can confirm is what I have just said previously, in answer to the previous question. The authority for approving those projects was signed, dated 4 April 2019, for the third round of community sports infrastructure grants. I can also confirm that the emails in relation to these matters in question were tabled on 13 February in compliance with an order for the production of documents from the Senate. The emails reflect general communication relating to the program, including relating to events and the coordination of media engagements.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:12): I would like to inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon former Premier of New South Wales Mr Mike Baird. Good to see you.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Live Animal Exports
Mr WILKIE (Clark) (14:13): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Deputy Prime Minister, following the shocking deaths of thousands of sheep aboard the Awassi Express in 2017, some weak reforms to the live animal export industry were announced. It now turns out that despite most Australians still opposing this cruel trade, even the flimsy reforms have been quietly dumped. Deputy Prime Minister, this week why did you ignore the advice of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority and approve a live animal export ship failing ventilation requirements? And how can the community ever believe that the government cares about animal welfare when even the half-baked safeguards we do have are ignored on a ministerial whim?
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure,Transport and Regional Development and Leader of the Nationals) (14:13): I do thank the member for Clark for his question and for his interest in this area. There is a commitment to phasing out two-tier vessels for live sheep exports. A ban on two-tier vessels was implemented through marine order 43, as the member for Clark would be aware, on 1 January.
Where existing vessel operators require further transition time, and can demonstrate genuine intent to comply with the new standards, they are able to apply for limited—limited—and temporary exemptions for twin-tier decks carrying sheep. Any application will be considered on a case by case basis. They will be considered individually. Applicants must justify why they are unable to comply with legislated deck height and ventilation requirements, and submit a plan to comply with these requirements as soon as possible.
As a condition for any exemption—any exemption whatsoever—exporters will also need to have an animal welfare management plan that has been approved by the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment. My department has been working very, very closely with the Livestock Transport and Trading Co. , the exemption applicant, since 18 December last year to agree to a plan to enable them to meet the requirements under Marine Order 43 , with clear milestones to ensure that they are meeting their commitments. My department consulted with AMSA , the Australian Maritime Safety Authority , as the administrator of marine orders, including 43. AMSA did not—I repeat , did not — advise against the exemption application. The operator of the Al Shuwaikh has committed to a timetable to comply with the requirements and has agreed on arrangements to manage animal welfare with the department of agriculture.
On this basis, I've approved one temporary exemption to the twin-tier requirements for the vessel. The House should note that the exemption only relates to twin-tier requirements. It is only in relation to this decking and associated ventilation, and only for sheep. If the vessel doesn't comply with the agreed requirements, the exemption will be revoked. As always, the primary focus of this government is on meeting the highest possible animal welfare standards , as set out in the Export Supply Chain Assurance System . No other country that exports live animals has such a scheme in place. We do.
Mr Fitzgibbon: It's a Labor scheme!
Mr McCORMACK: It doesn't matter who it is; t he nation has it in place. The nation has it in place because animal welfare has to be first and foremost, and that's what we are doing.
The live export trade is a major source of employment in the national red- meat sector. It' s worth $2 billion. And for the member for O'Connor— and I know how important it is for him—it is worth $150 million per annum. That is significant money. That is jobs in regional Australia . Providing the animal welfare standards are being met, we will always back those sorts of industries , with those sorts of jobs and that sort of wealth creation.
Economy
Mr HASTIE ( Canning ) ( 14:16 ): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline to the House how the Morrison government's economic plan and r esponsible fiscal management have been working to ensure that the government lives within its means; and is the Treasurer aware of any alternative plan that would damage the economy?
Mr FRYDENBERG ( Kooyong — Treasurer ) ( 14:17 ): I thank the member for Canning for his question and note that he has served this country with distinction in uniform. When we came to government, unemployment was rising, investment was falling and the budget was deep in the red. Since coming to government we committed to our plan to create more than one million jobs and we've created more than 1½ million jobs. We committed to reduce taxes and we have passed through the parliament more than $300 billion worth of tax cuts. We committed to the Australian people that we would bring the budget back into balance and we've delivered the first balanced budget in 11 years.
But I'm asked: are there any alternative approaches? We know those opposite prefer wellbeing budgets to balanced budgets. And they are led, inspired, by their spiritual leader, the mmmm-member for Rankin. I was thinking yesterday, as the member for Rankin was coming into the chamber—fresh from his ashram deep in the Himalayas, barefoot, robes flowing, incense burning, beads in one hand, wellbeing budget in the other—what would the yoga position be that the member for Rankin would assume?
Mr Tim Wilson interjecting—
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Goldstein. Members on my right. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.
Mr Burke: On direct relevance, Speaker.
Mr Husic interjecting —
The SPEAKER: The member for Chifley! The question did ask about alternative policies, and I'm listening very closely. I'm just going to point out to the Treasurer that no-one would enter the chamber in the way he says, because it would breach the dress code in the standing orders!
Mr FRYDENBERG: As the member for Rankin was approaching the dispatch box, I was thinking: what position would he be assuming to deliver the wellbeing budget? I'm no expert—
An opposition member: Come on, direct relevance!
Mr Littleproud interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Minister for Agriculture!
Dr Chalmers: You can't talk about the economy for one minute because it's so bad.
The SPEAKER: The member for Rankin! The Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Albanese: Mr Speaker. I'm defying your ruling. If they can't talk about 'the plan', the word for today, because sentences are too hard, he should just sit down.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. He's not defying my ruling. I don't want to go through all the Hansard history where there have been similar answers to questions on both sides. The Treasurer has the call.
Mr FRYDENBERG: So I thought to myself: what position would he be assuming at the dispatch box? Position No. 5, the downward dog? No. Position No. 6, the reclining pigeon? No. No. No. Position No. 7, the twisted deer? But then the vision came to me through the incense. It was position No. 8, the sleeping swan!
The SPEAKER: The Treasurer will remove that prop!
Mr FRYDENBERG: Position No. 8, the sleeping swan! Beads in one hand, robes flowing, incense burning—here was the member of Rankin's homily to his mentor, the former member for Lilley. We all know, the Australian people know, a 'wellbeing budget' is just another word for Labor's higher taxes and more debt.
Mr Tim Wilson interjecting—
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Goldstein! The member for Rankin! The member for Goldstein and others! I've mentioned this before. It's disorderly to bash the desks with your hand—that's the only term for it. It's well written up in Practice, and you'll cease doing it.
Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:22): My question is a serious one and it goes to the Prime Minister. Sport Australia has given evidence to the Senate that they received the backdated brief from the government approving sports rorts projects for funding at 8:46 am on the day the election was called. Given the House was dissolved at 8:30 am that day, why did the Prime Minister breach caretaker conventions by spending tens of millions of dollars on sports rorts on the day he called the election?
Opposition members interjecting—
Ms Rowland interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left! The member for Greenway is warned.
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:22): I don't accept the allegation put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. What I can advise the House—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister can just pause for a second. He doesn't need to resume his seat. Members on my left will cease interjecting. I'll start ejecting members. I cannot hear the Prime Minister's answer.
Mr MORRISON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I don't accept what the member has just put forward, because the testimony today from Sport Australia was that they received a brief from Senator McKenzie dated 4 April 2019. It was authorised by the minister on 4 April 2019, approving the third round of the Community Sport Infrastructure grants. That's when the approval was given.
Economy
Mr SIMMONDS (Ryan) (14:23): My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, how has the government's plan for strong economic management enabled the government to meet its targets and to create new jobs? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative policies that would threaten the jobs of hardworking Australians?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Treasurer) (14:24): I thank the member for Ryan for his question and acknowledge his experience as a local councillor before coming to this place. In his electorate there are more than 19,000 small- and medium-sized businesses that are benefiting from the tax cuts that we have passed and from our extended instant asset write-off announced in last year's budget.
When we came to government, unemployment was 5.7 per cent and rising, investment was in freefall, and the budget deficit was $48½ billion, or around three per cent of GDP. That occurred on Labor's watch, when they had been enjoying iron ore prices more than double where they are today, at $180. They also saw in their last year in office more than 62,000 small businesses close their doors. Since we've come to government, we've delivered on our plan to create more than one million new jobs—in fact, more than 1½ million new jobs. We've delivered on our plan to lower taxes, legislating more than $300 billion of tax cuts through the parliament, which will see 94 per cent of taxpayers pay a marginal rate of no more than 30c in the dollar. We've delivered on our plan to cut taxes for small and medium sized businesses—millions of small and medium sized businesses—who will see their company tax rate go down to 25 per cent. We've delivered on our plan to secure more free trade agreements—in fact, taking the percentage of our two-way trade covered by free trade agreements from 26 per cent to more than 70 per cent. And what we have seen is employment growth today at 1.9 per cent. That is nearly double the OECD average and nearly triple the average that we inherited.
Today the participation rate across the economy in terms of employment is 66.1 per cent. This compares to 64.8 per cent when we took office. Over 300,000 jobs were created in 2018-19—a hundred thousand more than Treasury had forecast. And more women and more senior Australians are finding employment. In fact, female employment has increased by 183,000 in the last 12 months, with seven out of 10 jobs in full-time work, with female participation at a record high.
This is what comes with disciplined economic management. The Australian people and the Australian economy dodged a bullet at the last election. Could you imagine dealing with the drought, the fires and now the coronavirus with $387 billion of higher taxes? That's what the Australian people were going to face under a Labor government. Thankfully, they got a coalition government. We're creating more jobs and delivering lower taxes.
Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:27): My question again goes to the Prime Minister, and I refer to his previous answer. How could the minister's decision have been made on 4 April if Senator McKenzie sought the agreement of the Prime Minister and his office on 10 April? Can the Prime Minister guarantee that the document by Minister McKenzie was not backdated?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:27): As I responded earlier, as Sport Australia advised the committee this morning, Senator McKenzie's authority, approval, of the projects was dated the 4th and provided on 4 April 2019.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left!
Mr MORRISON: What the member has suggested is that there was some requirement for the Prime Minister—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister can pause for a second. The member for Isaacs is warned. I do need the Prime Minister to repeat it because I couldn't hear anything while the member was interjecting. I can't make it any more clear. I'm now issuing a general warning. What that means is I will exercise 94(a) on anyone who I deem to be disrupting the parliament.
Mr Dreyfus: Mr Speaker—
The SPEAKER: No. The member for Isaacs will resume his seat. The Prime Minister.
Mr MORRISON: The premise of the member's question is false. The Prime Minister is the not the decision-maker in relation to the program that he has suggested. As I've said on numerous occasions, the ministerial authority for these decisions was the Minister for Sport. The Minister for Sport authorised those arrangements, and that authorisation is dated 4 April 2019.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:29): I would like to acknowledge the presence on the floor of the chamber today of a parliamentary delegation from the European Parliament. A very warm welcome to you.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Energy
Mr SHARMA (Wentworth) (14:29): My question is to the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. Will the Minister outline to the House how the Morrison government's plans are delivering on its responsible emissions reductions target whilst ensuring lower energy costs and reliability in energy generation? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies?
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The members for Kingston Smith, Eden-Monaro and Chifley seem to have either not heard or forgotten what I said a minute ago. The minister has the call.
Mr TAYLOR (Hume—Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction) (14:30): I thank the member for Wentworth for his question and I acknowledge his distinguished career as an ambassador for this nation before he came into the parliament. The member for Wentworth, like all members on this side of the House, knows that we went to the last election—
Mr Thistlethwaite interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Kingsford Smith will leave the chamber. The minister has the call.
The member for Kingsford Smith then left the chamber.
Mr TAYLOR: He knows that we went to the last election with a plan to deliver a fair deal on energy for all Australians while we reduce our emissions. He also knows that we are delivering. Indeed, just today we've announced that, from 1 July, the dodgy late-payment penalties that were inflicted by energy companies on many Australian families and small businesses will come to an end. A new rule will ensure that can't happen. Any company that doesn't comply will pay penalties of up to $100,000. This builds on strong action we've already taken: establishing price caps, establishing reference prices to make it easier to get the best possible deal, and getting more supply of electricity and gas into the marketplace. And we're all doing all of this while we ensure that the grid is reliable, with projects like Snowy 2.0 and Marinus Link, and emissions are coming down. Just in the last year, we've seen domestic emissions in Australia down by 2.3 per cent and, indeed, over three per cent in the electricity market.
I was asked if there are risks with alternative approaches, and there are. There are risks with having a target without a plan. On Sunday, on Insiders, the opposition leader was asked about his target, to which he replied:
... if you have a considered plan, over the long-term, you do it in a way which is measured, which is organised, and which transitions you through ...
Fine sentiments, indeed. But then, when asked by Speers:
... does it also mean ...we’re going to have to do less livestock farming? Are we going to have to eat less meat and consume less dairy?
the opposition leader responded:
Oh look David, these things will be worked out on the way through ...
They are making it up as they go along. They change their position depending on which town they're in, the day of the week and who they're speaking to. They can agree on anything except a carbon tax. This is not considered by the opposition, it's not measured, it's not disciplined and it's not organised. It is not a plan. The opposition is telling Australians that their future is going to be worked out on the way through.
Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:32): My question is to the Prime Minister, who just told parliament that Senator McKenzie provided the advice on 4 April. Doesn't this directly contradict the Sport Australia evidence today in the Senate that this advice was provided at 8.46 am on the day the parliament called the election? Will the Prime Minister correct the mislead of this parliament?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:33): I don't accept the Leader of the Opposition's mischaracterisation of this at all. I hope the Leader of the Opposition was more truthful when he appeared as a witness at the criminal conspiracy trial—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order?
Mr Burke: Yes, Mr Speaker, on direct relevance. The question is very precise and goes to the absolute obligation that every member of parliament has in this place and it is part of the Prime Minister's alleged own code. If he can't keep to the point on this—
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call. I'm listening very closely.
Mr MORRISON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I repeat what I said earlier: Sport Australia advised the committee this morning that they received a brief from Senator McKenzie that was dated 4 April 2019. That's what occurred.
