The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 09:30, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
COMMITTEES
Selection Committee
Report
The SPEAKER (09:29): I present report No. 21 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday, 26 October 2020, and the consideration of bills. The report will be printed in today's Hansard and committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's Notice Paper.
The report read as follows—
Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business and the consideration of bills introduced 19 October 2020 to 22 October 2020
1. The committee met in private session on Tuesday, 20 October 2020.
2. The Committee deliberated on private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 20 October 2020, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 26 October 2020, as follows:
Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Notices
1 Dr Haines: To present a Bill for an Act to establish the Australian Federal Integrity Commission, and for related purposes. (Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2020)
(Notice given 1 September 2020.)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
2 Dr Haines: To present a Bill for an Act to enhance the integrity of the Parliament of Australia, and for related purposes. (Commonwealth Parliamentary Standards Bill 2020)
(Notice given 1 September 2020.)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
3 Mr Wilkie: To present a Bill for an Act to regulate suspicious gambling activities, and for related purposes. (Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment (Making Gambling Businesses Accountable) Bill 2020)
(Notice given 20 October 2020.)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
4 Ms Hammond: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes the longevity of the 'Australian Made, Australian Grown' logo since its creation more than 30 years ago as Australia's most trusted, recognised and widely used country of origin symbol to promote authentic Australian brands all around the world;
(2) commends the Government for providing the Australian Made Campaign Ltd, the not for profit public company which administers the logo, with $5 million to promote the logo in key export markets as well as establishing trademark registration in the United Kingdom, the European Union and Canada;
(3) further commends the Government for its $5 million investment in the 'Go Local First' campaign, which is run by the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia and is encouraging all Australians to promote and support our local small and family businesses through the COVID-19 pandemic; and
(4) encourages all Australians to recognise the importance of local industry, manufacturers, producers, and businesses to our economy, and the quality of Australian made products and Australian grown produce.
(Notice given 6 October 2020.)
Time allotted—40 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Ms Hammond—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
5 Mr Shorten: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) there are real issues with consistency and fairness in NDIS access and planning decisions but there is not enough information available about the Government's recently announced NDIS Independent Assessments (IA) to conclude it will address issues with consistency and fairness;
(b) mandatory IA are not well supported (as the Government claims) by the findings of the 2019 Tune Review and the original Productivity Commission report;
(c) there has been outcry about the lack of consultation and information available about IA among people with disability and disability advocates; and
(d) there is evidence that IA may be a cover for the Government to restrict NDIS access and limit participant plans, and privatise the NDIS 'by stealth'; and
(2) calls on the Government to:
(a) listen to participants and immediately pause the rollout of the current IA program;
(b) hold a genuine, transparent consultation process to confirm what the issues are and trial different options;
(c) co-design the solution best supported by evidence with participants, families, carers and the sector; and
(d) make public all modelling, actuarial advice and evaluation reports used to support the chosen program, showing numbers of participants whose NDIS funding or eligibility will be impacted.
(Notice given 19 October 2020.)
Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon
Speech time limits—
Mr Shorten—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Orders of the day
1 Family Law Amendment (A Step Towards a Safer Family Law System) Bill 2020 (Mr Perrett): Second reading—Resumption of debate (from15June2020).
Time allotted—20 minutes.
Speech time limits—
All Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Notices
1 Mr Wallace: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) 10 October 2020 was World Mental Health Day;
(b) World Mental Health Day aims to raise awareness of mental health issues worldwide and to encourage action to promote better mental health; and
(c) this year's theme for World Mental Health Day is 'Greater Investment–Greater Access. Everyone, everywhere';
(2) further notes that:
(a) 45 per cent of Australians will experience a mental illness in their lifetime;
(b) 3.8 million Australians live with a mental illness while 65 per cent of all GP presentations are for mental health issues;
(c) 54 per cent of people with mental illness do not access any treatment; and
(d) levels of anxiety, social isolation, and emotional distress have increased significantly worldwide during this year's global health emergency;
(3) welcomes the Government's additional investment of more than $500 million in mental health services during the COVID‑19 pandemic; and
(4) commends Mental Illness Fellowship Australia for their work supporting the mental health of more than 20,000 Australians each year.
(Notice given 6 October 2020.)
Time allotted—40 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Wallace—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
2 Mr Giles: To move:
That this House:
(1) recognises that the Government has failed to manage critical infrastructure within the City Deals program;
(2) notes that the Government:
(a) will spend $4 billion more on the Western Sydney City Deal project, Sydney Metro-Western Sydney Airport;
(b) has tried to disguise the $4 billion increase in cost as a 'fast track' when in fact, the funding timeline and the scope from St Marys to the Western Sydney Aerotropolis via Western Sydney International has not changed;
(c) has shifted responsibility for land acquisition to the NSW Government; and
(d) failed to action a 2017 Infrastructure Australia report to strategically plan and acquire critical rail corridors which would have resulted in significant savings; and
(3) further notes the abject failure of this Government to:
(a) acquire land that delivers value for money to the Australian taxpayer as evidenced by the Leppington Triangle purchase; and
(b) learn the lessons of the COVID-19 pandemic and invest in critical social infrastructure within City Deals.
(Notice given 20 October 2020.)
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Giles—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
3 Mr Stevens: To move:
That this House:
(1) recognises the opportunities for Australian businesses, especially our advanced manufacturers, in the growing Australian space industry;
(2) acknowledges that the Government has:
(a) set a goal of tripling the size of the space sector to $12 billion by 2030;
(b) established the Australian Space Agency to drive the sector forward; and
(c) recently commenced ground works on the new Space Discovery Centre at Lot 14 in Adelaide, which will engage and educate on our next generation of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics leaders; and
(3) welcomes the Government's opening of Supply Chain Capability Improvement grants that will enable Australian businesses to become part of international space supply chain and have a role in NASA's Moon to Mars mission.
(Notice given 6 October 2020.)
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Stevens—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
4 Mr Wilkie: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) 2019 was the hottest and driest year ever recorded in Australia, resulting in catastrophic bushfires, extensive coral bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef and ever-increasing rates of extinction of our native flora and fauna;
(b) in the face of runaway climate change, and according to the Bureau of Meteorology, Australia is on track to warm by 4.4 degrees Celsius;
(c) the Government has just committed to new fossil fuel exploration and infrastructure which will lock in continued greenhouse gas emissions and global heating for years to come; and
(d) gas is a fossil fuel, not a transition fuel, while carbon capture and storage has a long history of absorbing taxpayers money for little benefit to the climate; and
(2) calls on the Government to:
(a) stop fossil fuel exploration and extraction of coal, oil and gas, including the Adani project and drilling off the New South Wales coast;
(b) end direct and indirect taxpayer subsidies to the fossil fuel industry; and
(c) invest in large-scale renewable energy generation, storage and transmission through community-owned solar, wind, tidal, wave, hydro, geothermal and green hydrogen.
(Notice given 20 October 2020.)
Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm
Speech time limits—
Mr Wilkie—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Notices—continued
5 Mr B. K. Mitchell: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that the:
(a) exploitation of migrant workers on short-term visas in the Australian horticultural sector is an ongoing priority for the Fair Work Ombudsman and is the focus of a recent inquiry by the Joint Standing Committee on Migration; and
(b) COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the reliance of the Australian horticultural sector on overseas workers, where up to 80 per cent of the harvest workforce comes from overseas on short-term visas;
(2) calls on the Government to:
(a) identify and implement measures that will lead to a sustained improvement in the number of Australians who work in the Australian horticultural sector, including in seasonal work such as fruit-picking; and
(b) take immediate action to identify and eliminate exploitation, underpayment and mistreatment of seasonal horticulture workers, particularly migrant workers on short-term visas; and
(c) take immediate action to properly regulate labour hire companies involved in the recruitment and management of migrant workers in Australian horticulture; and
(3) further notes that workforce shortages are now so dire for the current harvest that without urgent action, growers face significant hardship and consumers face higher prices.
(Notice given 19 October 2020.)
Time allotted—35 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr B. K. Mitchell—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 7 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
6 Mr Young: To move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges the renewed interest, both in Australia and overseas markets, in Australian-made products in the wake of the global pandemic;
(2) recognises that:
(a) Australian made products have a reputation for quality and value;
(b) the changing global marketplace creates new opportunities for Australian manufacturers;
(c) the Government has committed $5 million over the next four years to promote 'Australian Made' and expand its reach overseas; and
(d) buying Australian Made supports local manufacturing businesses and local jobs; and
(3) encourages all Australians to buy Australian Made where possible to support our local businesses as part of the national economic recovery.
(Notice given 6 October 2020.)
Time allotted—50 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Young—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 10 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
7 Dr Freelander: To move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport held an extensive inquiry into the use and marketing of electronic cigarettes and personal vaporisers in Australia, throughout the 45th Parliament;
(2) notes that the inquiry did not find, nor recommend, that e-cigarettes and personal vaporisers be considered to be 'health products', nor that they reduced harm to users;
(3) further notes that e-cigarettes and personal vaporisers:
(a) are not universally considered to be an effective tool in helping smokers to quit smoking or reduce consumption of nicotine products;
(b) may be considered to be a 'gateway' into the consumption of nicotine, tobacco and nicotine products; and
(c) involve the use of flagrant advertising and enticing flavours, which allure consumers to consume their substance;
(4) notes that the Senate is considering holding another superfluous inquiry into the use of such products, despite the House having held an extensive inquiry in the previous parliament;
(5) condemns any attempt from vested interests to promote the use of e-cigarettes and personal vaporisers within this parliament; and
(6) concurs with the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport in its findings, namely that independent experts at the Department of Health, the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Therapeutic Goods Administration are well-placed to review the use and regulation of electronic cigarettes and personal vaporisers.
(Notice given 3 September 2020.)
Time allotted—20 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Dr Freelander—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
8 Mrs McIntosh: To move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges the role that Australian manufacturing businesses continue to play in ensuring our nation has vital supplies, including food and personal protective equipment, especially during the pandemic when global supply chains were disrupted;
(2) recognises that a vibrant manufacturing sector is important for our economic security; and
(3) congratulates Australian manufacturing businesses on their ongoing efforts to adapt to the current circumstances, keep people in jobs, support local supply chains and contribute to our national economic recovery.
(Notice given 6 October 2020.)