The SPEAKER: Is the Leader of the Opposition seeking to table a document?
Mr Albanese: I am, Mr Speaker: an answer—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition may proceed.
Mr Albanese: to a question on notice from the Senate that clearly indicates the document was given on 11 April 2019.
The SPEAKER: No, the Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. As I ruled yesterday, I'm not going to table documents that are readily available, particularly the transcript of proceedings in both the Houses.
Mr Albanese: They're not available—
The SPEAKER: Well, they must be available if you've got a copy!
Coronavirus
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (14:35): My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister update the House on the plans the Morrison government is putting in place to protect Australians from the outbreak of coronavirus?
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service and Cabinet) (14:35): I want to thank the member for Berowra, who has come to this place and been a great advocate for public health and, in particular, for mental health and suicide prevention, along with the member for Eden-Monaro and many, many others.
In terms of the situation with regard to coronavirus, we now know that the latest figures show that over 81,300 people have been diagnosed with having coronavirus, and 2,770 have, sadly, lost their lives. In particular, though, what has characterised global developments in the recent week has been the spread across countries outside of China. In the last 24 hours, I'm advised that Algeria, Brazil, Greece and Pakistan have confirmed their first cases. What is interesting about that, sadly, is that we have Africa, South America, West Asia and Europe all with new countries with their first case. What this says is that the arc of the virus continues to expand—that we are seeing more countries and more diagnoses, particularly outside of China.
Against that background, the very clear message for Australians is that we are not immune, but we are well prepared. It remains the case that there are only 15 cases that have been diagnosed within the general public in Australia. All have cleared the virus, as the Prime Minister has confirmed this week. And I thank state and territory health authorities. Within the Northern Territory, it remains that there are eight cases, which have come from passengers from the Diamond Princess. All are in containment, with mild to moderate conditions. A number of additional cases have been tested and found to be negative, and there are two currently being tested, on the latest advice—actually provided to me during question time by Professor Len Notaras, the head of the national trauma centre.
Against that background, though, the very clear message to Australians is: at this point in time, there is clear containment, but, with a world where we are seeing increasing numbers, we have to be ever vigilant, which is precisely why we have developed, in conjunction with the states and the territories and Commonwealth agencies, the national pandemic plan. This pandemic plan—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Minister for Health has the call.
Mr HUNT: is aimed at protecting Australians against what could be a global threat. We don't varnish it. We set it out. But we say to the Australian people: we are well prepared. We are as well prepared as anybody in the world. And we will get through this.
Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:38): My question is again to the Prime Minister. Given that the Audit Office and Sport Australia have both confirmed that the sports rorts projects were approved on 11 April, the day the election was called, why was the brief approving the projects backdated by the government by a week to 4 April? Didn't the government know the decision was dodgy and wasn't it trying to cover its tracks?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:39): The Leader of the Opposition is being untruthful. He's being completely untruthful. The brief from Senator McKenzie that actually gives the authority for the approval of these projects, Sport Australia confirmed was dated 4 April 2019. That's when the authority was created.
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will just pause for a second. He has concluded his answer.
Asylum Seekers
Ms BELL (Moncrieff) (14:39): My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister outline to the House how the government has achieved its target of stopping the boats through its plan to strengthen border protection, and how is the Morrison government's plan continuing to work to achieve this target? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Home Affairs) (14:39): I thank the member for Moncrieff for her question and for her very strong support of our successful border protection policies. This government took a very clear plan to the last election—in fact, to the last several elections—where we wanted to clean up Labor's mess. We wanted to make sure that we didn't have children drowning at sea. We wanted to make sure that we didn't hand back control of our borders to people-smuggling networks. And we've been successful with that plan. There's no sense in putting forward a plan if you have no detail and no possible way in which you can achieve success in that plan.
Now when Labor went to the election, they promised that there would be no boats and that there would be no children in detention. That was their promise, and that was their hope and that was their plan. What happened? Their plan resulted in 50,000 people arriving on 800 boats. But it got much worse than that. There were 1,200 people, at least, who drowned at sea. That is their record. So when they talk about having a plan, the Labor Party will always have these airy-fairy ideals. They'll always pretend to the Australian public that, somehow, they've got the detail worked out. Well, their detail of their plan resulted in 8,000 children going into detention. That is the legacy of the Labor Party. Now, have they learnt anything at all? No, they have not. Today they still hold the same plan—the same plan for failure—that they've taken to the last several elections. If there was an election tomorrow, their plan would be: no boats, no kids in detention, nobody drowning at sea. If they were elected, Mr Speaker, I promise you there would be people on boats within weeks. That's the reality. And the Australian public should be very, very wary. They're promising plans in other areas of public policy. This one, off in 2050. Anyone who believes this Leader of the Opposition only needs to look at his track record. He has had so many different positions when it comes to border protection. He's been in favour of strong border protection policies. He's been against those policies. He has an each-way bet on every single public-policy position. The problem is that the Australian public suffer, both financially and in terms of our international reputation. We've now got 702 people off Manus and Nauru to the United States. The Labor Party did not have a plan to get one person off Manus or Nauru. We'll continue—
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Is this a point of order? The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The minister has the call.
Mr DUTTON: The reality is that they had no plan to get even a single person off Manus or Nauru.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr Dreyfus: Time!
The SPEAKER: I just say to those, like the member for Isaacs, yelling out 'time'—I am well aware of the time, and the reason I gave the minister another seven seconds was because he was interrupted in breach of the standing orders. So I want to make it clear: I did it quite deliberately, and I'll do it again if it happens again. Although, I suspect, the way we're going, you won't be here to see it. The Leader of the Opposition has the call.
Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:43): My question is, again, to the Prime Minister, who has claimed in this parliament that the approval of the corrupt sports rorts scheme was made on 4 April. How is that consistent with the fact that the Audit Office found that Senator McKenzie wrote to the Prime Minister advising him of projects that she intended to approve on 10 April, prior to her providing the documentation on 11 April? If you weren't in charge, why was the minister asking for your permission?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:44): The member is unaware, I think, of the way this program operated.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left! The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for Kingston will leave the chamber under 94(a).
The member for Kingston then left the chamber.
Mr MORRISON: As I have advised the House on numerous occasions, the decision-maker in this process was the minister for sport, not the Prime Minister. There was no authorisation provided by me as Prime Minister on the projects. Those authorisations were provided on 4 April, according to the approval of the brief by Senator McKenzie on that date, as advised by Sport Australia.
Defence Industry
Mr PEARCE (Braddon) (14:45): My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government is delivering on its plan to achieve a target of investing a record $200 billion in our defence capability to achieve two per cent GDP spending? And how is this record investment creating jobs for Australians?
Ms PRICE (Durack—Minister for Defence Industry) (14:45): Can I thank the member for Braddon and also acknowledge his deep passion for the Australian defence industry. Because of the Morrison government's strong budget management, we are able to invest a record $200 billion in our defence capability and achieve two per cent of GDP in defence spending in the next financial year. This record investment is creating many jobs in Australia.
Yesterday Senator Molan and I had the great pleasure of visiting Lintek, an Australian small business employing 50 Australians just down the road in Queanbeyan. It was a great pleasure to meet the Lintek team and to announce their new manufacturing capability in the global F-35 program. This new manufacturing capability will double Lintek's F-35 circuit board production capacity, and what this means for Lintek is that it's now in a much stronger position to increase its work on the F-35 program. Lintek is just one of those many small companies that, because of our investment, is able to export its products overseas.
Last year I visited the US to fight for more Australian work in the US program. I was proud to announce upon my return that the Western Sydney base Quickstep was awarded additional work to provide some 10 new parts to the global F-35 program. Proudly, there is currently US$250,000 worth of Australian Quickstep equipment on every F-35 globally. Their world-leading capability is yet another example of an outstanding Australian success story in our defence industry. Quickstep and Lintek are just some of the 50 companies who are sharing in some $1.7 billion worth of work on the Joint Strike Fighter Project. Talking about jobs: yes, this program is currently supporting some 2,400 Australian jobs, with thousands more expected by 2023.
We on this side of the House are backing our defence industry, and small, medium and large defence industry businesses. At the same time we're creating thousands of Australian jobs. That's what record investment of $200 billion will get you. It will get you support for our defence industry, ensuring that our men and women in uniform get the capability that they deserve. And it's only with sound financial management that we on this side are able to deliver what our men and women in uniform deserve, at the same time as creating Australian jobs.
Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:48): My question is again addressed to the Prime Minister. Why did the government approve a $50,000 grant to the Sans Souci Football Club in his own electorate, despite the fact the project had already been built, had already been officially opened and was ineligible for funding? Isn't the Prime Minister the master chef of cooking the books when it comes to the corrupt sports rorts scheme? Here's a picture of the project opening!
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition knows the rules on props.
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:49): As I'm sure the member would be able to find out by reading the report, the project was approved for funding by the then minister for sport based on its assessed eligibility by Sport Australia.
Broadband
Mr ZIMMERMAN (North Sydney) (14:49): My question is to the Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government is delivering on its plans to achieve its NBN rollout targets?
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts) (14:50): I thank the member for North Sydney, who has a very strong interest in service delivery to his constituents. On our side of the parliament we are delivering on our plan for fast and affordable broadband for all Australians. When it comes to rollout, we are delivering: 10.8 million premises able to connect; 6.6 million premises are connected; and 30,000 to 40,000 premises per week are connecting to the National Broadband Network. By contrast, when Labor had responsibility for this project, after six years barely 51,000—compared to 30,000 to 40,000 per week under this government.
Of course, two-thirds of homes and businesses connected are taking a 50 megabit or higher speed plan. The NBN is affordable. Prices are steadily dropping. Last year, the NBN introduced a $35 wholesale 12/1 plan. That allows retailers to deliver an affordable, entry-level $60 plan, making the NBN more affordable to some 500,000 budget-conscious households. We are getting on with delivering the NBN in accordance with our plan.
Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lyons is warned.
Mr FLETCHER: In the downfall phase of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government, the Leader of the Opposition briefly had responsibility for the NBN. Here's what he had to say on 4 September 2013: 'We are rolling out the NBN as fast as it can be rolled out. This is the largest infrastructure project in Australia's history. You can't just click your fingers and get it done.' He thought that was as fast as they could go, but he was wrong, wrong, wrong!
We're getting it delivered much faster. The reason is that we have a plan. The Labor approach is to promise the earth and not worry for a second if you can't actually deliver it. That was the approach when they promised to end the double drop-off. Remember that? 260 new childcare centres to be delivered, promised in 2007. They pulled the plug after they delivered 38. Remember the GP Super Clinics? Twenty-eight were promised at the 2010 election. They actually delivered one by 2013—
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order?
Mr Burke: The minister was asked a question about his portfolio. He's now talking about any portfolio but.
The SPEAKER: I think he's trying to compare and contrast, but he is stretching the point a bit, I think.
Mr FLETCHER: I'm very happy to talk about the NBN and Labor's approach, which was to dream up the policy in a few weeks, with the details on the back of a beer a coaster; to appoint a board with virtually no experience of rolling out a telecommunications network; and to make rollout decisions on where the best photo opportunity was, not on what customers needed. By contrast, we're getting the NBN delivered, compared to the job done by this hopeless rabble opposite.
MOTIONS
Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:53): I seek leave to move the following motion:
That the House:
(1) notes:
(a) Sport Australia has told the Parliament today that it provided a brief to Senator McKenzie on 3 April 2019 recommending 245 sports projects be approved;
(b) Senator McKenzie wrote to the Prime Minister on 10 April, the day before he called the election, attaching a spreadsheet with projects she intended to approve by electorate, including party details;
(c) on 11 April, the day the Prime Minister called the election, Senator McKenzie provided a brief to Sport Australia dated 4 April approving 228 projects for funding;
(d) 73 per cent of projects approved by Senator McKenzie were not recommended by Sport Australia;
(e) Sport Australia received the approved sports rorts list from Senator McKenzie after the election had been called and after caretaker conventions had commenced;
(f) the Government approved a $50,000 grant to the Sans Souci Football Club in the Prime Minister's own electorate despite the fact the project had already been built, had already been officially opened and was therefore ineligible for funding; and
(g) the Prime Minister is the master chef of cooking the books;
(2) declares the Prime Minister has repeatedly misled the Parliament and he should have the integrity to correct the record as required by House practice; and
(3) calls on the Prime Minister to provide a full and frank account as to why he has used taxpayer money to advance his own Government's partisan political interests.
Leave not granted.
Mr ALBANESE: I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving the following motion immediately—That the House:
(1) notes:
(a) Sport Australia has told the Parliament today that it provided a brief to Senator McKenzie on 3 April 2019 recommending 245 sports projects be approved;
(b) Senator McKenzie wrote to the Prime Minister on 10 April, the day before he called the election, attaching a spreadsheet with projects she intended to approve by electorate, including party details;
(c) on 11 April, the day the Prime Minister called the election, Senator McKenzie provided a brief to Sport Australia dated 4 April approving 228 projects for funding;
(d) 73 per cent of projects approved by Senator McKenzie were not recommended by Sport Australia;
(e) Sport Australia received the approved sports rorts list from Senator McKenzie after the election had been called and after caretaker conventions had commenced;
(f) the Government approved a $50,000 grant to the Sans Souci Football Club in the Prime Minister's own electorate despite the fact the project had already been built, had already been officially opened and was therefore ineligible for funding; and
(g) the Prime Minister is the master chef of cooking the books;
(2) declares the Prime Minister has repeatedly misled the Parliament and he should have the integrity to correct the record as required by House practice; and
(3) calls on the Prime Minister to provide a full and frank account as to why he has used taxpayer money to advance his own Government's partisan political interests.
The fact is that this government is showing they can't even prepare to defend—
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (14:58): I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the member for Grayndler be no longer heard.
The House divided. [15:02]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (15:04): Is the motion seconded?
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:04): I second the motion. All roads lead to the Prime Minister's Office. He was in this up to his neck.
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (15:04): I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the Manager of Opposition Business be no further heard.
The House divided. [15:05]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Mr MARLES (Corio—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:07): His fingerprints are all over it—backdated briefs, coloured spread sheets—
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (15:07): I move:
That the question be put.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the question be put.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition be agreed to.
The House divided. [15:08]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The House divided. [15:13]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (15:14): I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper and advise that the Minister for Health and I will shortly be making an announcement regarding the Australian health sector emergency response plan for the coronavirus.
Mr Albanese: Given the Prime Minister's statement to the parliament that there is about to be an announcement, through you, Mr Speaker, I would request that, given the opposition—myself and the shadow health minister—have at all times sought to be bipartisan on the coronavirus issue, decency requires there actually be a briefing to the opposition rather than the Prime Minister just standing up and making a statement to try to distract from this sports rorts debacle before he marches out of the parliament.
The SPEAKER: I'll just say to the Leader of the Opposition that it's not within my purview to demand members or ministers to do anything, but the Leader of the Opposition has made his point, and I notice that the Deputy Leader of the House is here, so he's made his point.
AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS
Report No. 26 of 2019-20
The SPEAKER (15:16): I present the Auditor-General's performance Audit report No. 26 of 2019-20, entitled Management of spectrum reallocation to support the deployment of 5G services: Department of Communications and the Arts; Australian Communications and Media Authority.
COMMITTEES
Selection Committee
Report
The SPEAKER (15:16): I present report No. 13 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of bills. The report will be printed in the Hansard for today and copies have been placed at the table.
The report read as follows—
Report relating to the consideration of bills introduced 24 to 27 February 2020.
1. The committee met in private session on Thursday, 27 February 2020.
2. The committee determined that the following referral of a bill to a committee be made—
Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy:
National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment (Transparency in Carbon Emissions Accounting) Bill 2020.
THE HON A. D. H. SMITH MP
Speaker of the House of Representatives
27 February 2020
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Commonwealth Grants Rules and Guidelines
The SPEAKER (15:17): I have received a letter from the honourable member for Shortland proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The need for the Government to apply the highest standards of due process and probity to spending decisions.
I call upon all those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Mr CONROY (Shortland) (15:17): This is a corrupt government, and I don't use those words lightly. This is a government—
The SPEAKER: The member needs to withdraw that term. I can go to the Practice and take you through it.
Mr CONROY: I withdraw.
The SPEAKER: I'll just make the point—and I'll do it quickly, because the clock is ticking—that the Leader of the Opposition has referred to a corrupt program. You can't reflect on members. If you reflect on the government, you have the situation Speaker Sneddon had where each member of the opposition, as it was, asked for it to be withdrawn and you would have no time to speak. Thank you for withdrawing.
Mr CONROY: Thank you for your guidance, Mr Speaker.
The SPEAKER: Ruling.
Mr CONROY: And your ruling, Mr Speaker. This is a government that has presided over corrupt programs that have used taxpayers' resources—
Government members interjecting—
Mr CONROY: No, I didn't say the government was corrupt. You missed the point.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Llew O'Brien ): The member for Tangney on a point of order.
Mr Morton: I'm a member of this government and I ask the member withdraw in making the assertion that this government has presided over corrupt programs.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: He was referring to a program, as the Speaker just stated in his ruling.
Mr CONROY: This is a government that continues to preside over corrupt programs—corrupt programs that use taxpayers' resources to derive personal political benefit for members of the Liberal and National parties. You have to consider how this started. The scene was set in 2018, when after knocking off Malcolm Turnbull this was a desperate government. This was a government driven by division, a government with no agenda but holding onto power. So they turned to looking at any single program they could use to throw money for political benefit, to derive any political gain they could have from taxpayers' money. We've seen some of the most egregious rorting this nation has ever witnessed. We've seen rorting of the $100 million Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program and the $150 million female facilities and water safety stream. We've seen rorting at Olympic scale and then we've seen them try to make Senator McKenzie the patsy, the fall guy for this, saying that she did it all, that she was entirely responsible for this rorting. But the truth is that we know there was a conspiracy led by the Prime Minister's office to corrupt this process for grubby political ends. We only have to look at the events of the last two days in question time to see that confirmed.
What are the details of sports rorts 1? We saw round 1, where 41 per cent of projects approved by the minister were not recommended by Sport Australia. The closer they got to the election, the more desperate they got; the more the Prime Minister tried to hold onto power by his fingernails. We saw 70 per cent of projects were rejected by Sport Australia. Round 3 was approved 17 minutes after we entered the caretaker period. Seventeen minutes after we entered the caretaker period, 73 projects were rejected by Sport Australia. It is not only that; we saw the ANAO decide the entire program is questionable in terms of its legality.
What sorts of projects were supported against Sport Australia's recommendations? What sorts of projects required the Prime Minister and the minister to say, 'We're going to support battlers. We're going to support battlers in struggling suburbs'? There was $50,000 for one of richest golf clubs in the country, Royal Adelaide, to install solar panels. I'm reliably informed that's about one annual membership. If they got one more member for the club, they could have paid for the solar panels themselves. There was $500,000 that went to the struggling Mosman Rowing Club—that bastion of battlers! The member opposite is from Wyong. I'm sure many members there go to Mosman rowers for a good row, maybe a chardonnay afterwards. And then there was $190,000 for another golf club to install facilities for wedding receptions. Wedding receptions! How is that advancing sports participation in this country? What it does advance is the naked political interests of those opposite. Then the most egregious—my favourite was $50,000 to the Sans Souci Football Club for a project not only already funded; it was already built and it was opened three days later by the council!
Ms Burney: In whose electorate?
Mr CONROY: Good question! It happened to be in the Prime Minister's electorate. And it happened to be opened by one of the Prime Minister's mates who was a state member there.
Dr Chalmers: He doesn't have any mates.
Mr CONROY: That's true—I'm misleading the House. That's the most egregious example of this rorts project.
We saw further revelations only last week that, despite the Prime Minister misleading this House that all projects approved were eligible, the ANAO in fact found that 43 per cent of projects, 290 projects in all, were ineligible. Under this corrupt program, the interventions came at the top. We saw 136 emails from the Prime Minister's office. We saw revelations today that, in round 3, where 73 per cent of projects were rejected by Sport Australia, Minister McKenzie wrote to the Prime Minister asking for permission, identifying the projects she intended to approve, on 10 April—colour coded in a spreadsheet by party status. And then after, presumably, the Prime Minister approved the 73 per cent of projects, the backdated brief was received by the department at 8.46 am on 11 April, 17 minutes after the caretaker period began. And again we saw today the Prime Minister misleading the House, saying that the projects were approved on 4 April, when, in fact, the substance of the email to the Prime Minister makes it very clear that the minister hadn't approved the projects when she wrote to the Prime Minister on 10 April.
What's even worse—if you can believe that—is that yesterday the Prime Minister was bragging about the political intervention of his party and his candidates in this process. He openly bragged about the now member for Lindsay—who was merely a candidate at that stage—dictating which projects would go to Lindsay. She identified which projects would be approved. He bragged about it yesterday. We saw in the ANAO report that the Queensland Liberal National Party head office—the secretariat—dictated which projects were going to Longman. Just imagine that for a second: a party headquarters decided how taxpayers' money would be allocated in a seat they were trying to win at the election. Yet again, we've seen this program corrupted, and we've seen the Prime Minister openly bragging about the level of political intervention.
Then we have sports rorts 2, the $150 million for the female facilities stream. It was meant to be regional. It was meant to help regional sporting clubs invest in female changing rooms to increase female participation. What we saw was no guidelines for the program, no applications process, no eligibility criteria and no merits based assessment—only hand-picked projects, and the money being treated as a slush fund by the government. And what was the result? For a program meant to target rural and regional areas, 80 per cent of the money went to building swimming pools—not female changing sheds—in marginal electorates in the cities. Only 10 per cent went to rural and regional areas. And the most egregious example was the $10 million for the North Sydney Olympic Pool—that renowned regional area! They've been creative about trying to defend it, I'll give them that. The mayor of North Sydney claimed it was a regional pool because someone from the country might have once swum there. Just think about that for a minute. We had some jokes today that maybe if they had classified it as a dam, they might have got support.
An honourable member interjecting—
Mr CONROY: Exactly—what a joke! What's next, the Sydney Harbour Bridge getting funding under the rural bridges program, or the Opera House getting support under a regional arts fund? This is how low this government has stooped. And the people who suffer are the people of Australia, particularly in those sporting clubs who are suffering. Garden Suburb Football Club in my electorate is turning away female soccer teams because the women need to get changed in the canteen or in their cars. These are the people who are suffering because this government presides over corrupted programs. These are programs run for one cause only: to advance their political interest. They are programs designed to misuse taxpayers' money—$250 million, in this case—to advance their political ends, to settle grubby political scores, and to win votes in a desperate bid to hold on to power after they knocked off their second Prime Minister. What a disgrace. And the Australian people are coming for them. The Australian people are sick of them. The Australian people will wreck on this in two years time. (Time expired)
Mr MORTON (Tangney—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister and Cabinet) (15:27): I rise to speak on this matter of public importance. These are serious times and they call on serious people. And the member for Shortland's 10 minutes of fame is up. That was an amazing performance for the member for Shortland. But this government is focused on making important decisions on the issues that matter to Australians. And we can commit the funding needed to address the problems that this country faces because of the strong economic and fiscal budget that this government oversees. I'm going to run through a range of those issues and challenges that we're facing and that we're committing support to—and we're able to do that because of that strong fiscal and budget management of this government.
This country is in drought. Australian farmers have had to contend with a terrible drought and this government has stepped up to support them. The government's plan in relation to drought is to provide immediate help to directly help those people experiencing hardships, to help local communities find local solutions and to invest in long-term resilience measures. We're investing more than $8 billion in drought-relief work, including $1 billion announced since the election. I'm going to run through those spending initiatives, because that's what this matter of public importance is about. Firstly, Shane Stone is heading up the National Drought and North Queensland Flood Response and Recovery Agency, putting staff on the ground to make sure that our response is right. There's $47 million to extend the Drought Communities Programme to more councils, $20 million to help keep kids in school, and $5 million for child care. There's $1 billion worth of drought loans of up to $2 million, with no repayments and no interest for the first two years to make it cheaper for farmers to buy fodder, transport stock, build water infrastructure, agist cattle, mend fences and refinance their existing debts.
I see those opposite don't appear to be so interested in what the government is doing to respond to the needs of Australians when they need it. They were here for the performance and the theatrics of the member for Shortland, but they have disappeared.
The Australian government, in conjunction with the South Australian government, has struck a deal to secure 100 gigalitres of water that farmers can buy at a discounted rate if they are going to contribute to growing fodder with that water—120,000 tonnes of fodder, to help those drought affected communities get back onto their feet.
As we know, Australia has suffered from bushfires, and I have joined the Prime Minister in visiting individuals and communities that have been affected. This government has stepped up. This government has made responsible spending decisions to support those communities—not just those communities that are directly affected, but those communities and those economies that are also broadly affected in our economy. We take this job and this role very seriously.
There's $76 million to support the tourism recovery package, to encourage domestic and international tourism, to protect those jobs and small businesses in those economies right around Australia. There's an initial $100 million for a national clean-up package to assist those areas impacted by fire with site-clearing costs on all residences and commercial properties, with a fifty-fifty sharing arrangement with the affected states. There's $40 million to directly help the great work of those volunteer organisations like the Salvation Army Property Trust and St Vincent de Paul, who have been providing services in these communities. There's $10 million to deliver the financial counselling that is required in these communities. There's $100 million to provide grants of up to $75,000 to primary producers to deal with their immediate needs.
Mr Burns interjecting—
Mr MORTON: While I hear some of those opposite yawn while I go through these support mechanisms that we're putting in place to support these communities, this is not something that we should disrespect—particularly funding like $2 million to Lifeline and, in particular, Kids Helpline; there's $8 million for back-to-school mental health. These communities that have been affected in these areas need the support that this government can give them, and we can only give them support, without introducing things like flood levies, because of the strong economic and fiscal management that this government presides over.
In relation to the issues that are currently facing this country, there is the very serious issues of the coronavirus. Our first responsibility is to protect the Australian people, and that is exactly what this government is doing. This morning, while the Prime Minister and members of the National Security Committee were meeting, talking about our response to the coronavirus, their meetings were interrupted by the parliamentary parlour games of those opposite.
Mr Brian Mitchell: Then stop gagging debate!
Mr MORTON: You, members opposite—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Llew O'Brien ): Members on my left!
Mr MORTON: knowing that the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General, the Minister for Health and other members of the National Security Committee were in the cabinet room discussing Australia's response to the coronavirus, were playing political parlour games and distracting those ministers and the Prime Minister from doing their job of keeping Australians safe. Shame on you! Spending decisions will come as we respond to the health and economic needs of Australians in responding to the coronavirus, and this government will stand ready, because we are strong economic and fiscal managers of our economy.
I am going to share with you some of the areas that I am most excited about. In my responsibility as Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister and Cabinet, I lead our government's deregulation agenda. As part of that, I'm responsible for the Office of Best Practice Regulation, and we have made some announcements recently in relation to the regulatory impact analysis framework, and I'm going to share those with you today. The regulatory impact statement or RIS process helps the government navigate the complex policy challenges where there are changes in the behaviour of businesses or individuals. These RISs, or the impact analysis settings, allow us to make sure that we are making decisions that are fit for purpose.
We have made decisions to simplify the process for policymakers. The previous four categories of the regulatory impact statements will be condensed into one, with the level of analysis to be proportionate to the magnitude of the problem and the potential impacts. To ensure the effort put in by agencies is more accurately recognised, there will be four levels of quality assessment: insufficient, fit for purpose, good practice and exemplary. They should all aim for exemplary; that is what our expectation is of them.