Time allotted—35 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mrs McIntosh—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 7 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Orders of the day—continued
2 Young Australians: Resumption of debate (from 19 October 2020) on the motion of Ms Rishworth—That this House:
(1) recognises that young Australians have disproportionately felt the economic and social pain that the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions and recession have brought;
(2) notes that young people:
(a) are facing an extraordinary jobs crisis, and:
(i) in March 2020, 15 per cent of all jobs were filled by young people yet 40 per cent of all jobs lost since then were young Australians aged 14 to 24;
(ii) there are now over 345,900 young Australians out of work; and
(iii) nearly 2 in 5 young people are now unemployed or need more work;
(b) are struggling to afford life's essentials, and:
(i) 70 per cent of young Australians are now concerned about their financial wellbeing;
(ii) young people have missed payments for household bills at a rate of 2 to 3 times the general population; and
(iii) 52 per cent of young renters and 45 per cent of young mortgage holders were concerned about their ability to make housing payments in July 2020;
(c) are suffering severe social disruption, and:
(i) many have missed out on once in a lifetime milestones and rites of passage;
(ii) more feel isolated due to lockdowns with some schools closed, campus life extinguished, and social gatherings restricted or prohibited; and
(iii) 51 per cent of young people felt their mental health had worsened during the crisis;
(d) are grappling with disruptions to education and training, and:
(i) many feel their motivation and career plans have been dented; and
(ii) 53 per cent feel their study has been negatively affected; and
(e) feel they don't have a voice in politics—52 per cent of young people felt they had a say 'none of the time' in public affairs; and
(3) calls on the Government to work with young people and urgently design a comprehensive COVID‑19 youth recovery strategy that gets young Australians through this crisis and builds their futures.
Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 7.30 pm
Speech time limits—
All Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 5 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
3. The committee determined that the following referral of a bill to a committee be made—
Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport:
Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Financial Transparency) Bill 2020 [No. 2].
THE HON A. D. H. SMITH MP
Speaker of the House of Representatives
21 October 2020
BILLS
Aged Care Amendment (Aged Care Recipient Classification) Bill 2020
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Tehan, for Mr Hunt.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Minister for Education) (09:32): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill amends the Aged Care Act 1997 to enable a new procedure to classify recipients of residential aged care and some kinds of flexible care from 1 March 2021.
The bill introduces the option to independently assess the relative care needs of individuals in residential aged care by empowering the Secretary of the Department of Health to assess care recipients using a new assessment tool and assign new classification levels. The bill also includes consequential amendments to other parts of the act to enable exercise of the new powers, including that any assessors acting as delegates of the secretary must hold professional qualifications and complete role-specific training detailed in a legislative instrument under the act.
A sustainable aged care system needs a reformed funding model. There is broad support—including through the royal commission—for a modern case-mix based funding model for residential aged care to replace the outdated Aged Care Funding Instrument.
Currently clinical workers in residential aged care are required to spend their time using the Aged Care Funding Instrument to assess residents, reducing their availability to deliver care.
Reports produced by both independent researchers and the statutory Aged Care Financing Authority have found the Aged Care Funding Instrument provides strong incentives for providers to deliver outdated methods of care—whether or not care recipients may benefit—to produce higher subsidy payments.
The Aged Care Funding Instrument has been found to no longer be fit for purpose and its use has been found to lead to perverse actions by aged-care providers, causing perverse outcomes for aged-care recipients.
Since the 2016 budget, the government has committed to developing and testing a lasting alternative to the Aged Care Funding Instrument.
Between 2017 and 2019 the government funded the University of Wollongong to perform a research project, the resource utilisation and classification study. With the involvement of almost 200 residential aged-care services, the study empirically measured drivers of the costs of delivering care, and recommended a new resident classification model called the Australian National Aged Care Classification.
Under this new model, it is proposed that assessors acting as delegates of the secretary perform resident assessments using a new assessment tool, leading to the secretary assigning new, simpler classification levels that consistently group care recipients with like care needs and like care costs.
All assessors acting as delegates of the secretary must meet strict professional qualification and additional training criteria, to be detailed in subordinate legislation.
This bill builds on the successful Australian National Aged Care Classification trial—conducted in 2019 and early 2020—and will allow a new classification using the Australian National Aged Care Classification tool to be determined for the entire residential aged-care population without affecting how subsidy for providers is calculated. This is an essential step in preparing to respond to the findings of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety in a timely manner.
Classification data obtained from these assessments will ensure that individuals, care workers, providers and the government all have the information they need to fully understand the new funding model.
During the information-gathering period the bill allows, providers will continue to use the existing Aged Care Funding Instrument to assess their residents in parallel with the new procedure established by the bill.
This bill enables the next phase of residential aged-care funding reform. A phase of preparation that will enable the government, in the context of a response to the findings of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, to quickly and seamlessly transition funding from the outdated ACFI. It sets the stage for a more contemporary, efficient, effective and stable funding approach, one that will promote investment in residential aged-care refurbishment and expansion, and that will support providers to better deliver the individualised care that each resident needs.
Debate adjourned.
Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 2) Bill 2020
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Tehan, for Mr Hunt.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Minister for Education) (09:37): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to introduce the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 2) Bill 2020.
This bill amends the way that home care providers are paid government subsidy such that home care providers will only be paid subsidy for the care and services delivered to a home care recipient during a month, with Services Australia retaining the unspent Commonwealth subsidy for which a home care recipient is eligible to receive each month.
This builds on changes made by the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 1) Bill 2020 which amends the Aged Care Act 1997 and the Aged Care (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997 such that home care providers will not receive a payment in advance but in arrears.
Any unspent Commonwealth subsidy withheld as a result of this bill will be available for a provider to draw down on behalf of a home care recipient as care and services are provided in future. There is no change to a consumer's access to their full subsidy, and no change to the treatment of consumer contributions.
The bill introduces more contemporary business practices into home care subsidy payment arrangements and brings these arrangements into alignment with other government programs.
Debate adjourned.
National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention Bill 2020
National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (09:40): I'm pleased to speak on the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention Bill 2020 and the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020, and I move:
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 criticises the Government for failing to:
(1) address the high rates of suicide and mental health conditions among current and former Australian Defence Force personnel, as evidenced by the latest Australian Institute of Health and Welfare data; and
(2) establish a full and independent Royal Commission into veteran suicide, with broad terms of reference, and a clear start and end date".
At the outset, I want to say that Labor recognises the unique nature of military service, the sacrifice of current and former ADF members and their families and the outstanding contribution they make to our nation. We are committed to supporting our ADF members and veterans during their service, in transitioning from service and in their lives beyond service. For our part, Labor takes the issue of defence and veteran suicide very seriously. This is why we came out in support of a royal commission into veteran suicide in December last year.
The government's announcement in February of a new National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention, only after widespread calls from veterans and sections of the media for a royal commission, is disappointing. Despite the overwhelming support for a royal commission the Prime Minister stubbornly refused to listen to the veterans community and establish a royal commission earlier this year. In response, Labor cautiously welcomed the announcement of a national commissioner as a step forward because, as we said at the time, we didn't want to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. On that basis, Labor will not be opposing these bills in the House. But we reserve our position until we see the outcome of the Senate inquiry into these bills.
Like so many in the veterans community, we have serious concerns about the proposed national commissioner. The fact is that, since the government's initial announcements, we and many parents and family members whose sons and daughters tragically have taken their own lives after long battles with the Department of Veterans' Affairs have become increasingly convinced that the national commissioner won't be better than a royal commission as the government has claimed. The government has a lot of work to do to convince us and many in the veterans and wider community that they are genuine in tackling this issue. A growing concern shared by many veterans and families is that this is simply a marketing exercise—an announcement, not a plan to tackle the issue. It won't accomplish what a royal commission would because it lacks the resources, the scope, the powers and, in particular, the independence from government to ask the difficult questions.
Labor's position is that only a full royal commission, with a clear start and end date, will achieve this. Otherwise, the national commissioner just creates yet another layer of bureaucracy which will achieve very little. But we know that the devil is in the detail, so we've studied the legislation and we've been consulting widely to hear from stakeholders and experts. We want to scrutinise it thoroughly to see if the proposal will have the powers of a royal commission. This is why we supported referring the bills to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee inquiry. We've got concerns about the proposal and believe only a thorough and comprehensive inquiry will address these.
The government has a trust deficit with the veterans community. Together, these issues which I'm about to elaborate upon really cause the veterans community to have grave concern about the government's real intention here, and whether this is an actual plan to address these issues and not just a marketing exercise. There are four issues I want to address that encompass part of the amendments that I have moved. The first issue is the DFRDB issue. The government announced that they would have an inquiry by the Commonwealth Ombudsman as a result of requests by the veterans community into the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme—an independent investigation. This has bedevilled and vexed many in the veterans community and caused tremendous concern and angst. The government eventually announced the outcome of the inquiry. We welcomed the government's apology to veterans. We welcomed the fact that the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation, which manages the DFRDB scheme, had accepted the Ombudsman's recommendation to improve advice to and communication with members. The Ombudsman found that there were false expectations of a more generous long-term outcome, and this constituted defective administration by Defence. We then expected the government to engage with the veterans community, because we know that people who suffer financial loss can apply for compensation through the government's Scheme for Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration. It's a well-known fact. We expected the government to engage with the veterans community in relation to that. We expected applications to come out of the government's engagement with the veterans community. Too little has been done, and this has caused concern and real worry in the veterans community.
The second issue is the announcement the government made in March last year, before the last election, that they would examine, at the request of so many totally and permanently incapacitated veterans, the compensation they were paid as income—the special rate pension. Those veterans felt it wasn't benchmarked properly and that its real purchasing power was declining. The government announced that there would be an inquiry conducted by David Tune in relation to that issue. We provided bipartisan support. The government received the report of that review in August last year and sat on the report, releasing it just after the budget. I can't count the number of times I've spoken to people in the veterans community, in speaking at conferences and congresses of the TPI community, about the anxiety caused by the government's failure in this respect.
In the end, in the budget, what has the government done? As I said, the government released the outcome of the review just after the budget. In the budget, there's a little bit extra help for those TPI veterans who are renting. Up to 20 per cent of TPI veterans will receive some rental assistance, far short of what was expected. This has caused a trust deficit amongst veterans communities, and TPI veterans have been very vocal about it.
The third issue is the government's much-heralded national Veteran Health and Wellbeing Strategy. The minister stood over there and announced that they would have that wellbeing and health strategy, which is the very subject of these bills and the amendment today, by the end of last year. That came and went—pre bushfires, pre pandemic. Eventually, on 15 May this year, we discovered the strategy had been put up on the website. There were blank pages, a few pictures, a litany of policies and programs which were already being rolled out—really a bit of a damp squib of a strategy and a policy. The veterans community was very underwhelmed by it.
The fourth issue, which again is the subject of these bills, was the Productivity Commission report, which the government received in the middle of last year, releasing it on 2 July last year. There were 69 recommendations. There were some we came out quite strongly against pretty well from the start—for example, the idea of abolishing the gold card for veterans and their families. We straightaway said we didn't support it. In addition, there was the idea to create and privatise the Veteran Services Commission that the PC had recommended in its interim report. We said we wouldn't support that. We asked questions in this forum, including in question time, consideration in detail and Senate estimates, about what the government's intention was.