To ensure the focus on regulatory costs doesn't come at the expense of understanding economic and competition impacts of new proposals, agencies will still be required to include the regulatory or red tape costs in a RIS. However, the Office of Best Practice Regulation will no longer be required to agree to these costs in isolation. We will also task the Office of Best Practice Regulation, which oversees the government's RIA settings, to assess independent reviews, which can substitute for regulatory impact statements, for relevance to the problem and the recommended policy option. Well-designed, well-targeted, limited and fit-for-purpose regulation supports the government to deliver our agenda and priorities effectively. While those opposite might not be interested in the regulatory impact statements that are so important to better decision-making in government, this government is committed to making sure that these processes are fit for purpose.
The hypocrisy of those opposite knows no bounds. We're asked about government spending. I refer you to the Auditor-General's report that found that when the Labor leader, the member for Grayndler, was administering programs as infrastructure minister, he disproportionately gave money to Labor seats. The ANAO report in 2011 found ministers waived the eligibility criteria for projects funded by Labor's Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program, and that a number of projects in coalition seats did not get funding. The ANAO report reads:
... whilst the majority of applications received related to projects located in a Coalition held electorate (55 per cent of all applications), the significant majority (some 82 per cent) of these were not approved for funding…
… whilst 40.3 per cent of all applications related to a project in an ALP held electorate, just under 60 per cent of approved projects were in an ALP held electorate.
The report also found that Mr Albanese's own office had set out the projects by electorate:
In addition to the data originally provided by the department, two new columns were added to the worksheet to identify the electorate in which the project was located, and the political party that held that electorate.
That's what the report said. The hypocrisy of those opposite knows no bounds. On days when the parliament and the Prime Minister are dealing with issues relating to the safety of Australians, those opposite play political parlour games in this House as opposed to allowing the government to get on with the business of government. (Time expired)
Mr KEOGH (Burt) (15:37): It's great to see that the government's defence of its sports rorts program fundamentally comes down to, 'Somebody else did it too!' Putting aside the fact that everything you just said is wrong, your defence effectively amounts to, 'Other people have done it.' You're admitting your own problem.
Let's look at what this MPI boils down to. It is really interesting to see that the minister opposite at the table has decided to oppose, effectively, a proposition that government should apply the highest standards of due process and probity to its spending decisions. He's then gone on and proceeded to rattle off a number of spending amounts in programs, the majority of which are very meritorious. In fact, the sports program, when you read it as a headline number and what they were supposed to be funding, is very meritorious, but the projects that were funded were not meritorious. That's the fundamental program that we've got. In fact, some of them were not even eligible to receive the funding.
I go to this point because the member opposite did. He talks about the very significant and important funding that is going to support those in need of drought relief and fire relief. It is important that those funds are allocated; it is important that those funds are there. But what's actually important is that the funds flow to the people who need them. I have met and spoken with those businesses affected by the bushfires in the Blue Mountains and elsewhere in New South Wales. I have found that businesses that need access to loan funds to get through this period where they've had a decline in their business—as tourists are not going to those areas—are not getting the help that they need. They're not getting the money from the government. It's taking weeks for applications to even be acknowledged. Then further information is required. That money is not flowing to those people. It's great that you mentioned a headline figure. We completely support that idea. But, when it comes to due process and making sure that the money does what it's designed to do, you're not actually delivering on that for the Australian people. We want to see that system work, but it's not happening.
When it comes to the high standards that we would expect, it's not just 'we' the opposition, it's 'we' the Australian people. We want to see not only transparent guidelines and a fair process but also decision-makers following those guidelines. There's an idea! How about ministers accept the advice about programs, not only that they're meritorious—that'd be a good start—but that they're actually eligible for the money that is supposed to be flowing to those organisations.
Regarding sports rorts 1—and isn't it amazing that we have to give version numbers now because we're into multiple sports rorts under this government—the $100,000 Community Sport Infrastructure Grants Program which was supposed to be assessed meritoriously and was supposed to help community sports programs around the country, I just want to read some of the observations that the ANAO made, because it's really, really important:
… the Minister's Office used the spreadsheets ... to undertake a parallel assessment process as a basis for the Minister deciding which projects should be funded with additional analysis on 'marginal' electorates held by the Coalition as well as those electorates not held by the Coalition that were to be 'targeted' in the 2019 Election …
When it comes to looking at guidelines and meritorious programs and making sure that people receive the benefit of the doubt, I elucidate this from the submission of the City of Gosnells in the electorate of Burt, my electorate, for a program that they applied for—a program that was ranked in the top 50 meritorious sport grants by Sport Australia—which did not receive money because of decisions made by this government. This should ring in your ears. The city's application presented over 17 pages of information and six supporting documents. It's estimated the application took over 80 hours to prepare. The City of Gosnells does give you the benefit of the doubt, government, because they say they 'understand that the federal minister may apply some discretion in decision-making. However, if funding bodies require detailed and professional applications, the City would expect professional and objective decision-making.' Well, it appears that, under this government, the only objective of their decision-making was to rort the system so that they could see themselves win an election and return to power. That was the only objective that was being pursued, and not just by the sports minister at the time but, quite clearly, by the Prime Minister's office.
When you've got 136 emails in six months about this program, when you are seeking approval from the Prime Minister about where money will be allocated the day before the election and then approval is given after the election is called, it's a rort.
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright—Assistant Minister for Road Safety and Freight Transport) (15:43): It's a great pleasure to speak on the matter of public importance today, where the opposition have highlighted the need for the government to apply the highest standards of due process and probity in spending decisions. There is no greater probity and oversight than we have in road safety and some of the programs that I have direct oversight of. Road safety is such an important part. It's one of the rare issues that have bipartisan support in this place. Throughout each of the states in this country, there is a road safety committee set up which is chaired by a government member.
To put it in context: roughly, each committee would have a member from each state police jurisdiction and it would have, more than likely, someone from the Local Government Association. In every situation, you would have a royal automobile club represented on that body. Then you've got the fringe groups that could potentially be there, ranging from parents and friends associations, bicycle associations, pedestrian associations and motorcycle associations. They scatter through. They look over a period of matrixes to offer a list of where government funding should be prioritised. That level of probity and that level of consideration and consultation with the public is how I conduct road safety programs in the country.
In addition, we have a $4.5 billion program called Roads of Strategic Importance, with just under $2 million of that quarantined for northern Australia. We have done, again, some of the most comprehensive consultation right across the top of northern Australia, and as we speak there are—as there were last week—further consultation processes with regional councils along the primary corridors that we have identified. We want to make sure that we park these significant investments into the next decade in the places they are most needed, and in order to do that we throw a wide net when we're sourcing where the priorities are. We throw that wide net with our partners, with local government, with communities, and with stakeholders like the construction and the engineering firms, to make sure that we get those investments right. And it's not an infinite bucket, but we do try to make sure that we have a process where—
Mr Brian Mitchell: Do you use colour-coded spreadsheets?
Mr BUCHHOLZ: Absolutely—colour-coded. They're my favourites! I want to bring up, in the few minutes left for me to speak, the opening comments of the good member for Burt, where he referred to a sports program as a 'rort'. He referred to it as a 'rort'. I thought that was a little unfair, given that we have such high integrity on this side of the House and given that I've highlighted a number of programs that we have conducted with the highest integrity.
So I want to help out those opposite. I want to help out, so listen closely. Bring your ear to the microphone, I say. We have this thing called the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, which detects, disrupts and deters corrupt conduct in Australian law enforcement agencies. So, if you think that there's a case to be heard, consider making a complaint to them. The Australian Federal Police also works with partner agencies across the Commonwealth to respond to serious and complex corruption offences, including fraud and bribery. So, if it's a serious offence, that's a place where you could park your concerns. There's the National Audit Office, which scrutinises the exercise of authority by the government. There's also the Commonwealth Ombudsman, which considers and investigates complaints by people who believe they have been treated unfairly by Australian government departments. And, of course, there's the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority.
But I would suggest that none of those agencies that I just referred to are going to hear a word from those on the other side, because they know that this government is of the highest integrity, and we run our programs with integrity, exactly as they all deserve.
Ms THWAITES (Jagajaga) (15:47): I note even government members opposite couldn't keep a straight face when talking about their level of integrity.
An opposition member: That's right, and that says it all.
Ms THWAITES: It does say it all, doesn't it? I really want to talk today about the sports rorts and about what that means in my community in Jagajaga. In Jagajaga, we've got more than 100 sporting clubs. We love our sports. Every time I am out and about, people tell me how busy they are caring for their club and playing on a Saturday—and how they need new facilities and how they're stretched and how they need some funding support. Do you know what the Greensborough Hockey Club did through the Nillumbik shire? They applied for some funding support. They applied for some funding support through a now-famous funding sports grants program. They were rated by Sport Australia as quite deserving of this funding. In fact, they received 89 out of 100.
An opposition member: Eighty-nine?
Ms THWAITES: Yes, they did. The Greensborough Hockey Club, a great hockey club run by some great people, were found to be very deserving of their new pavilion—$500,000. Now, imagine their surprise when they didn't receive this money. And we now know why they didn't receive this money. They didn't receive this money because this government is more interested in rorting, it's more interested in playing political games with taxpayer funds, than it is in supporting local sporting clubs.
I've got a direct contrast here, in fact. A constituent of mine called my office late in January. His son played for the Toorak East Malvern Hockey Club. They share a facility with the Hawthorn Hockey Club in the wealthy, leafy electorate of Kooyong next door. This, of course, is the Treasurer's seat.
Now, my constituent is quite involved in the affairs of the Toorak East Malvern Hockey Club. On 26 April last year, during the caretaker period, he received an email from this club's leadership. He, along with all the other teams and players, received this email inviting him along to an 'urgent additional training event' that night. They were told to wear their full club uniforms. When they got there, it was for a photo-op with their local member, the member for Kooyong, who announced $500,000 for a club pavilion redevelopment—during the caretaker period. There you go! So, Greensborough Hockey Club rated 89 out of 100—no funding. Next door in Kooyong—$500,000. Do you know what they were rated by Sport Australia?
Mr Giles: No, what, Kate?
Ms THWAITES: Sixty-three out of 100. A process is set up and there's work done under that process—to rate these clubs, to look at what's needed, who's doing the work, where clubs need extra support—and that's thrown out the window by this government. A very wealthy part of Melbourne, where facilities are, as this club member said, already 'first-class', receives funding. In my electorate—because they had the gall to elect a Labor member—they were overlooked.
The La Trobe hockey club is one of the most run-down—I think that's how they described it—clubs in the country. They have asbestos in their club rooms, no lighting, no female change facilities, no canteen. In fact, their vice-president described their clubs as 'looking like the place they filmed Chernobyl in'. You get the picture. They missed out. The member for Cooper and I share a boundary, and I know the member for Cooper has been fighting very hard for this club but, again, compare and contrast: member for Kooyong—his facility rated 63 out of 100—$500,000 in funding. In my electorate—the Greensborough Hockey Club, rated 89 out of 100—no funding.
This really goes to the heart of the problem with this government—and Australians see it. That's why my constituents are ringing up my office and telling me, 'This stinks!' They know and the people who are members of this club know that what that government is doing is wrong. They thought they were getting a leader. Instead, they've got a marketing man spending taxpayers' money outside the rules with no probity and no proper process. And when he's called out on it, what's the response? Is he looking at how he might raise standards? Is he thinking about how people are a bit disappointed with him and that he could do better? No, none of this. Instead, he points across the room and he says, 'It's okay, because that guy over there did it first.' Well, that's not the case, but what a response! I think we all found out in grade 1 that pointing out across the room and saying, 'Mum, I was just copying him!' is not an excuse. You're the Prime Minister. Have some standards. Get some guts. Do it right. Follow the process. Australians expect that of you.
Mr SIMMONDS (Ryan) (15:52): I'm pleased to have the opportunity to debate this particular MPI today because it gives a perfect example of what this side of the House—the government—is focused on this week versus what Labor members are focused on. What have the Labor members been focused on this week? Playing silly parliamentary games. They probably had a few other things on. I'm sure the member for Hunter probably went for dinner at Otis at some point during the week, as did a bunch of other Labor members. But mostly the Labor members have been focused on political games.
What have the government members on this side of the chamber been doing? We have been focused on the Australian people. We've been delivering the spending commitments that deliver on their priorities: dealing with the drought, dealing with fire recovery, dealing the coronavirus response, establishing flexible parental leave, helping to lower electricity prices, helping to keep our borders strong, lowering taxes, listing new PBS medicines. We know how to take proper spending decisions with due process and probity.
We won't take lectures from the Labor members opposite on due process and probity when it comes to spending decisions. Do they all have such a short memory that they don't remember the last time they were in government? Cash for clunkers, cheques for dead people, pink batts, school hall funding that didn't actually deliver school halls in particular schools. Is that Labor's idea of due process and probity when it comes to spending decisions? I suspect it is. And while that's Labor's idea of good spending priorities, it's certainly not this government's idea of it. But do you know what? Let's give them the benefit of the doubt. Let's not talk about the last time they were in government. Let's talk about these members and what they are doing right now.
We introduced the ensuring integrity bill into this place—a bill to ensure that registered organisations do the right thing and work for their members to make sure registered organisations, like unions, practice due process and probity exactly like this government. What did the Labor members do? They ran a protection racket for them. 'Unions shouldn't have to meet those high standards. No, no, no. Government has to, but unions definitely shouldn't!' It went to the Senate, and Labor's Senator Glenn Sterle said this: 'We should not be rushing legislation to try and prosecute union officials who have to break the law sometimes to get an outcome.' Let me just say that again: 'who have to break the law sometimes to get an outcome'. What kind of laws are they breaking? Well, they're probably around due process when it comes to spending decisions. But, more than that, the type of laws they're talking about breaking to get an outcome are coercion, bullying, intimidation, unlawful strikes, unlawful accesses, stoppages, and spitting on and assaulting female police officers. This stuff is disgraceful. Labor members opposite run a protection racket and then pretend to lecture this government on integrity. Well, no, we're not copping a bar of that.
They could've come in here and talked about the priorities that Australians and Australian families have like this government does every day and that we are acting on every day. But instead they choose to play their silly political games. The hypocrisy is absolutely galling because, as we have heard previously from the member for Tangney, who pointed this out, they are talking out of the other side of their mouth. The member for Ballarat presided over Labor's local grants program. The Auditor-General found out that she approved projects against the recommendations of experts. But it's unfair of members on this side of the chamber to single out the member for Ballarat, because she's in great company, holding hands with, of course, the member for Grayndler, who was minister for infrastructure at the time. Let's see if this rings any bells when I read from the Audit Office report for the Labor members opposite. This is what the Audit Office had to say about the now Leader of the Opposition:
whilst the majority of applications received related to projects located in a Coalition held electorate … the significant majority (some 82 per cent) of these were not approved for funding.
… … …
… projects located in electorates held by the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and Independent Members were more successful at being awarded funding than those located in electorates held by the Coalition parties.
(Time expired)
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (15:57): My electorate of Parramatta does not have a swimming pool. We had one, but the state government ripped it out of the ground to build something else. Years later, we've just been through the hottest summer on record without a pool. We're 60 per cent born overseas. Many of the people in my electorate, including the children, were raised in places where swimming lessons were not an option. There are adults who can't swim and teenagers who can't swim, and we have lost our pool. They applied under what is known as the 'community sports program', better known as the 'sports rorts program', and they got 83 out of 100 when assessed by the department. They were No. 16 on the list, and were they funded? No, because this government has rorted the process. The corruption of the process is appalling. If you look at the figures, 73 per cent of the projects that were funded were not on the list that came from the department. Forty-three per cent of them weren't even eligible, yet my electorate and its swimming pool—No. 16—are not even there. It's gone. There is no funding for a community in extraordinary need.
The Prime Minister has stood up in this place and said, 'Ah, but it was within the rules.' Now, let's leave aside that it wasn't within the rules. The National Audit Office clearly says it wasn't. Anyone with half a brain can see that it wasn't in the rules. But let's assume for a minute that it was. When you get to be the Prime Minister and you're the prime rule-maker, you do not get to use the rules as a shield. If what you want to do is unethical, if it's not the best use of taxpayers' money and it's in the rules, then you change the rules because that's your job. Your job as the Prime Minister is to make sure that taxpayers' money is well spent. If what this government did is within the rules, then you should be slammed for not changing them, quite frankly. This is not okay.
This is not the only place in which the Parramatta pool was ignored. It's not the only one. There was another fund which has come to light now, which is the $150 million female facilities and water safety stream program. Again, many organisations in my electorate don't have female change rooms for their state top 10 rugby teams or cricket teams at all. Let's leave that aside. We also don't have a swimming pool, and yet the guidelines for this program weren't even released. However, $60 million, or 40 per cent of the program's funding, was spent in two Liberal-held seats and 80 per cent of it—even though it was a regional program—was spent in city electorates on swimming pools but not in Parramatta.
Parramatta wouldn't have applied for it, because the guidelines weren't even released. The guidelines weren't released, and Parramatta is not in a region so it wouldn't have even been in the page of projects to be assessed. This is done behind closed doors within electorates that the government wishes to win. Based on a wink, wink, nudge, nudge: 'Apply for this; you'll get the money.' How is that fair? How could that possibly be in any set of rules that any reasonable, responsible government set? How could that possibly be okay?
This is taxpayers' money, and the process that you set in place should be transparent, it should be public, it should be known and it should be fair. And neither of these programs were anything like that. This is: 'We, the government, will use taxpayers' money to get ourselves elected.' That is clearly what it is. When the vast majority of money is going to marginal seats that the coalition are targeting, then that is what is happening. When money is being spent behind closed doors and the vast majority of electorates that aren't Liberal-held electorates don't even know it's going to be spent, that is a government that is using taxpayers' money to get itself elected.
I can't say that this government is corrupt—I can't say that in this place, and I won't—but this process is corrupt. If this process is within the rules, then have a hard look at yourselves because you are lousy rule-makers. I'll say it again: if you're the rule-maker, you don't get to hide behind the rules. You made the rules. If what you're doing is unethical and is not the best use of taxpayers' money, then change the rules and set the rules right now so that it can't happen again. This is outrageous. My pool and my community have lost out because of the rort and the corrupting of the process by this bunch of heaven-knows-what on the other side of the House.
Mrs ARCHER (Bass) (16:03): I think it's interesting that the Labor Party is in here claiming the moral high ground when it comes to standards of due process and probity, but their own record tells a very different story. You only need to look at where they stand on law-breaking unions. There are a number of significant infrastructure projects rolling out in the northern Tasmanian community in Bass, and we can't afford for rogue unions to affect their rollout.
Infrastructure spending is proving to be a key creator of jobs, a driver of business confidence and a means to support an ever-growing community with diverse needs. In my electorate of Bass, just some of the millions of dollars committed to my fantastic community include the northern suburbs community hub—a $15 million investment which will include offices for community organisations and provide pathways for employment and recreational opportunities for young people; the Beauty Point master plan—$3 million towards a project spearheaded by the West Tamar Council to drive tourism growth; or the UTAS redevelopment—the federal government is investing $160 million into the relocation of the University of Tasmania to its new location at Inveresk. It is the single-largest infrastructure project in our city's history and it will create more than 800 jobs.
Despite what Labor would have us believe, we know that some unions are disruptive and engage in behaviour that is detrimental to those that they claim to represent and their communities. In fact, Master Builders Australia estimates that union lawlessness can add up to 30 per cent to the cost of our vital infrastructure like roads, schools and hospitals. Just last week I met with a significant number of construction workers in my community. I noted their excitement in regard to the growth of industry in the region. That's why the government's ensuring integrity bill is so important. Nobody is above the law, and that includes registered unions and employer groups. To be very clear, I have no problem with unions if they are operating in the manner in which they are intended to. I expect them to act in the best interests of their members and obey the law, which most do. However, I certainly support cleaning up the ones that don't, and that's what this bill is designed to do. The bill would introduce additional deterrents into the law to prevent the sort of repeated serious and damaging law-breaking engaged in by a militant minority of registered organisations and their officials and ensure that the courts are able to take appropriate and effective action in response to this sort of law-breaking.
Just in case you need some reminding, the Heydon royal commission also uncovered numerous examples of flagrant disregard for the law by some registered organisations and their officers; and a culture of lawlessness, which is not new and has been exposed for over 30 years and continues to make national headlines. For instance, over $17.2 million in penalties have been handed down by the courts against the CFMMEU and its representatives for over 2,000 contraventions of the law. That is just in cases brought by the building industry watchdog and its predecessors. This law-breaking includes bullying; harassing and intimidating workers who exercise their right not to join a union, including stopping them from being able to work at all; intimidating public servants, including work health and safety inspectors, fair work inspectors, building inspectors and a female police officer; and coercing businesses through industrial lawfare tactics, including those which put workers in danger. We won't sit back and do nothing, as those opposite are wont to do, which is perhaps understandable on their account when you consider that almost $14 million was pumped into the Labor coffers by unions in 2018-19. However, those of us in government actually recognise—
Opposition members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Llew O'Brien ): Can members on my left tone it down a little bit? I'm finding it hard to hear the member speaking.
Mrs ARCHER: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I was speaking fairly loudly! The courts need other options to ensure that the repeated law-breaking engaged in by this militant minority is stopped. It is very important to note that there's nothing in the bill that will prevent a registered organisation from exercising its rights to represent workers, including investigating underpayment issues or acting on work health and safety concerns, but, for the protection of workers in our communities and the integrity of unions, this bill is essential. Those opposite claim that what this MPI boils down to is integrity— (Time expired)
Mr BURNS (Macnamara) (16:08): Fancy defending a position that the government has on integrity and accountability with a bill that they didn't allow any accountability for in this place, the ensuring integrity bill. Do they even listen to themselves speak? It is absolutely astounding that the government would use that as a defence of this sports rorts scandal. This stinks. The sports rorts scandal stinks and the fish rots from the head. Over there, with their born-to-rule attitude, they are very happy turning taxpayer funds into the Liberal Party coffers.
They've done this before. In an area that is underfunded in this country, the arts, years and years ago George Brandis took money out of the Australia Council and put it into the Catalyst fund. The thing that everyone knew was that only George Brandis could decide where that funding went. Instead of having an independent oversight agency that actually helped fund cultural policy in this country, George Brandis wanted his own slush fund for the arts in this country. It was a disgrace. It has decimated the industry and cost jobs. We as Australians are lesser for it.
If you want to know about the character of those opposite, especially the man who sits in the chair up the front, you only have to look at the character they displayed during the bushfires over summer. When our country needed leadership, what they got was a Liberal Party ad. When our country needed leadership, the Prime Minister said, 'Australians, you should donate to the Liberal Party for our bushfires.' And instead of having accountability and oversight for $100 million—$100 million of taxpayer funds—they turned the bushfires into a Liberal Party ad and they've turned taxpayer dollars into a Labor Party slush fund. That's what this government does.
Let's go into the resignation of Bridget McKenzie. Senator McKenzie resigned over the $100 million sports rorts scandal. But she didn't resign because of the reasons why she should have resigned. She resigned because apparently she forgot to declare that she was a member of a gun club. But the reason why she should have resigned is all the reasons that are being drip fed out right now—that this process was corrupt, that this process stinks and that the $100 million of taxpayer funds used by those opposite where for Liberal Party purposes. That's why Senator McKenzie should have resigned, and that's why those opposite I'm sure are taking a good, hard long look at the Prime Minister right now, who couldn't reveal any details during question time because he knows that he is in strife. That man is under pressure, and we all know it in this place.
In McNamara we have some outstanding local sporting clubs and at Caulfield Park, under the governance of the Glen Eira City Council, we are absolutely chockers. There is not an inch of that park that doesn't get used. We have over 20 soccer teams on a waiting list to get into that park. We have so many clubs who are sharing that facility. It is a community facility, and of course the Glen Eira council, along with all of the sporting clubs, put in an application, and this story has been told. But let's have a guess of the rating that the Glen Eira council received.
Ms Coker: Was it 50?
Mr BURNS: It wasn't 50.
Ms Thwaites: Was it 60?
Mr BURNS: It wasn't 60.
Ms Ryan: What it 70?
Mr BURNS: No, more than 70.
Ms Thwaites: Eighty?
Mr BURNS: No. Keep going! It was 83 out of 100. I tell you what: at university I would have been happy with 83 out of 100! And what did our government give them? Absolutely nothing. They gave us more of the same, and now we have got 136 reasons as to why this Prime Minister is up to his neck in this horrible, horrible scheme.
In question time today we saw the Prime Minister clearly under pressure. We saw a Prime Minister who was clearly reading the notes written to him by some sort of legal adviser. He was really nervous. He was nervous! The Prime Minister was shaking with his notes written by his lawyer—by Lionel Hutz!
The Prime Minister and this government have promised a National Integrity Commission. They promised the National Integrity Commission.
Ms Thwaites: Where is it?
Mr BURNS: We haven't seen it, and now we see why. All they want to do is distract, because these people are afraid of transparency. These people are afraid of integrity. These people are afraid of accountability, and most of all these people are afraid of our democracy and they are afraid of the Australian people. And this program stinks. (Time expired)
Mr CONAGHAN (Cowper) (16:13): I'm happy to speak on this motion: the need for the government to apply the highest standards of due process and probity to spending decisions. The Australian government is obliged to provide the highest standards of due process and probity to spending decisions and service delivery because we're caretakers in the expenditure of the public's money. We must account as MPs to all our constituents. I have 125,000. I represent Cowper, and I'm ensuring that their taxes are well spent and managed with a great degree of probity and care. We, as MPs, also need to report to them so that they receive their fair share and that this government's services meets their needs.
The Morrison-McCormack government does this by taking a multiagency approach to combat corruption. These agencies have specialised roles and responsibilities in deterring, detecting and responding to corruption. The key word here is responsibility—the ability to respond and enforce with authority, and consistently apply these highest standards. These institutions are designed for governance—important governance. They include parliamentary committees, government departments, independent statutory authorities and law enforcement agencies.
The Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, for example, detects, deters and disrupts corrupt conduct in Australian law enforcement agencies. In recent times, I went to New Zealand and Vanuatu on a delegation and examined those countries' measures in enforcing their laws to deter corruption. I take this opportunity to welcome the new commissioner, Ms Jaala Hinchcliffe. I'm told her appointment comes at a key time for the commission. One investigation Ms Hinchcliffe will undertake is the examination of the alleged potential corruption through Crown Resorts and the home affairs department. Starting work on this high-profile case shows that Ms Hinchcliffe means business in upholding probity and integrity in government to benefit all Australian people.
There is the Australian Federal Police, which partners with the state agencies across the Commonwealth in response to serious and complex corruption offences, which also includes fraud and foreign bribery. One recent high-profile case that the AFP worked on in conjunction with the military inspector-general was investigating Australian soldiers' actions in Afghanistan to ensure the laws of combat were upheld. I'll take this opportunity to thank all current and ex-service men and women for their service.
There is the Australian National Audit Office, which scrutinises financial management and the expenditure of public funds by the executive arm of the government. Plus there is the Commonwealth Ombudsman, who considers and investigates complaints for people who believe they have been treated unfairly by the Australian government. And, of course, there is the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority, commissioned to audit, advise and report on expenses of parliamentarians and their staff.
The multiagency approach to combat corruption has proven successful. Australia consistently ranks as a low-corruption jurisdiction. It is generally accepted that there is no evidence of systematic or endemic integrity issues in the federal public sector. The government is firmly committed to ensuring the federal integrity framework is as strong as possible to maximise public confidence in our national institutions. In keeping with this, the government has committed to establishing the Commonwealth Integrity Commission, or CIC, to enhance national integrity arrangements across the federal public sector. It will include a public sector integrity division and a law enforcement integrity division, ensuring targeted attention to corruption and fraud across the whole public sector. Through the CIC, the government will have the ability to target serious criminal corruption that presents a threat to good public administration. All of these commissions and institutions are complex and sensitive in the investigations that they carry— (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Llew O'Brien ): The discussion has concluded.