Remember, the government released this report on 2 July last year. The government responded to that report in the budget. And what did they say? There's an interim response. There's 69 recommendations by the Productivity Commission. The government responded to only 25 of those and we have no idea when the government's eventually going to respond to the rest. In the budget there was a bit more support for counselling and mental health services—for increased fees for mental health services like psychology and psychiatry. We welcome that. I commended the government for it. But there was nothing in terms of extra support for physiotherapy or occupational therapy. It's not just mental health; mental health goes hand in glove with physical health, and the government did nothing in the budget in relation to that.
So you can see there's a real trust deficit when it comes to the government on these issues, and veterans feel left out and left behind accordingly. As I said as I moved this second reading amendment criticising the government in relation to this issue, on 9 October we saw the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare figures on ADF personnel and veteran suicide released. They show that our veterans urgently need help. There needs to be a royal commission into this painful and ongoing scourge. The data showed that there were 33 deaths by suicide amongst serving and ex-serving ADF personnel in 2018; 465 suicides between 2001 and 2018. That's about 10 times more deaths by suicide than there were combat deaths over the same period.
The sobering reality is that many veterans believe the actual suicide rate is much higher. Anecdotally, we lose around one veteran a week, at least, to suicide. That's because the official figures may not pick up that someone was an ADF member; or there may be other factors involved, such as a vehicle accident that masks the true nature of what has happened—not to mention the number of veterans who try and take their lives each year or who suffer mental health issues including suicidal ideation.
The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report shows that male veterans are 21 per cent more likely to die by suicide than men in the community generally, while the rate of suicide amongst ex-serving women is twice the general female population. Alarmingly, the research shows that ex-serving men had a 66 per cent higher suicide rate when they were discharged for medical reasons compared to men who were discharged voluntarily.
This update is a wake-up call and yet another report in a very, very long line of reports which now go back decades. We're losing the war when it comes to saving our current and former Defence personnel. The data sadly backs up the experience of veterans like former special forces officer Major Heston Russell, who I spoke with recently. Major Russell told me that he'd lost more men—more of his mates—to suicide than in four deployments to Afghanistan. It shows we need to do a lot more to support our ex-serving men and women and prepare them for life after the military through assistance with mental health and wellbeing, employment and housing. It highlights why we urgently need a royal commission into veteran suicide to get to the bottom of these tragic deaths.
The evidence is overwhelming, and it's not getting any better. Labor broadly welcomed the Morrison government's announcement of a National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention earlier this year. It's just a small step forward, notwithstanding the pleas of Julie-Ann Finney and parents of veterans for a full royal commission into veteran suicide. But how has it taken the Morrison government eight months from making that announcement to us debating this today in the House? How serious can they have been that it is now eight months later and we're having a debate today on this topic?
Further, we're disappointed that the Attorney-General rushed ahead—strangely enough, despite the fact that we're having a debate eight months later—and appointed an interim national commissioner on 30 September, when the initial consultation process had only just concluded and well before the parliament had a chance to even vote on the enabling legislation. It is interesting that the announcement was made late in the day—under the cover of dark, if you want to avoid scrutiny—suggesting the government knew that there were issues with the process and it wouldn't go down well with the veteran community. It was a pretty sneaky thing for the government to do, actually. While Labor has no personal criticism of the interim national commissioner, Dr Bernadette Boss, who was a magistrate and a coroner, and a brigadier in the Army Reserve, we are concerned that the government made certain assurances that they wouldn't appoint someone with a military background. It's another act of bad faith with veterans. We fear that Dr Boss, as an Army officer, could have a conflict of interest that would open the office to perceptions of institutional bias towards Defence, undermining trust in the office. It confirms our suspicion that the new position will not have the independence of powers to really get to the bottom of veterans' suicide in the way that a royal commission with broad terms of reference could.
You might have thought that maybe a former High Court judge, a Supreme Court judge or a Federal Court judge, even someone with experience in running royal commissions or someone who has presided as a judge for a very long time—independence, fresh eyes—would have been a more appropriate appointment. I'm very concerned that the commissioner could end up being a glorified federal coroner, which is essentially redundant when we know that state and territory coroners, with experience, police resources, pathology resources and counselling resources all have expertise to investigate veterans' suicide, and that's what happens now. What's more, the so-called independent review into past suicides that the interim national commissioner is undertaking is basically an in-house desktop review. It is nothing like a royal commission. For a start, the review's terms of reference are fairly narrow—for example, the review will only cover deaths that occurred between 1 January 2001 and 31 December 2018. That excludes David Finney, for one, who passed away in 2019. His mother, Julie-Ann Finney, was one of the faces of the campaign for a royal commission into veterans' suicide. It is another slap in the face and an act of bad faith with veterans and their families. Furthermore, you have to question the interim national commissioner's capacity to adequately investigate 456 or more deaths from 2001 to 2018 and produce an interim report after 12 months and a final report after 18 months as has been announced. I'm not making that up. Those time frames are what the government has set. To put that into perspective, the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody involved four commissioners, each with two teams, who investigated 200 deaths over four years from 1987 to 1991. Clearly, this in-house, watered down review will not have the standing of a properly constituted royal commission, and it's doubtful whether it can be done properly.
Not only has the process behind the national commissioner been suspect, but in substance it's deeply flawed as well. The government has made much of the new body being a rolling royal commission, and bigger and better than a royal commission. They're saying it would be a permanent and enduring voice to parliament. It seems this is okay when it comes to veterans but not when it comes to our First Nations people. The inconsistency and hypocrisy of this—that this government will not accept a voice to parliament for Australia's First People but will go ahead with this idea of a so-called voice to parliament—will not go unnoticed by Australia's First People.
That something is enduring doesn't make it inherently superior, particularly if it's not properly informed or constituted from the beginning. It's fairly clear that this standing body will not have the powers of a royal commission as the government is claiming. A number of veterans, academics and legal experts we've consulted have advised us that a royal commission with broad terms of references and with a clear start and end date is needed, and that is world-best practice. As one submission to the government's consultation put it:
… a Royal Commission which by definition is the highest form of inquiry on a matter of public importance. In addition to having wider and more significant powers ( for instance to refer matters to the Director of Public Prosecutions ) , the benefit of a Royal Commission is that it definitively establishes the facts at a point in time—
and makes a series of considered recommendations that are very hard for governments to ignore.
In contrast, the proposed national commissioner model is in and of itself unproven and untested. It could roll on for many years doing its check-ins and its check-ups and lodge annual reports without a guarantee of meaningful change and action to prevent defence and veteran suicide. There is no guarantee of systemic change, merely, at best, a guarantee of individual case reviews, more likely to be desktop as it's already been happening. This is unsatisfactory and unacceptable. It almost implies there's no expectation of success or finding solutions to prevent these tragic and needless deaths.
The logical conclusion is that a royal commission should precede any permanent standing statutory body and that the body should be informed by the strong and definitive recommendations of a royal commission. Indeed, a royal commission could recommend a standing permanent capability be established to oversee ongoing reforms to prevent veteran suicide in the future, possibly even along the lines of a better version of a national commissioner. A good example of this is the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service or the Wood royal commission on police corruption, which led to the establishment of a standing police integrity commission. As it stands, the proposal in these bills puts the cart before the horse—and a pretty dodgy looking cart at that.
Following on, the government has described the national commissioner as has having powers broadly equivalent to a royal commission, and some powers in the legislation are closely modelled on equivalent powers under the Royal Commissions Act 1902. Having widely considered legal matters on this issue with experts, Labor's concerned only a royal commission, for example, would have unambiguous powers to hold public hearings, summon witnesses, compel the production of evidence, pursue disciplinary proceedings and, crucially, even refer charges of criminal or official misconduct to appropriate authorities and make recommendations for compensation. As such, the bills may try to mimic royal-commission-like powers, but there's an inherent structural or design flaw in that the national commissioner will effectively be a government official sitting and working alongside other government officials in the Attorney-General's portfolio. This means they can be hired and fired by the government at any time and are much less likely to exercise those powers to hold Defence, DVA and other agencies to a serious level of scrutiny for their roles in defence and veteran suicide and. As it will have a budget of about $30 million, less than half of an average royal commission, Labor fears the national commissioner will not be properly resourced to do its job.
I want to touch on one other aspect we've received some feedback on. Many veterans and families are deeply cynical that the proposals in these bills represent an attempt by the government to try to limit scrutiny and criticism of it and its agencies, to protect these institutions. Amongst some in the veterans community there is almost a complete lack of trust and confidence in the government and departments like defence and even veterans' affairs. These bills refer to the national commissioner as taking a 'trauma-informed and restorative approach' to their work and in particular having a preference to hold private meetings with families of suicide victims, ostensibly out of respect for them. Some are concerned this is a code for wanting to silence them behind closed doors when, in fact, many families actually want to have a public platform to tell their stories in order to seek restorative justice. As one researcher and veteran I've spoken to put it: 'For some veterans false promises and a lack of transparency and accountability will simply compound trauma, which does nothing to decrease the trust deficit between veterans and the ADF, the department and the DVA.' This person noticed that this in turn can create further distress, which in turn may lead to self-harm and even suicide. You only have to look to the Productivity Commission report from the middle of last year to see that's true.
We know that only a royal commission will provide closure, healing and restorative justice for the defence and veterans community. In other areas such as mental health, institutional child sexual abuse, aged care and disability services we've seen the benefits of royal commissions. Why not a royal commission into veterans and defence suicides? Importantly, it would provide an opportunity for us as a community to listen to the parents and families of veterans who have had their lives taken, and assure these people in a very public way that we're doing everything we possibly can to prevent these tragic deaths from happening in the future. The Prime Minister should show faith in veterans and their families and establish a royal commission, so we can get to the bottom of veteran suicide and deliver real accountability and justice for the families once and for all. They deserve nothing less than a royal commission.
In closing, we have a special obligation to help our veterans. We train them, we ask them to put their lives at risk for us, yet we find too many of them slipping through the cracks, not getting the support they deserve and they need, and their families are suffering as a result of what's happening. In some cases the individual veterans tragically have taken their lives, while others are permanently scarred and damaged. The evidence is overwhelming, the government must do better. They must address veterans' mental health and suicide, which is precisely why I'm moving the second reading amendments and raising concern about the government's proposed approach in this area.
We will continue to engage with the veterans community and stakeholders on these bills. We've encouraged people to have their say on the legislation in the current Senate inquiry, which reports back by 30 November this year. We will come to a final position on the legislation in the Senate once we've seen the outcome of these inquiries. But I say to the government: do the right thing; reconsider your position; don't procrastinate any longer; call a royal commission, give it strong powers, give it broad terms of reference; do the right thing by Julie-Ann, and so many other parents who have suffered so tragically as a result of the needless deaths of their sons and daughters.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Gillespie ): Is the amendment seconded?