BILLS
Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2019
Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 2) Bill 2019
Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Productivity Commission Response Part 2 and Other Measures) Bill 2019
National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment Bill 2019
Assent
Messages from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the bills.
Student Identifiers Amendment (Higher Education) Bill 2019
Export Control Bill 2019
Export Control (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2019
Export Charges (Imposition—Customs) Amendment Bill 2019
Export Charges (Imposition—Excise) Amendment Bill 2019
Export Charges (Imposition—General) Amendment Bill 2019
Statute Update (Regulations References) Bill 2020
Returned from Senate
Messages received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request.
Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Income Reporting and Other Measures) Bill 2020
Consideration of Senate Message
Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.
Ordered that the amendments be considered immediately.
Senate's amendments—
(1) Page 2 (after line 14), after clause 3, insert:
4 Review of operation of amendments
(1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted of the operation of the amendments made by this Act.
(2) The review must start as soon as practicable after the end of 12 months after this Act commences.
(3) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within 6 months of the commencement of the review.
(4) The persons who conduct the review must consult:
(a) income support recipients impacted by the amendments made by this Act; and
(b) persons who have expertise in social security law; and
(c) persons who have expertise in any other area of public policy considered relevant by the persons who conduct the review.
(5) The review must provide for public submissions as part of the review.
(6) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.
(7) In this section, Minister means the Minister administering the Social Security Act 1991.
(2) Schedule 1, item 37, page 10 (after line 32), at the end of subsection 1073BA(2), add:
Note 1: When determining the period, the Secretary may take into consideration the following:
(a) the nature of the person's remunerative work;
(b) the nature of the person's employment income;
(c) the person's financial interests;
(d) any financial hardship which may be caused to the person;
(e) whether the employment income relates to remunerative work that was undertaken at a time when the person was not receiving a social security pension or a social security benefit.
Note 2: The period determined by the Secretary should be fair and reasonably beneficial, taking into account the financial interests of the person receiving the social security pension or a social security benefit.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Llew O'Brien ) (16:20): I understand it is the wish of the House to consider the amendments together.
Mr GEE (Calare—Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Investment and Minister for Decentralisation and Regional Education) (16:20): I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
Ms BURNEY (Barton) (16:20): Labor supports these changes in principle. Implemented well, they will make the social security system more accurate and eventually make it easier for people to report their income. This bill is now returning from the Senate after two Labor amendments were successful. The first amendment was a 12-month review of these changes. This is important to ensure implementation is done properly and that the government gets this right, because we simply don't trust them to get it right without scrutiny. The second amendment which was successful will ensure that income is attributed over fair and reasonable social security reporting periods that won't disadvantage social security recipients. It will prevent any kind of deliberate averaging strategy that will leave social security recipients worse off.
However, a third Labor amendment to once and for all end robo-debt was not successful. My colleague the member for Maribyrnong will expand on this. The Liberal government was given a choice: pensioners or another robo-debt. They chose robo-debt. And, as I said, the member for Maribyrnong will expand on this.
For three long, anxious and frightful years, the Liberal government pursued thousands of innocent Australians with false or inflated debts. For three years, this Liberal government defended a system that it knew to be illegal.
Over the course of the debate of this bill, Labor proposed measures to protect our pensioners, workers and students from another occurrence of the government's robo-debt scheme. I remember when news first broke of this disastrous and terrifying robo-debt scheme. I remember the first constituents who contacted my office, some of whom we are still assisting to this day. We were contacted by thousands of frightened Australians from all over the country, and this happened in everyone's office. Many were constituents from government electorates. These were pensioners, workers and students, driven to their wits' end by this cruel and malicious government. Many were simply too scared to challenge these false debts—so scared that they gave up and gave in, even though the government was plain wrong.
In this bill, Labor had proposed some very simple, practical and reasonable amendments to ensure that the Liberals' disastrous robo-debt scheme never occurred again. All we asked was that the government take some responsibility and ensure oversight and human intervention to prevent another robo-debt. They voted down the amendment. In so doing, the government refused to prevent social security debts being raised solely on income averaging. It was this income averaging that led the government into error in the first place.
The government refuses to accept the statutory duty of care to ensure debts are accurate. Why is it so controversial for the government to accept this duty of care? The government refuses to ensure human oversight over debts before they are issued. Why is this so much to ask of the government—to ask for human oversight? The government even refuses to use all available powers, resources and data at its disposal to verify the accuracy of the alleged debts. The government wants to go out there and send out social security debts to some of the most vulnerable people in this country, and yet it won't stand by the accuracy or veracity of these debts. The government has demonised pensioners, workers and students, and that is simply unacceptable. But, in voting down Labor's practicable and reasonable anti-robodebt measure, the Liberals now place pensioners, workers and students at risk of another robodebt. They deserve better from this government and this Prime Minister. 130,000 Australian workers are either not earning enough income or not receiving enough hours of work to get off Newstart. They deserve better. The thousands of students working hard and studying hard, the members of Australia's future workforce—they deserve better. For the tens of thousands of innocent Australians who have been subjected to the terror and anxiety of the Liberal government's robodebt scheme, they need to know that the government will be better than this. In reality, the Liberal government is refusing to rule out another robodebt.
As I said, two of Labor's amendments were accepted, the review, and the 'fair and reasonable' social security reporting periods. However, the third and most important of our amendments was not accepted, and I know that we'll be hearing more about this. The government has chosen the potential for another robodebt crisis, and it was a crisis, particularly for those people that were victims of robodebt.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong) (16:26): Labor will support the bill because it's an attempt to try and make data collection more accurate and to make sure that Australians get the safety net entitlements that they deserve. But we've got to recognise that our vote for this is more a triumph of hope over experience. This is the government who, when it introduced new technology, gave us the My Health Record. That was a flop. We had the 2019 myGov outage, with technical difficulties that brought down the entire online government service portal for a day. There was, of course, Michael McCormack's one job, the census of 2016. That didn't end so well. But the king of all digi-disasters has been robodebt. So, whilst we support the recording of more accurate information through this legislation, our expectations of this incompetent, bungling government to execute it, I think, are an attempt at hope over our long-lived experience.
But robodebt is what has prompted this legislation. We are surprised and disappointed that, in the Senate, the government voted against just relying on the averaging of ATO data over a year to determine whether or not a particular fortnight's benefit to a Centrelink recipient is valid. That is the cause of the robodebt problem, and this stubborn government still can't admit its fault. But, for the education and edification of government members, the robodebt issue is a real issue: 600,000-plus notices were sent out by the government on the basis that it had the power to do so when, in fact, it didn't. How on earth did we get to a state of affairs in this nation where the government sends a letter of demand to hundreds of thousands of Australians but it doesn't have the legal authority to do so? How on earth did we get to a set of circumstances where no-one is responsible for this mistake? This is not a mistake which is victim-free. Thousands of Australians—tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands—feel the stigma, the humiliation and the desperation to try and find money that the government asserts it overpaid them when, in fact, the government didn't even have the right to ask for the overpayment—or, indeed, refund—which, in many cases, wasn't valid.
This is a government who conducted hundreds of thousands of transactions with its own citizens when they didn't have the legal power to do it. Wake up, government members! Are you so arrogant and so hubristic with the rorts that you committed before the last election that you can't even own making a mistake? Once upon a time, ministers would have resigned if their departments had acted illegally against hundreds of thousands of their citizens to unjustly enrich themselves. And if the government members who haven't bothered to acquaint themselves with the robodebt scandal think that words like 'unjust enrichment' are an exaggeration, they're not. The government's lawyers concede there was enrichment. But what is truly remarkable is—having broken the law, having put hundreds of thousands of citizens through a process that they were never meant to be subjected to, was unfair and caused harm—the defence that the government lawyers are using to justify the illegal actions and to justify not repaying the money—that is, that they don't owe a duty of care to Centrelink recipients. This is a morally bankrupt government. It's a government that lied and cheated at the last election, in terms of the rorts we're hearing about. And now they don't even care about their duty of care to their own citizens. Shame on the lot of you!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Llew O'Brien ): The member for Forde?
Mr van Manen: Point of order: his unparliamentary remarks.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I heard the member for Maribyrnong's comments. I'm going to rule them in order at the moment, but I would remind the member for Maribyrnong of the Speaker's ruling on referring to programs and activities as opposed to governments.
ADJOURNMENT
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Llew O'Brien ) (16:30): I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Barton Electorate: Coronavirus
Ms BURNEY (Barton) (16:30): I want to pay tribute to and express my support for the local businesses in Hurstville in the electorate of Barton. I am proud that the electorate of Barton is one of the most culturally diverse electorates in Australia. It is home to one of the largest Chinese communities in Australia. Barton reflects the face of modern Australia. As we all know, this is an anxious and difficult time for our Chinese community. Many of our local businesses have taken a pretty hard hit, and many of our local residents have been subjected to unacceptable racist sentiments and comments. As many have said before, the coronavirus does not discriminate, and neither should we. We are all in this together. I want to take this opportunity to put my remarks on the record in this parliament that we stand with you. We are here for you. And we are going to get through this together.
The unfolding situation around the world has seen fear and misinformation spread in our community, especially through social media. I strongly encourage everyone to keep themselves informed of the facts through the Commonwealth Department of Health and the New South Wales Health websites. These materials are also available in Chinese. As the Prime Minister said moments ago, you can still go to the footy match, you can still go to the rock concert and you can still go to your favourite Chinese restaurant.
In recent weeks, I and the Labor member for Kogarah, Chris Minns, the Labor mayor for Georges River, Kevin Greene, and the New South Wales Leader of the Opposition, Jodie McKay, and Jason Yat-Sen Li have been visiting and dining in some of our local businesses in Hurstville, including Sunny Harbour Seafood, Yu Star BBQ, Diamond Cafe and Bakery, Taste of Shanghai, 18 Grams cafe and Kalotfuk Supermarket. We hope to get around to many more in the coming weeks with other colleagues. We've talked about the difficulties that people are facing, the impact that recent months have had on their businesses, and it has been extreme. We've also gone to show our support and stand with the Chinese community in this extremely difficult time. And this isn't just having an impact on businesses. It also means that workers are having shifts cut and unemployment is growing. It means that children in schoolyards are experiencing very, very confronting situations. The wider community has also certainly felt it.
We continue to encourage people to come out to visit and support the many amazing and wonderful local businesses in the Hurstville district. We take these restaurants and grocers and other local businesses for granted, and we shouldn't—and we won't in the future. They have become an important staple in modern Australian cuisine. They have become an institution in suburbs and cities all over Australia. In the electorate of Barton, they go to the very character of suburbs like Hurstville. But right now they really need our support and our patronage to keep them going into the future. So, again, I want to say to the businesses and restaurants and entrepreneurs in the Hurstville area, particularly those in the Chinese community: we stand with you. And 'Hurstville eats' will continue; I will be visiting Hurstville in the very near future with other members of the Labor Party.
I know there is an enormous amount of fear. I really, once again, encourage people very strongly to look at the official websites of the Commonwealth Department of Health and New South Wales Health.
They have the most up-to-date information on the virus. They have accurate information. Much of the fear that's been spread around is to the detriment of the very, very brave people who are continuing to go into their restaurants to try and make ends meet. We have been told by a number of restaurant owners that their businesses have fallen by up to 75 per cent. It's not an exaggeration. Hurstville is normally a bustling suburb. It has a very big train station and it has a Westfield there. I was there last Saturday, I think, and it certainly isn't the bustling place that it used to be. Once again, I really encourage people to think about this virus. It does not discriminate and neither should we. We are all in this together. (Time expired)
Airport Passenger Screening
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (16:35): As at 1 January, regional airports throughout Australia are required to have full passenger screening scanners in airports that operate aircraft with a seating capacity in excess of 40 and with more than 30,000 passenger movements a year. I support these measures, it must be said. The government doesn't make these decisions lightly. It's on the best advice that our security agents are giving us that aircraft of a certain size can become a target of terrorists because they can be used as a projectile weapon. Fully loaded with fuel, there is a certain level where they believe that they become a real risk. These scanners will be installed around a number of airports around Australia. Some have them already; others will need more sophisticated equipment. The government has said that they will pay for the capital costs of installation.
But, since it was first mooted, I've had serious concerns about the effect that it may have on a number of smaller airports where the ability to defray fixed operating costs over a limited number of passengers can have quite a severe impact. To give you some idea, there are a number of different aircraft operators around Australia, but many residents in much of regional Australia are serviced by either QantasLink or Rex Airlines or both. In the case of Rex Airlines, their SAAB aircraft have less than 40-seat capacity, so any airport that is operating Rex only will not be affected. Their passengers will not be screened. For any airport that is operating Qantas only, while they have a fleet of smaller aircraft—certainly in my part of the world they are using Q400s, which have a seating capacity well in excess of 40—they will, of course, be swept up in this regulation. Where you have both aircraft operating, then it is going to be a decision of the airport operator as to where the extra landing costs will go. I can tell you that a thought that's been proposed to me is that maybe councils should pick up the extra tab.
I have a report here from the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development. They used Whyalla as a case study. That's one of the airports that I'm most concerned about. Whyalla has a throughput of 82,000 passengers a year. That would indicate that 41,000—because you're only screened on outbound flights—will need to be screened. For Whyalla Airport, it's estimated the cost per passenger will be $69.50 if they screen just the Qantas passengers and $53.90 if they screen all passengers, because the costs go up. The bottom line is that, to screen all those passengers—just 40,000—will cost about $2 million a year. That's a cost that will be put onto all regional airports around Australia that require scanning. Some of them already have scanning, as I said, so the lift will not be great. But it's the kind of cost that I don't think these airports could stand. We know, for instance, that the operators in that space are already under great pressure. Only a couple of weeks ago, Rex Airlines announced that they were no longer carrying through to Kangaroo Island, leaving Qantas as the only supplier.
There have been some suggestions that maybe the aircraft operators—and, in most cases, that is the council—can pick up the tab. I asked the Whyalla City Council how much money they were making out of operating Whyalla Airport. It turns out that last year they lost $186,000, and this year they've budgeted for a $175,000 loss. So there's not a lot of sauce on the plate there to skim off. The airport's already operating at a loss. They can't stand extra costs. I am really, really concerned that one or two of the carriers may well pull out. If, for instance, Qantas pulled out, then we could pull the scanners out and stack them out the back of the airport, because then we wouldn't need them for the Rex flights. It's putting great pressure on the airport operators, who are trying to work out whether they should be putting the landing fees on all aircraft or just on the aircraft that are over 40 seats. This is bringing a real imbalance to the decision-making process. I'm still hopeful that we are going to see some movement on this from the government. I ask that all members consider it. (Time expired)
Griffith Electorate: Australia Day Awards
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (16:40): On Australia Day I announced the winners of the 21st Annual Griffith Australia Day Awards, a tradition started by my predecessor as member for Griffith and former Prime Minister the Hon. Kevin Rudd. Each of the wonderful people who received an award this year has made an enduring contribution to our community as a volunteer, seeking neither financial reward nor recognition. Suzanne Bosanquet, from the Gabba Business Association, has been a leader in that group and has also been involved with a number of grassroots organisations and impressive projects in the Woolloongabba community. Kerry Schilling, founder of Kerry's Wildlife Rescue & Care centre, rescues and cares for animals and provides advice to others regarding injured wildlife. The dedicated founding members of the South Brisbane Men's Shed have realised their vision for a men's shed that supports fathers and male relatives of kids with autism. Darren Godwell has done extensive, varied and transformational work with First Nations people and with the West End community and beyond—nationally, at a state level and locally.
John Evans OAM dedicates six days a week to caring for the environment with the group he founded, SCRUB Catchment Care Group, and with B4C, the Bulimba Creek Catchment Coordinating Committee. Greg Kerswell has kept the Bulimba Book Club alive for more than a decade. Constantine Drozdovskii is a leader in the Russian community, working to continue and support both Russian and Australian culture. Brian and Margaret Besgrove have put in countless hours and made an enormous contribution to RSL Queensland's National Servicemens Sub Branch and have supported the Nashos community. Jenny Purnell from Sing Australia volunteers for that association as well with the Cannon Hill 60 and Better Association, bringing joy to the people she sings to and visits in nursing homes. Aileen Patterson has worked tirelessly for the past 15 years preparing food and events for her Cannon Hill 60 and Better Association community. Shirley Neander always makes people feel welcome and has been a member of both the Cannon Hill 60 and Better Association and the Cannon Hill School of Arts Association for more than a decade.
Leanne Cameron from Cannon Hill Community Kindergarten, who taught my children, is a dedicated educator who has gone well beyond her paid role to support early learning for local kids for decades. Carolyn Robinson, the founder of Beyond DV, Time Out Workshops, Hope 4 Life and Bright Start, has been a burst of light and hope for families escaping violence. Jak McPhail is a crossing supervisor at Greenslopes State School, knows every student by name, and volunteers extensively throughout the school community, implementing Containers for Change and encouraging families to recycle. Alison and Robert Coombs have supported local classical music radio station 4MBS for more than 15 years. Noela Billington has volunteered at 4MBS as a classical music announcer, programmer and trainer for 20 years. Wendy Tyson has been on the board of 4MBS and has overseen the accounts and administration for more than a quarter of a century.
Barbara Clarke is a guide for people with disabilities wanting to get involved in walking or running through the Achilles Brisbane group, and, as president of the group, she has led by example, overcoming her own challenges. Mark Delbridge has been essential to saving the much-loved Coorparoo Bowls Club, which came perilously close to closing—Mark has volunteered at least thirty hours a week, doing everything from tending the bar to negotiating contracts. Nera Komaric, a refugee from the former Yugoslavia, founded World Wellness Group in my electorate and has dedicated her life to making sure culturally and linguistically diverse communities can have access to essential services. Michael Spragg and Jessica Gregg from Carina Juniors Rugby League Football Club have both worked tirelessly raising funds, organising events and running the club. Jill Lane has been with the Belmont Ladies Bowls Club for almost 20 years and is now its honorary treasurer—despite being a volunteer, she's done everything from modernising their accounts system to preparing their financial reports, handling their cash flow and implementing the Single Touch Payroll system, which I'm sure some small businesses can tell you is not easy.
I want to especially mention 92-year-old Mary Lehn, who's only just stopped running the Carina Senior Citizens Club catering department—a role she had for 15 years. She was running the catering; she did everything from buying the food, organising the people to do the serving, even doing the washing up in that catering role. She also visits residents in the Salvin Park aged-care facility and has helped with hospitality at her local church.
It's an absolutely wonderful crop of recipients for this year's Griffith Australia Day Awards. I want to thank this year's committee for advising me: Jo Culshaw, Pat Atkinson and my friend Craig Bowen OAM. I look forward to thanking all of the recipients at the ceremony that we'll be having later in the year to congratulate them all on their service to the community and their Griffith Australia Day awards.
Adelaide: Lot Fourteen
Mr STEVENS (Sturt) (16:45): Earlier today, I had the pleasure to reflect on the opening of the Australian Space Agency last Wednesday in Adelaide. I want to take the opportunity in the adjournment debate to add to those comments and talk about the precinct more broadly, which the Australian government is investing in as part of our city deal with the South Australian government and the Adelaide city council, known as Lot Fourteen on North Terrace. This is the former site of the Royal Adelaide Hospital. Given the new hospital was built and opened in 2017, we were left with a situation where we had an old building on a site, a precinct, nestled within the Adelaide Park Lands and it was not really apparent what we could do with it. Almost two years ago the South Australian state government came up with the concept of turning it into a new innovation precinct, known as Lot Fourteen. Lot Fourteen is the name that was given to that parcel of land by Colonel Light, a very famous Englishman that designed Adelaide city in the 1830s.
Apart from being the home of the Australian Space Agency, Lot Fourteen has a number of other really exciting new engine rooms for growth in our economy and for future jobs. Last Monday, I was able to join many esteemed dignitaries from the Adelaide University, Lockheed Martin and the state government—I was representing the federal government—at the opening of the Australian Institute for Machine Learning. This is a collaboration between Adelaide University and Lockheed Martin, the major defence prime, also with support from government. There are some fascinating projects they're undertaking on behalf of governments as part of the funding commitment being made.
One project that I thought was really interesting and exciting is that they're bringing in live feed footage from all of the major intersections in the Adelaide CBD to monitor the flow of traffic. Of course, through the principle of machine learning, through developing algorithms and through the process of those algorithms talking to each other and teaching each other, effectively, we'll hopefully have an outcome where the traffic-light sequencing through the CBD can be run not just on the old-school '90 seconds here, 60 seconds there' but through an optimisation of the perfect amount of time that we need one light to be green, then the next one to go green to support traffic flow through the CBD of Adelaide. Like any CBD, it's the most significant area from a traffic congestion point of view. That's machine learning; that's happening on site at Lot Fourteen. We've got the five heritage buildings there that have been slowly refurbished, one after the other. There's one to go, the Bice Building. The McEwan Building is where the Space Agency was opened by the Prime Minister last Wednesday. We've got the allied health building, where Stone & Chalk are now managing I think 200 workstations for co-collaboration and startup concepts. They're all looked after and curated by Stone &Chalk.
The precinct has so many more exciting things to come. We'll have a new culinary school, relocating the Regency Park facility. It's a great facility, but it is towards 40 years old now, and the future is people being in the CBD, learning in the CBD, and then doing their on-the-job training in hospitality, particularly restaurant and catering, in nearby businesses. That's very exciting. Of course, we've got the Aboriginal art and cultures gallery, which is a major part of the city deal funding that the Commonwealth is contributing, to have an iconic cultural institution added to North Terrace in Adelaide. We intend for that to be the largest collection in the world of Aboriginal art, artefacts and various representations of Indigenous cultures. That's really exciting.
It's a great opportunity. We didn't know what we were going to do with that precinct. Old hospitals tend to be demolished, and this was an opportunity to be a bit creative about what we would do with the heritage buildings in particular, while still creating room in the precinct for new build. Instead of what Labor wanted to do, which was effectively turn it into some kind of housing development, we've turned it into a great asset not only for future jobs and our economy but for everyone in the city of Adelaide and the state of South Australia. I'm very excited about what's in store for that precinct, and I look forward to keeping the House up to date, into the future, as more great milestones come online as we roll out this great collaboration between state, local and federal government.
Global Security
Mr BURNS (Macnamara) (16:50): Before I begin my contribution tonight, I want to take this rare opportunity to wish my beautiful wife, Zoe, a very happy birthday for tomorrow. I hope she has a wonderful day and I look forward to coming home to seeing her.
Mr Josh Wilson: Have you got a present?
Mr BURNS: I do have a present, Member for Fremantle! I appreciate that.
Earlier this week, the ASIO director-general, Mike Burgess, delivered a pointed warning to Australians about the threats that we face. In particular, he acknowledged the increasing threat that far-Right extremism poses to our nation. In my first months in this place—and before I was elected—I spoke out on several occasions about the threat that far-Right extremism poses and the dangers that some of our nation's leaders have caused in stoking it. We have not yet seen the prevalent right-wing terror attacks that have swept through Europe and the United States, but we must be vigilant and we must stand tall against all forms of prejudice. It is alarming that this threat is on the rise 75 years after the liberation of Auschwitz.
We are almost at the one-year anniversary of the horrific Christchurch attack which occurred just across the Tasman in which a right-wing terrorist murdered 51 people and injured 49 when he opened fire on a mosque and an Islamic centre during afternoon prayers. That attack has inspired others—on a supermarket in El Paso, synagogues in California and Halle, and shisha bars last week in Hanau. But the Christchurch terrorist, Brenton Tarrant, was from Australia, and his manifesto, which was entitled 'The Great Replacement', made clear that he'd been radicalised by the ideas and tropes of figures of the far Right. He deeply admired a man called Blair Cottrell, a convicted felon known for advocating that Hitler photos be hung in Australian classrooms. Cottrell also helped organise a far-Right rally on St Kilda Beach, in the heart of my electorate—the rally that saw the attendance of disgraced former senator Fraser Anning. The rally, where swastikas and Nazi salutes were commonplace, was advertised as being to discuss the so-called crisis of African gang crime in Melbourne. That was not a campaign confected by the alt-Right in dark corners on the internet. That was a campaign written and authorised by the Victorian Liberal Party which became a cornerstone of their election campaign in 2018 to unseat the Andrews Labor government. Backing them were members of this House, including members of the government—including the Minister for Home Affairs, who made the preposterous claim that Melburnians were too afraid to go out at night because of rampaging African gangs.
Our words and our actions as members of parliament matter. The leadership we show or fail to show matters. The far Right is an extremist ideology that breeds, and feeds off, hatred of Jews, Muslims and others of all sorts of racial and ethnic minority backgrounds. It is an often interconnected community that, as Director-General Burgess pointed out, meets in person and connects in dark corners of the web. I mentioned 'The Great Replacement', the title of Tarrant's manifesto, because this is a direct reference to the far-Right conspiracy theory that globalist elites have a sinister plot to breed out whiteness from Europe, America and Australia, and to flood them with immigrants to make Western civilisation collapse. This 'replacement' theory was even given credence by the Prime Minister of Hungary, Viktor Orban, at an event Tony Abbott attended. What was his response to Orban's comments? He said Orban had 'the political courage to defy political correctness'. The standards we as leaders set in this place and outside it matter. We need to be vigilant against the rise of racism and extremism in our nation and around the world, and we need to call it out for what it is.
I want to also acknowledge that there have been some strong words from the Treasurer this week, who I know understands this problem as well as anyone. While the Minister for Home Affairs has often tried to downplay the threat of the far Right, the Treasurer has stood tall, and he is to be commended for that. We need to call it out for what it is, we need to heed the lessons and the warnings issued by the director-general this week, and we need to realise that education is one of the most powerful tools we have in the fight against hate.
Finally, I want to commend Victoria's Premier, Daniel Andrews, and Deputy Premier, James Merlino, who announced yesterday that Victoria will make Holocaust education a compulsory part of state school curriculum. All young Australians should grow up with an appreciation of the greatest horrors that racism and anti-Semitism have caused. We must remain united, we must remain vigilant and we must call out the far Right whenever we see it.
Cybersafety
Mr SIMMONDS (Ryan) (16:55): I rise today to speak about a topic that's very close to my heart, and that is e-safety, particularly for our young kids and for families right across Australia. It's on the back of Safer Internet Day 2020, which happened earlier this month. It was an important opportunity for families to take the time to talk to their kids and to talk amongst themselves about how they can make sure their entire family is safe when it comes to accessing the internet, particularly around our children and young Australians, like the young Australians who come here while we're sitting to watch us in parliament, like the kids who are currently behind me—hi, kids!—to make sure that they are safe when it comes to using digital devices. That's because it's something that is just ubiquitous in our society now.
I must admit that, just before I walked in here to make this speech, I was on a voice call with my little 2½-year-old. From time to time he certainly takes the phone or mobile connected device in order to access a movie or cartoons or something like that, but as parents we need to be ever vigilant, because we know that the size of the problem is significant. According to research from the eSafety Commissioner, Australian children are regularly exposed to harmful online experiences, with 28 per cent of parents aware their child has had a negative experience online. Twenty-eight per cent of parents are aware that their child has had a negative experience—that's over one in every four—but that's not to mention those negative experiences that children have that parents simply aren't aware of. This is my nightmare in particular.