Mr Giles: I second the amendment moved by the shadow minister and I reserve my right to speak.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The original question is that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Blair has moved as an amendment that all the words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House I will state the question in the form that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Mr SIMMONDS (Ryan) (10:08): It is a pleasure to rise today to support the substantive bill before us that the government is proposing, the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention Bill 2020. Today is national headspace Day. Headspace is a support program, of course, for the mental health of our national young people. Yesterday, I reflected on just what a tough year it has been with facing the COVID pandemic and now the COVID recession. Young people, in particular, have felt the sting of job losses, family upheaval and social change. So it's appropriate then that we consider this bill today because young people in our armed forces are not immune from this mental health challenge or distress. As a society we view them, the men and women of our ADF, as some of the toughest operators around. They are our best and brightest, the strongest among us, those who have dedicated themselves to protect us and our nation. But we must not neglect to protect and support them in that process because serving or retired personnel are not immune from mental health challenges, just like the rest of us. And just as they serve and protect our nation we have a duty to support and assist them.
There are other coalition colleagues within the party room who will speak with very poignant and firsthand knowledge of what it is like to serve in the ADF and even in combat. The member for Braddon, the member for Herbert and the member for Stirling, along with others on this side of the House and on the other side as well, have served their country in the ADF. I want to thank them at this point in the speech for their service and to thank all current and retired ADF personnel likewise for their service to our nation.
I don't have the benefit of that firsthand experience as I approach this issue. I haven't served in the ADF myself. But I do represent the electorate of Ryan, and I know many in the electorate of Ryan have this firsthand experience of serving. We are home to the Gallipoli Barracks at Enoggera, one of the largest bases in the nation. The land was acquired for military use in 1908 as a training camp and rifle artillery range. It has been a major military defence establishment from 1960 onwards and it's home to the 7th Brigade. You don't have that kind of long-established military history in your electorate without there being many, many serving and retired defence families within the electorate. So I have seen first hand—I have been able to go on the barracks and I have seen them serving overseas as well—the hard work of the men and women of our ADF, the sacrifices that they make to serve our nation and, just as importantly, the sacrifices their families make so that those individuals can serve our nation.
I've also spoken with them first hand about the struggle that they sometimes face as they leave the service and transition to life and work as a civilian. I will touch a little bit more on that shortly. Every year too many Australians are taken from us by suicide. Sadly, our ADF personnel and veterans are not immune, but it's important in the context of the substantive bill in front of us to understand the statistics. The latest statistics paint a very challenging picture. Data recently released by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare shows 33 deaths by suicide in 2018. Since 2001 there have been over 450 deaths by suicide in the defence and veteran community. One suicide is too many.
As a government we have made it a priority to address these figures, to provide the support necessary before somebody becomes one of these statistics, before families are dealing with the loss of a dear loved one. In 2017 the Morrison government expanded access to free mental health treatment to include any mental health condition regardless of whether or not the condition was linked to a veteran's service. That is uncapped funding. Where there is a need within the veteran community it will be met. We have ensured veterans can access financial support where they have a compensation claim for a mental health condition being processed by the DVA. We have made progress in ensuring ADF members have the support to succeed in civilian employment, and we are highlighting and celebrating the skills and experience that previously serving ADF members bring to our civilian workforce.
The recent 2020 budget prioritised further investment in mental health, transition and employment support, providing more than $100 million for a one-off increase to the fees paid to psychiatrists, allied mental health workers, social workers and community nursing providers. That's money to train psychiatry registrars in veteran and military mental health, to provide GP led care and coordination for veterans with a mental health condition where it is service related and to expand the Open Arms veterans and families counselling, community and peer support program.
Most importantly, we have improved the transition process from defence, making support needs based, improving the communication between DVA and defence and ensuring those most at risk have the support they need when they need it. The transition focus is why the Morrison government is establishing the Joint Transition Authority announced in the 2020 budget—to ensure all transition services are working together for the best possible outcome for ADF members, veterans and their families. The transition authority will be an important tool, as it is one of the most consistent pieces of feedback I have received from veterans in the Ryan community.
With such a large serving ADF population in the Ryan electorate, the transition to civilian life is spoken about often, sometimes with enormous concern and trepidation. Finding a way to transition their technical skills to general community use, understanding what additional training they will need to get into the roles they want to get into, working out how to appeal to employers and how to demonstrate the value of their life skills and leadership qualities in a civilian context—these things have all been expressed to me directly by ADF personnel and veterans in the Ryan community. Approximately 6,000 ADF members will transition each year, and for their families this can be a time of great upheaval and uncertainty. A failure to transition successfully can be a leading cause of the mental health challenges that veterans face, so I'm pleased the Morrison government has put a spotlight on this particular aspect.
There is more that we can do, and it lies in the substantive bill in front of us. On 5 February 2020 the Prime Minister announced that the Australian government would establish a new National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention to inquire into the deaths by suicide of serving and former ADF members. This legislation formally creates the national commissioner position and sets out the national commissioner's functions and powers. The national commissioner will be independent of government, being appointed by the Governor-General, and will have full discretion in the way their inquiries are conducted. The national commissioner will report to the Australian parliament directly through the Annual veteran and defence suicide death report, and they can provide additional reports in between those annual reports as they deem necessary.
The Australian government will be required to provide an annual response to the national commissioner's report. This will provide an ongoing and rolling focus from the government but also publicly highlight what is going on to address the national commissioner's concerns. The national commissioner will then have an ongoing role in monitoring the implementation of the recommendations they make. The work of the commissioner will help us to understand the factors and systemic issues that may contribute to and increase suicide risk and provide recommendations to improve further prevention efforts. This will improve our understanding, allow us to reform the system where it needs to be reformed and provide the right help to all those who need it.
The national commissioner will have powers broadly equivalent to those of a royal commissioner, but it will be a permanent office that can continually monitor the implementation of its own recommendations to ensure long-term solutions are delivered. The commissioner will also be able to examine new issues that may arise over time. The member for Blair, who spoke previously, sees that as a negative. We see it very much as a positive. The national commissioner's ability to be ever-present, to have a rolling focus, will mean that suicide and its risk factors aren't just considered at a moment of time. The commissioner will have ongoing jurisdiction to make sure systemic change happens in the way they have recommended themselves. There won't be a separate royal commission making recommendations, with somebody else implementing them perhaps not in the way that was originally intended; the person recommending systemic change will then oversee it in the way they intended it to be.
When we say the national commissioner and their office will be given relevant powers equivalent to those of a royal commission, what exactly do we mean? This is important. They will undertake wide-ranging inquiries relevant to their role and hear from any relevant parties, be they veterans themselves or their families. They can conduct public and private hearings, compel the production of evidence and summon witnesses. The powers of the national commissioner and their office also will be equivalent to those of a contemporary coronial office. They include overseeing the investigation of all individual veteran and defence suicides, reporting their findings and making recommendations. Again, the member for Blair sees the conducting of public and private hearings as a weakness. We don't. Veterans and their families need that option. Some will want the public forum—absolutely the member for Blair is right. Some of them will want their stories publicly told, and they will have that option, but some won't. We would not want the situation where these forums are only public and those who don't want their views expressed publicly then choose not to take up the option. So the veterans' families will have the option to pursue the mechanism and participate in the mechanism in the way of their choosing.
The role, functions and independence of the national commissioner is important too. They will conduct an independent inquiry into past veteran and defence suicides since 2001, with the ability to consider older deaths if necessary; they can inquire into all future suspected and confirmed veteran suicide; they can identify systemic issues, trends and risk factors; they can undertake their own investigations as they so choose if there are systemic factors that they would like to explore further; they can make recommendations to the government and parliament; they can make findings in relation to individual veteran and defence suicides; of course, they will then have the ongoing monitoring; and then there is the requirement to report to parliament and for parliament to respond.
As with a royal commission, the bill will enable families and individuals the opportunity to engage in the way that they choose. Families can make a submission, they can meet with the national commissioner or their staff, and they can provide formal evidence to the inquiry, such as through a witness statement or through participating in a public or private hearing. It is intended there will also be other informal ways for families to engage with the national commissioner, including through meetings and round tables. Affected families and veterans will have the opportunity to share their personal stories and insights to inform the important work of the national commissioner. Participation of families will of course be voluntary and families will be supported to engage with the national commissioner in the way that they want to engage, whether it's in private or whether it is publicly. Legal assistance will also be available to the families. The Morrison government is providing $42.7 million over five years to establish and operate this national commissioner, including a legal assistance scheme. These costs include the one-off funding to review historical ADF member and veterans deaths by suicide.
We know there is no single solution to this complex issue, and suicide prevention deserves our enduring focus. The bill before us today, the substantive bill, provides the establishment of a permanent, dedicated commissioner who is focused on making inquiries and hearing from families to prevent future suicides. The commissioner will provide that enduring focus. I also want to assure defence and veterans' families that help is available now and can make a difference. If discussions about this topic today in the parliament have caused you or your family any distress, any current serving members can access support through the local garrison's health centre or by contacting the all-hours support line. They can contact Open Arms, the veterans and families counselling service, for support, and those who wish to remain anonymous can contact Safe Zone Support. This is free and anonymous.
Together, this bill and the national commissioner, and we as a community, can tackle the scourge of suicide in our defence and veteran community and ensure we support and serve them just as they have supported and served us.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (10:23): Official figures show that 33 serving personnel or veterans took their lives in 2018. Those same official statistics show 465 Australians who had worn our uniform or were still wearing our uniform took their lives between 2001 and 2018. If anything, those statistics underestimate the real figure—of that we can be certain. They are minimum figures. That's why this debate is so important, behind this legislation to create a National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention, something that was announced by the Prime Minister earlier this year. It was announced after a concerted campaign by the families of veterans, supported very strongly by media outlets, including the Daily Telegraph in my city of Sydney. It was a government responding, belatedly, to public pressure, but it was also a government which, once again, had an inadequate response.
When the government made the announcement, they implied that this was what the community were campaigning for. Indeed, they contacted advocates like Julie-Ann Finney and told her that that was the case. In this government's style—prioritising media advertising and spin—they implied that this was what they were calling for. The reason my colleague the member for Blair has moved an amendment to this legislation is that the response of those advocates, many of whom have been grieving loved ones for a long period of time, was support when they got the call from the Prime Minister's office, going to confusion when they first looked at the detail, to anger when they actually looked at the substance of what this government was proposing, as included in this bill.