If you talk to the eSafety Commissioner, you will hear some horrifying stories. You will hear stories from her of footage that her and her team have watched and identified and had taken off the internet where a young person is being taken advantage of on an internet enabled device while they can literally hear the parents talking in the next room over. It used to be that parents had a lot of things to worry about with regard to their kids, but they knew that when they were home they were safe because they were with mum and dad. Now a child can be taken advantage of on a mobile enabled device in the next room over while their parents, while doing their best, are completely oblivious.
So what can we do to help give parents the tools in order to keep their kids safe? Well, the government has established the world's first eSafety Commissioner. She's been particularly focused on the safety of kids up until now, but, with the new online safety act that's currently out for consultation, that role is looking to expand to all adults across Australia. She and her office have achieved significant things already. They've reached over 452,000 through education campaigns, they've investigated over 42,000 cases of illegal online content and they've addressed over 1,300 complaints about serious cyberbullying against children.
The message to parents is: you do not have to accept cyberbullying and inappropriate online communication between other people and your children as the cost of the internet and having a mobile enabled household—you just don't have to accept it. The eSafety Commissioner, when they're made aware of online bullying and made aware of specific cases, such as revenge porn or inappropriate photos—whatever it may be—they can issue a notice to the service providers to have that material removed. They have a very good success rate in achieving that within 24 to 48 hours.
They've just released a new online safety booklet for under-fives so that parents can start having this conversation with their children nice and early. It revolves around some important principles for kids, and that is to be safe, to be kind online, to ask for help and to make good choices yourself. There is an abundance of resources on the eSafety Commissioner's website, where parents can expand on those themes for their kids to make sure that their children understand the importance of doing those things online—particularly making good choices and avoiding people who they feel uncomfortable with. There are also important resources for parents in this booklet about how you can help your child by exploring the internet together; sitting down with them; being part of that process as they start to understand what it is to live in an internet enabled world; supervising them always; making sure that you're there, even if they're just watching a cartoon or something like that; and always watching your kids to help keep them safe.
House adjourned at 17:00
NOTICES
The following notice was given:
Mr Watts to move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges the role of Federal Government leadership in ensuring the productivity and liveability of Australian cities; and
(2) notes:
(a) the importance of public transport infrastructure in shaping cities and regions;
(b) the record funding commitments for urban public transport infrastructure made under the previous Federal Labor Government, including $3.2 billion for the Regional Rail Link project and a further $3 billion committed to the Melbourne Metro Rail Tunnel;
(c) the recent Infrastructure Australia report, Future Cities: Planning For Our Growing Population which highlights the need for Australian governments to increase investment in public transport in areas experiencing rapid population growth, including in Melbourne’s west;
(d) that if an appropriate route is selected, the construction of an airport rail link to Melbourne Airport through Melbourne’s west has the potential to create social and economic benefits across the region; and
(e) that further public transport infrastructure projects for fast growing regions like Melbourne’s west will be needed in the near future to meet the challenge of population growth.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Zimmerman) took the chair at 10:00.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Assange, Mr Julian
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (10:00): It is good to see a fellow regional MP in the chair!
I am no fan of Julian Assange. My position on Assange and the charge that he faces has been, like most others in this House, that he deserves the same protections that any Australian deserves—no more and no less. But it has become increasingly clear that Assange has not been treated like any other Australian in trouble overseas. He is a man who has been targeted with extraordinary ruthlessness and single-mindedness by the United States military, intelligence and political apparatus.
The speech delivered to the House yesterday by my colleague the member for Bruce brought the manifest injustice facing Assange into stark relief, and I urge all in this place to read it. In a nutshell, Assange ran WikiLeaks, a website that, as its name suggests, revelled in publishing secret material. This included classified documents detailing activities by the United States military. WikiLeaks' publishing of this material was highly embarrassing to the US military and intelligence services.
It's important to note that WikiLeaks is not run from the US, that Assange was not and is not a US citizen, and that he did not and does not live there. Unsurprisingly, the US authorities brought legal proceedings against him, including extradition. Of course to be extradited, normally you have to commit a crime in the place that is seeking the extradition. That didn't happen in this case. But if the United States succeeds in having Assange extradited from the UK it will set a new and frightening precedent. It will mean that an Australian journalist, perhaps writing for The Age or The Daily Telegraph, or a commentator for Nine or the ABC, who says things that US lawmakers consider unlawful under US law, could find themselves the subject of a warrant from the US seeking their extradition to the US to face charges. And if the US can successfully seek to extradite foreigners for breaking their laws, what is to stop other countries with whom we have extradition treaties from doing the same?
As much as this is an issue of individual injustice against Assange, it is an issue of our national sovereignty. An Australian citizen deserves the full protection of their government. Any supposed faith in the United States commitment to due process is misplaced. There is ample evidence, as the member for Bruce outlined, of US activities that run counter to due process. The pursuit of Julian Assange has been political, not judicial, and if he is extradited his future will be in the hands of the Trump administration, not an independent and impartial judiciary. If he is extradited, he faces dying in prison for publishing secrets.
I am no fan of Julian Assange, but, as the member for Bruce said, it doesn't matter if you agree with him, it doesn't matter if you like him and it doesn't matter if you dislike him. He's an Australian, with the same rights as you or me, and he is entitled to the protection of his government.
Middleton, Ms Heidi
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (10:03): I rise today to congratulate Heidi Middleton, business entrepreneur and breast cancer survivor. She is much admired, and truly—
Mr Hill: I seek to make an intervention under standing order 66A, to ask the member why he voted seven times yesterday to shut down the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Zimmerman ): Order! Does the member for Mackellar accept an intervention?
Mr FALINSKI: I cannot believe that the member for Bruce is interrupting a speech about a breast cancer survivor!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry—it's a straight question.
Mr FALINSKI: How low has Labor fallen that they will do that? That they will use breast cancer, and the story of a breast cancer survivor to make a point—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry—order!
Mr FALINSKI: They are a disgrace! An absolute disgrace!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Mackellar! I understand from the Clerk that an intervention isn't possible in the Federation Chamber during three-minute constituency statements.
Mr FALINSKI: Surprise, surprise!
Mr HILL (Bruce) (10:03): Then I move:
That the member no longer be heard.
Mr Falinski interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Mackellar will come to order!
Question unresolved.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Zimmerman ): As the question is unresolved, in accordance with standing order 188 the question will be included in the Federation Chamber's report to the House. I call the next speaker, the member for Shortland.
Shortland Electorate: National Disability Insurance Scheme
Mr CONROY (Shortland) (10:04): Today I am providing the house with an update on the ongoing issues my constituents are having with the NDIS.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Zimmerman ): Order! The member for Boothby has the call.
Ms FLINT (Boothby—Government Whip) (10:04): I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
Mr Falinski interjecting —
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Mackellar will come to order.
Question unresolved.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: As the matter is unresolved, it will be reported as such to the House at the appropriate junction. As the Deputy Speaker and the Speaker have both made clear, this type of conduct in the Federation Chamber is disorderly. If it continues, I will suspend the Federation Chamber.
Mr Hill: Do you mean the yelling or the motions?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Both.
Moore Electorate
Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore) (10:05): I rise—
Mr HILL (Bruce) (10:05): I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Zimmerman ): Under standing order 187, I'm deeming that the behaviour in the Federation Chamber this morning is disorderly. I propose to suspend the chamber for 10 minutes. I ask members to reflect on whether they intend to continue these practices which the Speaker has made quite clear are disorderly. The Federation Chamber will resume at 10.15.
Proceedings suspended from 10:06 to 10:15
Morrison Government
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (10:15): On Tuesday afternoon, shortly after the Prime Minister and Treasurer started crab walking away from their claim to have already delivered a surplus next year, the 'Back in black' mugs being sold by the Liberal Party for $35 were suddenly listed as 'sold out'. Instead of selling their massively overpriced mugs, the Liberals were revealed to have taken the Australian people for mugs. Suddenly their months of arrogant boasts about having returned the budget to surplus, even while it was still in deficit, were shown to be a self-serving campaign of garbage. They're a bit like the dodgy builder who tells you: 'The job's all finished. How great am I? Now pay me.' And then you discover that the job isn't finished at all, and the builder says: 'Well, when I said it was finished, what I meant was that I thought I was going to finish it, but it turned out to be harder than I thought. And how could I know it would rain? Anyway, look over there!'
For any other government, this would have been considered a catastrophic failure on the core promise that they were elected to deliver on. For the Morrison government, this was just Tuesday's scandal of the day, and it wasn't even the biggest scandal of the week. Yesterday we learned that, contrary to the Prime Minister's claims that he had no involvement in the sports rorts scandal, key people in his office had sent 136 emails to the former minister for sport. People in my electorate of Isaacs can only look on in wonder at a Prime Minister who has nothing to say about falling wages, is doing nothing about falling living standards, seems to welcome climate change as a great opportunity for a scare campaign and thought nothing of sneaking out of the country during the bushfire crisis but still had time to intervene 136 times on how best to rort the sports grants scheme to funnel taxpayers' money into the Liberals' re-election campaign.
The people in my electorate of Isaacs in the south-east of Melbourne who volunteer and participate at sporting clubs in places like Mordialloc, Dandenong and Parkdale never had a chance to get a grant under the Liberal Party's corrupt scheme. Why? Because my seat was not a target seat. My electorate office staff are now fielding upwards of 80 to 100 calls each week from people across my electorate and from around the country absolutely sickened by the corrupt behaviour of the Morrison government, failed leadership and deceitful abuse of taxpayers' money through this scandalous sports rorts scheme, a rorting scheme that was entirely conceived and executed for the Prime Minister's own political gain. One community organisation in my electorate, like many others around the country, was knocked back under Mr Morrison scandalous sports rorts pyramid scheme. No reason was given. All it received was a sanitised and generic rejection letter. This government is a disgrace.
Cairns: Tourism
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (10:18): To say that the Cairns tourism industry is currently doing it tough would be a gross understatement. I'll put it into perspective for you. In the lead-up to Chinese—
Mr HILL (Bruce) (10:18): I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Zimmerman ): Order! I made it clear before the Federation Chamber was suspended that the type of conduct that we're seeing this morning has been deemed by the Speaker to be an abuse of the forms of the House and disorderly conduct. I alerted to the chamber to the consequences of this continuing. I'm therefore deeming that the Federation Chamber is experiencing disorderly behaviour in accordance with standing order 187. I therefore adjourn the Federation Chamber until 10.30 am on Monday 2 March.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 10:19
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
Australian Research Council
(Question No. 243)
Ms Sharkie asked the Minister for Education, in writing, on 25 November 2019:
In respect of the 2019 Future Fellowship Scheme:(1) On what dates were: (a) all the outcomes decided through the Australian Research Council review process; (b) all funding for the scheme approved; (c) all academic institutions notified; (d) all successful applicants notified by their institutions; (e) all unsuccessful applicants notified; and (f) all unsuccessful applicants provided with feedback.(2) On what date or dates did the ARC submit their funding recommendations to the Minister.(3) On what date did the Minister finalise the list of projects to be funded.(4) Is it a fact that some potential applicants to the 2020 Future Fellowship Scheme who also applied to the 2019 scheme were not provided with feedback from the 2019 scheme prior to the opening of applications for the 2020 scheme; if so, why was there an overlap.(5) Is the Government concerned that uncertainty in the timing and process of the scheme announcements creates significant uncertainty for Australia's best and brightest academics, and that this may incentivise them to consider overseas opportunities instead of Australian-based opportunities; if not, why not.(6) In relation to (5), how many organisations have contacted the Minister or the department with such or similar concerns.(7) What steps is the Government taking to streamline the administration of the scheme.
Mr Tehan: The answer to Ms Rebekha Sharkie's question is as follows:
1.
a) The ARC does not decide outcomes. Please refer to question 2.
b) 9 August 2019.
c) 26 September 2019.
d-e) Only eligible institutions can be applicants. It is up to the institutions when they advise researchers.
f) 17 October 2019.
2. The ARC submitted its funding recommendations through the Parliamentary Document Management System on 28 June 2019.
3. Refer to question 1b.
4. All applicants, including unsuccessful applicants, for the 2019 ARC Future Fellowships round were notified of their outcomes on 26 September 2019. The 2020 round opened for applications on 9 October 2019 and closed on 27 November 2019. The unsuccessful 2019 applicants were able to view their feedback on 17 October 2019.
5. The length of time it takes the ARC to process and assess applications depends on many factors including the number and complexity of applications received as well as the availability of expert panels to conduct assessments.
6. The level of detail required to respond to this question is not available.
7. On 16 October 2019, I introduced a new embargo process to notify administering organisations of their outcomes prior to the official announcement by the Government. This is ensuring that applicants are notified of their outcomes closer to the date of the funding decision than ever before.
Details of the new embargo process are published on the ARC website: https://www.arc.gov.au/news-publications/arc-grant-outcomes-under-embargo
This embargo process ensures administering organisations (mainly Australian universities) are advised of their outcomes in advance of the official announcement and can share their outcomes with the research team and partner organisations named within their applications.
Importantly, it also allows unsuccessful researchers to proceed with alternative plans for their research and careers, including preparing applications for new ARC scheme rounds, or seeking alternative sources of research funding and/or employment.
As part of the general streamlining of all ARC schemes, ARC has implemented a number of steps, including:
Using GrantConnect, the Australian Government whole-of government centralised web-based, grant information system to publish all grant opportunities and resulting grant awards.
Moving to a Whole-of Government Grant Guidelines template across ARC schemes to improve consistency with the Guidelines of other Commonwealth agencies
Streamlining the Grant Guidelines to incorporate feedback from the sector and ensure all information requirements are necessary and the resulting information is used effectively.
Improvements to functionality of application forms in ARC's Research Management System to reduce duplication, information quantity and application length.
Improvements to the post-award grants management process including streamlined final reports and requirements to vary grant agreements.
Continuing to undertake strategic outreach to the sector to provide guidance about ARC application and assessment processes.