We should be discussing here the process of the royal commission—a royal commission that was required to get to the bottom of so many issues. We have royal commissions at the moment into aged care and into disability care. They are very much issues that we on this side of the chamber support and have called for. But we also made the considered decision—the considered decision—to call for a royal commission into veteran suicides. When you are losing more men and women to suicide than you are losing on the field of battle, that is something that requires a response. When you are losing many more times that, then it absolutely demands a response, and it demands the strongest response. It demands a royal commission. That's what Julie-Ann Finney and veterans organisations have called for. That's why the shadow minister and people like the member for Solomon and others with that experience advised me very strongly that this was something that we should call for, and we didn't call for it lightly. I was convinced by them but also by the families. Julie-Ann Finney is a very strong advocate, a strong and proud woman from Adelaide who has campaigned so strongly because of her loss, her lack of understanding of the details of what happened with the loss of her son. And families are entitled to get those answers and to have that detailed examination that only a royal commission can bring. But of course it isn't just about analysing the past, as important as that is. It's because if we don't understand how we got to these circumstances we will have no hope of moving forward in the future. This is not an academic exercise we are seeking here. This is an exercise in giving the respect that those who bravely serve us in uniform deserve and that their families deserve. It's about honouring them.
A royal commission wouldn't exclude the possibility of a bill such as this, but it would avoid the contortions that are involved in the appointment of an interim national commissioner before this legislation has even been adopted. We have grave doubts about the independence of the interim commissioner and whether she will be able to answer the questions it is so important that we answer. We're discussing a bill that does not enjoy the support of the entire veteran community, including those whose loved ones have been a part of the terrible tragedy of suicide. We must listen carefully to the families who have lost veteran sons and daughters and ensure that the legislation which is ultimately adopted is owned and trusted by all. That is why we'll give consideration to the Senate processes that will be established, before we determine a final position on this legislation.
I don't understand, frankly, why the Prime Minister didn't just adopt a position of support for a royal commission. I don't get it. I know that there are advocates on both sides. The member for Herbert, I know, has been very engaged on these issues as well. He is very sincere in his advocacy for families, and he's here in the chamber for this debate. But with this Prime Minister it seems that if there's a proposal or an idea from anyone but him then it's a bad idea. He can't just embrace the ideas and the capacity of this parliament, let alone the capacity of the great Australian nation.
We've seen this sort of process before. It's like you want to get to the end of a road but you've got to go down every cul-de-sac to get there. We saw it with Teddy Sheean. We had an independent recommendation that he be given a VC, and that was rejected by the Prime Minister and rejected by the defence minister. The campaign went on, with a broad consensus from anyone who looked at the extraordinary contribution of this brave 18-year-old Tasmanian who went to his certain death as a conscious decision to save others who were in the water, tying himself to a gun to shoot at those Japanese fighter planes. Then there was a review of the review to do what everyone knew was going to be the end point, but it was at a cost of $90,000, at a cost of delay and at a cost of making it a political issue when it shouldn't have been.
I predict a similar path here. I say that there will be a royal commission. There will be a royal commission formed by an incoming Labor government if this government doesn't do it this term. It requires nothing less. This Prime Minister just seems incapable of doing anything other than looking for a detour. Just like the Teddy Sheean issue, this proposal before us today has the Prime Minister's fingerprints all over it. There are reports that the Prime Minister found the idea of a royal commission into veteran suicide too unpalatable and that he wanted to put a more positive spin on the issue rather than get to the heart of why we have this absolute crisis.
You only have to look at the testimony of Departments of Veterans' Affairs officials at Senate estimates earlier this year. They revealed that, despite the groundswell of support for a royal commission into veteran suicide, the government was determined to avoid one at all costs. It's pretty clear that the government wanted to avoid the cost of a royal commission in favour of a cheaper in-house approach, which is what this legislation is before us today. But for a government that's racked up $1 trillion of debt—racked up $98 billion of new spending with no saves, except for the Australian National Audit Office, which was cut in the budget of this month for doing its job—to be concerned about the difference of an in-house operation and a royal commission just shows a complete lack of priorities. This will deny justice that has been called for, from the families of veterans. The problem is that, because this was announced in its usual style—a front page splash with no-one told in advance and no comments sought except for supportive ones—it breaks down the trust that's there. I directly sat down with family members, as has the member for Blair, our shadow minister on this. It is unfortunate that that trust has been broken down so much, because people like Julie-Ann Finney show such quiet dignity in the way they've gone about these issues.
The government has been in such a hurry to avoid a royal commission that the national commissioner was to be appointed even before there was legislation. It's just extraordinary. It's unwise. We will, therefore, subject this legislation to the scrutiny that is required. I am very disappointed that we don't have a bipartisan position on this. I accept that everyone would consider that one loss is one loss too many. We do need to listen to the families of these veterans who've lost their lives, and these families are saying they want, and in my view they deserve, a royal commission—nothing less.
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (10:39): One of the central social policy targets of the Morrison government is that Australia has zero suicides. It's a bold target—probably the most bold of all of our social policy targets—that indicates how much we value human life and how important it is that we deal properly with this issue. In order to get us towards that position of zero suicides the government is doing a range of very important things, including a record $5.7 billion investment in mental health and suicide prevention in this year alone; doubling the number of appointments that are Medicare funded that people can take with a psychologist; a boost for the way back program, which in my view targets those people who are most at risk, that is those people who have made an attempt on their own life. It's such an important program because we know exactly who those people are and we know where they are. It's important that we provide services to them because if we do that's our best chance of reducing the target.
Sadly, in the most recent year for which we have statistics 3,046 Australians died by suicide, that's eight people every single day. One of the things that I've seen in my time working in this public policy area, as the chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Suicide Prevention, is that there is a very important development that is happening in public policy thinking in this space, and that is that when you look at those who die by suicide there are certain groups that are overrepresented and those groups require a bespoke approach. I think about those tragic suicides that occurred in the Kimberley and the government's response of a particular bespoke package in the Kimberley to deal with suicide prevention to ensure that that doesn't happen again. Today we are discussing a bill that deals with the bespoke approach to deal with veterans. I suspect we will see more of these bespoke approaches, and I applaud that particular approach to dealing with suicide generally.
The way we treat our veterans says a lot about us as a country. It says a lot about us in two respects. Firstly, it says that we put a premium on the sacrifice and service of people who are prepared to lay down their lives to defend our way of life. Secondly, by properly treating those who've served we encourage others to put their hands up to serve, and we were to do otherwise we would actually actively discourage people from taking on that service. The culture of service in the Defence Force in this country is fundamental to the fabric of our identity. We have a growing number of veterans who are now continuing their service in this place. There are others like myself who are the grandsons and great grandsons of veterans who are inspired by their family's service in the ADF to serve in this place as well. So I think that this response, through the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide, is a great demonstration of the government understanding and underscoring the values of Australians and the values that we place on veterans and those who are prepared to serve.
Sadly, the latest reports from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare on suicide amongst serving and ex-serving ADF personnel don't paint a pretty picture. Looking at the rolling three year averages we see it's ex-service people, rather than serving members, who are most at risk of suicide. While the suicide rate is lower for people who are serving, including in the Reserves, it's higher for those who have been discharged and particularly high for those who are discharged for medical reasons. Ex-serving women are more than twice as likely to die by suicide than the average for the Australian population. It is for these reasons that bespoke support is needed. Unique services and supports are needed because of the unique situations we ask our ADF personnel to be in. For those of us who haven't served we cannot properly imagine what it is like to be in those situations of life or death, the regimented nature of service life and then suddenly to be put back into civilian life. We who haven't been there can't truly imagine what that is like. As a result of people's service, and as a result of the things people have seen and been asked to do, many people have ongoing health needs due to physical or mental injury. The change and the adjustment back to civilian life can be overwhelming for people.
In my work as a member of parliament, particularly a member of parliament interested in suicide prevention, over the last few years I have had the privilege of meeting a remarkable young woman called Charlotte Officer who came to my office as part of the Macquarie University PACE Program. Charlotte was then studying a degree that's helped prepare her to now study a medical degree. She came to do some work on the history of mental health responses to Australia, in particular looking at the role in which the funding of the medical system helps drive particular outcomes in relation to mental health and suicide prevention.
Charlotte was motivated to do this work because she is the sister of a veteran and the partner of a veteran. Charlotte's brother, Marshall Officer, spent six years in the infantry. He was deployed to Afghanistan in 2014-15 as part of the Force Protection Element-2, and he spent a year as an instructor for the School of Infantry in Singleton. Marshall and two of the friends he served with in Afghanistan, Dan Hunt, Charlotte's partner, and Nathan Barnes, have a company called Anvil Training and Development, which serves veterans by providing them with learning opportunities, physical training and mental health support. Dan spent five years in the infantry and Nathan served for over seven years.
As Charlotte said to me when she wrote to me recently: 'When my brother left defence I witnessed him try to transition to civilian life. I watched him work hard to reintegrate and appreciate how his life would now be difference and how his experiences in defence impacted his life. I watched the highs and the lows and throughout all of this he was supported by the other veterans he had served with.' Charlotte became passionate about veteran mental health and suicide because of Marshall's work as a soldier. She said—and this is beautiful: 'Not only is Marshall my big brother and my hero; he's one of my closest friends. The longer he served the more I became conscious of how his experiences had shaped him.'
Charlotte's currently studying a postgraduate Doctor of Medicine with a hope to specialise as a general practitioner with a subspecialty in mental health, where she wants to work with veterans. She's motivated to do her work because of her family experience and because of her experience with her partner. Both Charlotte and Marshall, when I met with them, emphasised to me the need to ensure that services that are provided for veterans work for veterans, and this means listening. As Charlotte said, 'It's important to spend time speaking with veterans about what works and what doesn't work and with educated medical practitioners and create change and awareness in this space.'
I think the defence and veteran suicide prevention commissioner will do exactly that on behalf of all of us. This initiative of the defence and veteran suicide commissioner builds on a number of things we have already been doing. In 2017 we expanded access to free health mental health treatment to include any mental health condition, regardless of whether or not the condition is linked to a veteran's service. This now has uncapped funding so that when there is a need that very same need is met.
We're doing more to help people build a civilian life and career through supporting people to succeed in new employment. We have given people a better bridge from defence, making support needs based, improving the communication between the Department of Veterans' Affairs and defence, and ensuring those most at risk have the support they need when they need it. Discharge from service and adjusting to civilian life is never an easy period. There are many that struggle with it, and many of those people come to the offices that all of us run in our electorates. But ensuring that there is better support, ensuring that systems work better and ensuring that we not only honour and remember our service men and women but actually provide them the support that can ensure them a successful transition is so vital.
I want to come to a point that was made by the Leader of the Opposition, who immediately preceded me in this debate, about the national commissioner versus a royal commission. I'd like to address the particular point that he made. I think for many Australians the concept of a royal commission has become the highest form of public policymaking in our public life. Whenever we see a major problem, we see a royal commission. There are some strengths of royal commissions and there are some weaknesses. I think we need to be cognisant of those strengths and weaknesses. One of the reasons why I think that the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention is a better deal for veterans than a royal commission is this. Royal commissions tend to shine a bright light on an issue for a time. That light burns bright, but then it dims and fades and, very soon, the issues for which the commission was set up are quickly forgotten and they're no longer the subject of public debate. They're no longer the subject of broad attention.
Why this is a better option is that this is the equivalent of having a royal commission all the time because what we are giving the national commissioner is the same powers as a royal commission. And what are those powers that make a royal commission different from any other investigatory body? They can compel the production of evidence and summon witnesses. Those are the two fundamental powers that a royal commission has that other bodies that do inquiries don't have. We are giving those powers to a permanent national commissioner who will effectively be running a royal commission every single day.
But rather than having the traditional royal commission model, which everyone 'lawyers up', there are a lot of wider functions the national commissioner is given because the national commissioner has a broader remit. There is a lot that we need to understand as policymakers about the systemic issues that lead to the problems we have with suicide among our veterans. The national commissioner will lead this work. The national commissioner, just like a royal commissioner, will be independent of government, an independent statutory authority. We are setting up the statute here with this bill to give them that independence. They will have the powers of a royal commission not just for a day, not just for a week, not just for a couple of years but for all time. The commissioner will be able to gather evidence and information including by consulting experts and families, by summoning witnesses and by obtaining relevant information and reports from government departments—whether that is DVA, the Defence Department or the tri-services themselves. This will enable them to undertake broad-ranging inquiries relevant to their role and hear from any relevant party, including veterans and their families. The position of the families is so important here. The families in these instances are often those who are bereaved by suicide, the loved ones who are left behind.
The national commissioner will be able to conduct their hearings in public or in private. And that's important too because of the sensitive nature of some of the discussions that will take place between veterans, their family, defence personnel and the national commissioner. As I said, very importantly, they will be given those powers that a royal commissioner is given to compel the production of evidence and summon witnesses. If there is somebody who has done some wrongdoing and they are trying to hide, they will not be able to hide. If there is evidence of a cover-up, that evidence can be brought forward. These are the important powers which, under this bill, we are giving the national commissioner.
The national commissioner is ultimately accountable to the Australian people through the members of parliament. Each and every year, the national commissioner will report to the parliament, and the government and will have to report back on what they are doing and what has been recommended to government. That's so vital. We owe it to the veterans, we owe it to current serving defence personnel, we owe it to the families of veterans and we owe it to anybody who might be considering serving our country in uniform to let them know that this is an issue we will take seriously, that we will put in place positive measures, that we will give due ventilation and oxygen to the issues that are raised as a result of the terrible number of deaths by suicide that we see particularly from our veterans committee.
As the chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Suicide Prevention I'm proud to be part of a government that is so committed to dealing with one of the great social policy challenges not just of our country but of our age. I think this important bill, in a very structured, very thoughtful and very measured way, targets a group of people that are, sadly, overrepresented in the statistics of those who die by suicide. I'm proud to associate myself with this bill and to associate myself with all those veterans who sit in this place who have lobbied hard for this particular measure to be taken. I'm delighted to commend the bill to the House.
Ms THWAITES (Jagajaga) (10:54): [by video link] This is an incredibly serious issue. Too many people in our defence and veterans community are committing suicide. And, while there may be some merit to the role of this proposed commissioner, these bills do not go far enough in addressing this serious issue. We need a royal commission. Only a royal commission, with its independence, its powers and its resources, can shine the necessary spotlight on what's happening here and why we are failing our defence communities. Only a royal commission can provide the sort of closure, healing and restorative justice that the defence and veterans community and their family and their friends deserve, and deal with this important issue.
Importantly, a royal commission would provide us as a community with the chance to listen to the tragic stories that are out there, from the parents and families of the veterans who have taken their own lives, and for us to assure them in a very public way that as a nation we are doing everything possible to prevent these sorts of tragic deaths from happening in the future. A royal commission gives us a start and an end date; it gives us clear recommendations. One of those recommendations may indeed be to have a national commissioner, but let's not put the cart before the horse. Let's do the work that we need to do to make sure that this is set up correctly. Let's make sure that we're not putting in place what becomes little more than a glorified federal coroner.
The latest figures from the AIHW on defence members and veterans suicide were released on 9 October. In total, the data showed there were 33 suicide deaths among serving and ex-serving ADF personnel in 2018, and 465 suicides between 2001 and 2018, although many believe the actual figures could be much higher. The AIHW report shows that male veterans are 21 per cent more likely to die by suicide than men generally, while the rate of suicide among ex-serving women is twice as high as it is for the general female population. Alarmingly, the research found that ex-servicemen had a 66 per cent higher suicide rate when they were discharged for medical reasons, compared to men who voluntarily discharged.
We are failing these people. We are failing the people whom we have trained and whom we have asked to serve our country and whom in many cases we have sent into incredibly dangerous, stressful situations that most of us simply cannot imagine. They have done their duty. Yet, when the time comes that they can no longer do this task or when they decide that they need a different future, we are failing to provide them with the support they need to transition to life outside of the defence forces. We owe them, their friends and their families so much more. And I share the concern that many of those friends and families have raised that the establishment of a national commissioner—and without a royal commission first—won't accomplish what a royal commission would, because it would have neither the resources nor the independence from government to ask the necessary hard questions: Why are we failing? What are the broad solutions we need? What are the concrete actions we need to put in place? Only a royal commission would have the unambiguous powers to hold public hearings; summon witnesses; compel the production of evidence, pursue, if necessary, disciplinary proceedings; refer charges of criminal or official misconduct to appropriate authorities; and make recommendations for compensation.
As I said, and as others have said in this debate, it may well be that one of the things a royal commission recommends is having a national commissioner. But let's do the work first. Let's make sure we set this up properly. Let's make sure it's comprehensive. These people deserve nothing less. I echo the concerns of the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Blair that this national commissioner risks being little more than a marketing exercise and an announcement to stave off a royal commission that the Prime Minister doesn't want to hold—an announcement where it's not clear that this commissioner is going to have the powers that they need to be able to support our veterans and their communities and to be able to help this scourge of suicide.
I know that many people in my community share my concerns about the suicides of defence members and veterans. In Jagajaga, we have a long history of caring for defence members and veterans. The Heidelberg Repatriation Hospital, which is now part of the Austin Hospital, was established in 1941 to care for sick and injured service members. The Repat still provides invaluable services to our veterans and our defence community, and it holds a special connection for many of us. I remember visiting my own grandfather, a World War II veteran, there when he needed surgery. Later, as the local federal member, in pre COVID times I was privileged to be able to visit the Repat and its beautiful memorial grounds for services and occasions where we gathered to pay our respects to our defence community. I must acknowledge that all of this happens under the supervision of the tireless Robert Winther and the work that he puts in to supporting our defence community and making sure that they have this space to gather and remember.
The Repat is also home to Ward 17, which I know is a service that is so important to defence members and veterans. For those of you who haven't heard of it before, Ward 17 provides specialised mental health services to veterans and members of the Defence Force, including those people who are suffering from PTSD. It's one of only a handful of such specialised services, so it is much in demand. It plays an important role in rehabilitating and supporting veterans who are going through incredibly serious mental health issues. But the importance that Ward 17 holds for defence members and veterans more broadly in our community is demonstrated by how strongly many of them feel connected to it and to its services. In particular, I want to acknowledge the work of the Young Veterans group, who regularly visit Ward 17 and donate things to support the people who are being treated there, like coffee machines and supplies. I was pleased to see that recently they helped to establish a vegetable garden for people who are being treated there, for them to work on and so get some respite and support and a mental health break through that. I'm looking forward to being able to visit and see that myself, once we're through this period and restrictions have eased. These sorts of services are so vital, and having them in our community is really important, I know, to veterans not just in my community but across our whole state.
It goes to how serious this issue is. If we are asking people to do the ultimate—if we are asking people to work within a system, to train within a system, to put their lives within a system where we send them to war, where we put them in harm's way, where we ask them to do incredibly difficult things—we must have a system that knows how to support them when they come out of that. Now the numbers show us clearly that we don't have a system that is doing that at the moment. The rate of suicide is unacceptably high. The stories from the families affected show us clearly that we do not have a system in place that is able to support people in the way they need when they're coming out of the armed services. For people who have been used to leading their life in a certain way, taking orders, and working within, as I said, a very regimented system, it seems that, when they're leaving that system, we're not thinking enough about: 'What does that transition look like? What supports are there? How will they know who to call? How will their families know who to call? How will their families know to reach out and get the support they might need?' This is not to put any aspersions on services that are there. I know that the services are in place, and I've just alluded to some of them in my electorate; they're doing a wonderful job. But we clearly haven't joined all the dots. We clearly haven't worked out the whole piece of what should be there, and it's because we need to work out this whole piece that we need a royal commission and not just a national commissioner. We need something comprehensive. This is what families have been calling for. We shouldn't waste any time because, if we spend longer waiting for this, we will, unfortunately, I think, see more suicides from amongst our veteran community.
My brother is a veteran of Afghanistan. Fortunately for him and for my family, he had a relatively smooth transition out of the defence forces, and I'm very grateful for that because I can only imagine the heartbreak for those families whose transition has not been so smooth. I can only imagine the efforts that they went to to try and support their loved ones through that transition and how they've been let down by a system that clearly wasn't in place. I applaud their bravery in speaking out and continuing to advocate for a royal commission. That bravery deserves to be acknowledged. Those of us in this place need to acknowledge their strength, need to acknowledge their pain. We need to listen to what they're asking for, because we need to help them heal as well as help to prevent future tragedies. There have been too many deaths for us not to act urgently and for us not to act as strongly as possible. We do need a royal commission. Nothing less will do justice.
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (11:05): I rise in support of the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention Bill 2020 this morning. Fisher—in fact, the Sunshine Coast—has one of the largest veteran communities in the whole of the country. Whilst the figures are a little bit hard to determine at this stage, we estimate that it's around 15,000 members, which is very significant. We know that it's a specific question on the next census, so we will be able to get much better eyesight on that.
This is a really important issue. It's too important to play politics with. Those on the other side are making out as though the entire defence community wants a royal commission. Nothing could be further from the truth. I've spoken with many veterans in my own community of Fisher and many have told me that they don't want a royal commission. Many of the ESOs have told me that they don't want a royal commission. They don't want a quick sugar hit. What they want is a meaningful path to change—and with very good reason.
The stats are just so alarming. We know from the stats that, from the day a man leaves the ADF, his likelihood of taking his own life jumps from 48 per cent lower than other Australian men to 18 per cent higher. Why is that? When men are in the ADF, when they are serving this nation in fatigues, in they have a 48 per cent lower chance, but when they leave it jumps to 18 per cent higher. I've got some of my own theories about this. I want to recognise the member for Braddon, who's just walked into the chamber, for his long and distinguished service in uniform to this country, and all the men and women who have served this country on both sides of the chamber for the work that they've done. They know so much more than I do. I've never served in uniform. I've had the great privilege of meeting many that have and do, but I think it's one of those jobs where the only way you really understand what they do is if you serve. I bow to their greater knowledge on this.
But, in my view, part of the reason that this is failing us, that our stats are so poor, is that, when men and women are serving this country in the ADF, they have a sense of purpose, they have a sense of mission and, importantly, they have an incredible sense of tribe. They know why they've got to get up in the morning and why they've got to work all day and they have that concept of purpose. And often—not always but often—when they leave the ADF some men and women struggle with that loss of purpose and particularly that loss of tribe. In my view, that is key to this pandemic, this epidemic of suicide that we have seen.
This year's report includes the first figures for ex-serving women. Sadly, they are more than two times as likely as other women to die by suicide. Between 2001 and 2017, 419 lives were cut short. That's 10 times the number of service personnel we lost in combat in Afghanistan in the same period. I know that the defence ministers—the defence minister, the defence industry minister and the defence industry and veterans' affairs minister—are all singing from the same hymn sheet. They know what the problem is.
This commissioner's role will shine a light on this issue. The commissioner will have all the powers of a standing royal commission. I don't know what I've got to say to get that through to those on the other side: it will have all the powers of a standing royal commission. It will have the ability to subpoena documents and require people to give evidence—not for a day, not for a week, not for 12 months; it is ongoing. The other side are either ignorant as to what a royal commission does or they are playing politics with an issue which is so important, and that is disgraceful.
In times of conflict we ask our service men and women to give up so much—to be away from their family and to risk life and limb. Our respect goes to them absolutely. We know that some veterans need extra support when they discharge. What I really want to impress upon the House today is that, whilst I fully respect and agree with the government's role on this, in announcing the powers of this commissioner, what we need to do is keep things in perspective. I am very fearful that, if all we talk about is how broken veterans are, these guys and girls will never be able to get a job when they discharge. With all the best will and best intentions we want to raise the spectre of what they deal with and reduce the stigma of mental ill health, but what we don't want to do is create some perverse concept in our community that if you're a veteran you are automatically a broken man or a broken woman. If you were an employer, why would you want to employ a veteran, if you were concerned about their mental health? This is so important. Not all veterans are broken men and women. I want to acknowledge the member for Herbert, who has just walked into the chamber, for his distinguished service in uniform.
We cannot overcook this. The best way to get someone to transition well is to ensure as best we can that they are well trained and able to get a job after their service. If they can't get that job because employers are worried about what they're getting, through an unfounded concern, we are creating a problem which is not there. We are creating the problem that Australian employers will not want to run the risk of employing veterans. I know that veterans are exceptional employees. They are loyal, they are hardworking, they are smart and they have ingenuity.
Australian employers, I put this challenge out to you today. I put this challenge out to you to want to seek to employ a veteran today and tomorrow. The very next opening that you have, search out a veteran. Tell your HR person or people, 'I want you to find me a veteran—or veterans.' You will not be disappointed. So we need to be very careful that we don't overcook the issue. As important as it is, we do not want to create an environment where our hardworking veterans cannot find work. So let's be very, very mindful of that.
There are so many things I could talk about that this government is doing for veterans in the budget. Since my time in this place in 2016, every year we have provided new incentives and new programs to look after our veterans' mental health and to make their transition into civilian life more seamless. It doesn't matter what your mental health ailment may be, if you've served any more than one day in the ADF, you get free treatment. You don't have to try and argue to Veterans' Affairs that your condition is linked to your service. Anything more than one day and you'll be looked after—commonsense things like that. We're also looking after the families of veterans because we know that they are the silent victims; they say that the boys and girls in uniform are the volunteers, but the family are the conscripts—a little bit like politics. We need to make sure that we look after the families, and we are doing just that through more programs like Open Arms—Veterans & Families Counselling.
I want to go to the bill because I am running out of time. I could talk about this for a year. What's needed now is a means to evaluate where we are—what's worked, what hasn't—and to track the ongoing impact of the work that we're doing. That is what the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention will deliver. As I said earlier, it will have all the powers of a standing royal commission. I say to those opposite: please do not play politics on this issue. The welfare of our veterans, like the member for Braddon, the member for Herbert and all their colleagues, is too important. It is too important to play politics.
When enacted, this bill will formalise the role of the office of the commissioner. Resourced by $42.7 million, Dr Bernadette Boss will be the interim commissioner. She'll have the ability to examine in detail every case of suicide among current and former service men and women going back to 2001. She'll seek to understand why these cases have occurred and, importantly, explore what we can do to prevent them. As part of the process, the families and veterans who've been impacted by these 419 deaths will have the opportunity to share their stories and give us the benefit of their insight into the reality behind these tragic circumstances. An interim report from this royal commission-like investigation will be provided to the government within 12 months and a final report will be provided within 18 months.
We've got to learn. We've got to learn more. We've got to do more. This role will do just that. I commend it to the House.
Mr KHALIL (Wills) (11:20): [by video link] I rise to speak on the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention Bill. Like many of the previous speakers, and in agreement and accordance with them, I believe that this is such an important issue for all of us and for the nation and that it is one that deserves our full attention. As our shadow minister, the member for Blair, said earlier, too little has been done on this historically. That is a big part of why we have been calling for a royal commission into veterans' suicides and why we joined in the chorus of calls from veterans and the families of veterans in support of a royal commission. I don't think that is necessarily playing politics, as the previous speaker, the member for Fisher, said. It is an acknowledgement and recognition of how important this issue is and of the need to deal with it. That is what we're debating today, what the government has proposed in this bill.
Much of the work around this issue has been done by veterans, some of them in this chamber, including the member for Solomon on our side and members on the government benches who also have served. I acknowledge their work on this. The member for Solomon has done a lot of work, calling for a royal commission publicly, and has rightly pointed out that it is an urgent moral imperative that we call for one, because, in a historical sense, nothing else has worked. Despite the clear consensus from stakeholder groups, from veterans themselves and from the broader public, the government has gone a different way, and that's what we're debating with respect to this bill today.
Labor cautiously welcomed the announcement in February of the new National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention, believing it to be a step forward. We didn't want to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. It was about being bipartisan on this issue so as to get the outcomes that were needed in respect of veterans and their families. Since then, Labor along with many veterans and families of veterans, such as Julie-Ann Finney, have become increasingly concerned that the national commissioner won't be better than a royal commissioner, as the government has claimed. It has become clear that the government has a lot of work to do to convince not only themselves but also the broader public that they are genuine in wanting to tackle this issue. In saying that, I don't deny the genuine motivation of speakers on the government benches. There is a genuine motivation there to address this issue. What we're debating is really the substance of the bill and whether that achieves what we all want to see in getting outcomes that are necessary.
In a sense I say, and I plead with the government, that this cannot simply be just another marketing exercise. The government knows this and many of its speakers know this. As much as we've been critical of the government in the past for the way it has conducted the politics around various bills and legislation, we do believe that a royal commission would be substantially better. There are clear-cut arguments around that, some of which we've heard. We are concerned that the government's national commission won't or can't accomplish what a royal commission would be able to accomplish, because it simply won't have the resources and the independence from government to ask the really hard questions. We know that only a royal commission would have the unambiguous powers to hold public hearings and the ability to summon witnesses, to compel the production of evidence, to pursue disciplinary proceedings, to refer charges of criminal or official misconduct to appropriate authorities and to make recommendations for compensation. Only a full royal commission with clear start and end dates will achieve this and will shine the light where it needs to be shone. Otherwise the national commissioner runs the risk of being little more than a federal coroner in that kind of role. We know only a royal commission will provide the much-needed closure, healing and restorative justice to the Defence and veteran community. We have seen this in other areas in public life, whether it be in mental health, child sexual abuse, aged care or disability services.
The royal commission would allow us to really listen to the community—listen to the parents and families of veterans who have suffered with their children—and assure them in a public way that we are doing everything possible to prevent these tragic deaths from happening in the future. This is so important. It's so important, because from 2001 to 2019 there were 419 suicides of serving, reserve and ex-serving ADF personnel—those who have served since 2001. We lose one veteran a week by suicide.
According to research by the Department of Veterans' Affairs, in a 12-month period 5,800 ex-serving men and women are homeless. These are the men and women who serve our country. We spend so much time acknowledging, celebrating, noting and putting up for the public to see the great sacrifice and service that they give out country, and yet we have almost 6,000 ex-servicemen and women who are homeless. This rate is significantly higher than for all Australians. These numbers don't speak to the individual human stories behind them. They're statistics, yes, but there are stories of people who are suffering now and who are vulnerable to all of the risk factors that lead a person to suicide.
I have some idea of the turmoil that veterans go through. I've seen it firsthand. I have worked closely with ADF personnel throughout my working life. I have called, and still do call, many friends. I was posted to Iraq in 2003 and 2004 by the Department of Defence to work on national security issues, and I worked alongside many of our finest ADF personnel, including the former member Colonel Mike Kelly, and many others. When you work with ADF personnel, particularly in operational theatres, you see firsthand that there are real psychological impacts of the work that they do when they are in conflict and when they are in those war zones, in those theatres, with the stressors, the pressures, the psychological impacts and the physical impacts. You see the scars that it leaves on so many ADF personnel, because they are on the frontline.
A lot of people talk about the 'frontline'. We use that word a lot, but the serving ADF men and women of Australia make a significant, special sacrifice in that their job is one where they're putting their lives on the frontline, literally, for the defence of this nation. That is something special. It's something we, quite rightly, highlight on many occasions, drawing attention to that special sacrifice. It's significant, and, because it is that significant, it carries with it great risks to their health—not just their physical health but their mental health.
For many of us, when we left Iraq, both serving uniformed personnel and other, we got army psychologists to do an exit interview with us, which is, in many respects, the beginning and is important. Many of the effects of being in a war zone, an operational theatre, are long lasting. From talking to a lot of the vets that I knew in Iraq and who served in Iraq at the time, I know about the difficulty that they find in coming back to a normal life. I suspect it is the same—and I have spoken to many—for those who have served on multiple tours in Afghanistan or in East Timor. I recall the difficulty in coming back into what is a normal or civilian life, especially after being discharged. For many months, on my return, I recall trying not to jump the cover every time I heard a door slam or a car backfire. Just walking down a crowded street was difficult. There is a lot of hypersensitivity and it's hard to adjust back to what most people would consider to be a normal life. As the previous speaker mentioned, after leaving that unit—that 'tribe' as it was described—it's a very difficult transition. I remember in my exit interview I said to the Army psychologist, 'I don't really need this; there are a lot more uniformed ADF personnel who've had it much tougher.' But she told me something really important, and I think it applies to ADF personnel across the board: everyone has their own experience in those theatres. Everyone has specific experiences that are particular to them, and these things can affect people in very, very different ways, and that needs to be dealt with. You can't just sweep that under the rug. Because if you don't address those issues that emanate from very extreme, abnormal experiences—being in Afghanistan or Iraq or wherever in a war zone or in a theatre of operation is just not normal—those experiences can be exacerbated to the extent that they have impacts which make really significant ongoing problems, particularly for veterans trying to transition back into normal life.
And many veterans have difficulty talking about those experiences. The RSLs are still there for vets to meet and have a beer and maybe talk to someone who can understand them. I'm worried, too, that many of the younger veterans, particularly from the more recent campaigns, are probably not going to places like that as much as older veterans are from previous conflicts, like the Vietnam vets. They're just starting to come in and spend time at the various sub-branches. I know it's a small thing, but that ability to just talk to someone who understands you is of great significance, because those types of extreme experiences haunt a person throughout the rest of their life.
I remember we were working on training the Iraqi Army during that period in 2003 and 2004, and the ADF played a really critical role in training the new Iraqi Army. We had an interpreter there, Ali, who has half Sunni and half Shiite, and he worked with a lot of us and did the work there as part of a team. He was so excited that the Australians were training an Iraqi Army that did not see the difference between Sunni or Shiite or Kurd, and there was a vision for a security force and a defence force that went beyond the sectarian differences and the ethnic differences. That's what Australia was doing: training that new army and creating that new esprit de corps. And Ali lost his life. He was beheaded by al-Qaeda in Iraq, because he worked with Australian forces and coalition forces. I still struggle with that memory, because he worked so closely with us. The ADF personnel who worked with him would probably think about him a lot as well, because he made sacrifices to work with ADF forces and coalition forces to do something—to make a better future for his own country. These are some of the experiences, even of people that you know have suffered, that linger with you and stay with you over the years. Sometimes people are overcome by that. Some veterans can't deal with that, and we see the tragedy that occurs when those experiences can't be addressed.
We know that the devil is going to be in the detail of the bill. We will study the legislation that is being introduced, and we have referred the bill to a Senate inquiry to allow proper scrutiny as well. We think it's important to further consult with stakeholders and scrutinise as thoroughly as possible, to see if—as is claimed by some of the previous speakers—the powers within this bill for the national commission will have the same powers as a royal commission. We're saying that, clearly, a royal commission would be better, given all the arguments around the importance of the powers of a royal commission. It's important that we get this right. It's not about playing politics; it's about trying to get the best possible response to what is a significant problem that exists. We believe that this can be addressed through a comprehensive inquiry. For our veterans, our men and women who are currently serving and those who have served and come back into civilian life, with the sacrifices they have made and the impacts on their mental and physical health, the onus is on us to look after them. We need to recognise that they made the decision to do that job. We need to honour their sacrifice and service not just by words but by the substantive policy that we are debating today to make sure that when they return home they have the full support, services and resources they need to have a successful life for the rest of their lives. As a society, we should not just honour our veterans on Anzac Day, Remembrance Day and other occasions. We should honour them in what we do today in this debate. We should honour them fully by doing everything we can to prevent the terrible scourge of suicide and the risks they face. That's what this bill should be about and that's why we are doing what we are doing. (Time expired)
Mr THOMPSON (Herbert) (11:35): While every single piece of legislation that passes through this House is important, the opportunity to contribute to the debate today on the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention Bill 2020 is something I'm particularly passionate about. It is an honour to be a part of the discussion about this incredibly important issue. When I first nominated to run in the seat of Herbert, the unacceptable rate of suicide in the defence and veteran community was unashamedly my biggest driving force. As someone who has buried far too many mates and felt the tears and heart-wrenching grief of family and loved ones who have lost someone, I say to this House that governments of all persuasions have not done nearly enough to provide real solutions to this life-and-death situation. I hope this bill changes that forever.
After sitting on the sidelines feeling furious about the lack of meaningful action, I recognised that throwing rocks from the sidelines was easy but, at the end of the day, it didn't change anything. The only way to be part of the solution is from inside the tent, where the decisions are made. I'm privileged that the people of Townsville have allowed me that seat at the table in this House. Today it is an honour to stand in this House and be a part of the government that is providing solutions that we in the defence and veteran community have been seeking for many, many years.
We talk about the fact that there have been more than 400 suicides within the defence and veteran community in less than 20 years. It's important to me that we take the time to reflect that those people are so much more than just another statistic. They are more than 400 people who are husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, uncles, aunts and best friends. They are more than 400 people for whom the lives of their family, friends and loved ones will never be the same. They are more than 400 people who had already contributed so much to our nation and had so much more before them. Unfortunately, as I'm sure we'll agree, a flawed system let every single one of those people down. When they couldn't find the support or help they needed, they eventually succumbed to their war within. That includes 10 mates who are very near to me and I mourn the loss of every single day. I would like to put it on the record that these people were strong, motivated, confident, charismatic and amazing people who had their entire lives in front of them. Unfortunately, on a given day, at a given moment, they just couldn't see past the darkness that tormented them.
When I moved a private member's motion on the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention, originally seconded by a colleague on the opposite side of the House, the former member for Eden-Monaro, Mike Kelly, a Labor member, I could finally start to see a light at the end of what has been a very long and tragic tunnel. At last there was a focus on meaningful change that would shine a light into the darkest corners of what can only be described as a national shame, where our defence and veteran community didn't feel supported in the way that they needed.
Since I moved that motion on the appointment of the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention, I've been contacted by many hundreds of people. I'd like to thank each and every one of them for their contribution and their welcome engagement. While the majority of people who have contacted me support the introduction of the national commissioner, I'd also like to acknowledge in this House those people who do not. I would like to assure those people that they, too, have a voice and it's been heard. I understand their concerns and would like it noted in this House that my decision to support a national commissioner is not something that I have taken lightly. I feel the weight heavily and I know I must do everything within my power to honour the memory of the hundreds of men and women who are no longer here with us today. To the families, loved ones and friends of the defence personnel and veterans who have died by suicide, I say to you that I support the national commissioner for one reason: I truly believe that this is the only avenue that will provide the ongoing powers and obligations that are necessary to help eliminate defence and veteran suicide.
The commissioner will start work immediately with an independent review of past defence and veteran suicides. This is extremely important if we are to truly fix this devastating issue. Under the legislation, the commissioner will not be constrained by a certain end point in time. They'll be able to investigate suicides that have occurred in the defence and veteran community for those who had served one day or more since 2001. This is extremely important. This is one of the key reasons that the establishment of a national commissioner is a step in the right direction. This will be a rolling, ongoing process looking at each and every incidence as the commissioner sees fit. There should be no inhibiting factors that will prevent them from investigating whatever they deem necessary to prevent another life being needlessly lost.
It's also imperative that families and loved ones are not forced to wait years on end for the results of these investigations to be released. Times is of the essence, and that's why an interim report will be drafted within 12 months, with the final report due in an 18-month period. That report is only final in the sense that it will be the final report of the interim review, not the final report of the national commissioner. That's because there won't be a final report of the commissioner. Unlike a royal commission, which has a clear end, the national commissioner is a rolling appointment and will report back to government and the Australian people every year. The annual report will be tabled in parliament and may draw on any or all aspects of the commissioner's functions or powers. The commissioner will also have the freedom to address urgent matters as they see fit. For example, if they believe not enough action has been taken on a particular issue, they'll bring an additional report to parliament. The government of the day will be held to account for its actions or its inactions by being required to respond in writing to those reports and table those responses in parliament. Importantly, the national commissioner's job never stops. It keeps going. It keeps investigating. It keeps reporting. It keeps assessing. In the memory of and respect for every single defence member and veteran who has succumbed to their war within, nothing less will do.
The national commissioner must have teeth. Something that I am proud of in this bill is the extensive powers that it outlines, including conducting inquiries, holding hearings, requiring the giving of information or production of documents and applying search warrants. For inquiries, the commissioner can look into the person's service in the ADF, including their training or transition out of the ADF and any issues connected to when they entered or when they left. They can investigate their health and wellbeing and counselling support at the time and its effectiveness as well as the quality and effectiveness of responses to any complaints made by them or their family.
Key to this function will be looking into whether the circumstances of a tragic death reflect broader or systemic issues contributing to defence and veteran suicide rates. Hearings will be public, except in very specific circumstances, and held in a manner which the commissioner sees fit. Another power is that which allows for the summons of a person to give evidence or produce documents. Not doing so will be an offence and subject to prosecution and punishment. People may also be required by the commissioner to take an oath or affirmation, and if they are not willing to do so that will also constitute an offence. The commissioner can also apply for search warrants, effectively giving them and their authorised members the power to undertake investigations in order to get the full picture surrounding an unfortunate death. There are also provisions in the bill to enable the commissioner and the state and territory coroners to work collaboratively by sharing certain information, but without duplicating or replacing that role.
The commissioner, Dr Boss, has significant experience in both the legal field and the military. She also started her career as a nurse, which means she knows what it's like to be at the coalface of these complex and devastating issues. The fact that she has already held inquests and hearings into suicides allows her to come to the role with a deep understanding and knowledge of the very heart of the issues at hand, which will be vital in getting this process right. Since standing alongside the Prime Minister earlier this year and announcing the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention, I have told people it is their job to hold us, in this place and in the new office of the commissioner, to account. It's something we must never forget. I make the promise to all Australians that the honour and privilege of being in this House and representing them will remain front of mind, today and every day.
Tuesday was my 'alive day'. It was the day, 11 years ago, that I was blown up in Afghanistan by an improvised explosive device. That day changed my life forever. I went into a very dark place and almost lost everything and everyone that I hold dear. The war within and the long battle back from PTSD was a living nightmare. I did things and acted in ways that to this day I'm not proud of and would undo in a heartbeat. My saving grace was the love and support of my wife, Jenna, and our network of family and friends, who helped bring me back from the darkness. Today I'm married to the love of my life, I have two amazing young daughters and I get to represent the wonderful people of Townsville in the House of Representatives. I do not take a single moment of that existence for granted. Every day I think of the more than 400 defence members and veterans who aren't here to have the same opportunities. I feel devastated at that loss. I'm devastated for them, for their families and loved ones and for our nation more broadly.
While there is no silver bullet, the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention is a monumental step in the right direction. We must keep going with the fight for change until those within our defence and veteran community who are in the darkness feel supported enough to find their light again. In honour of the mates I've lost, their families and loved ones, who grieve that loss daily, and the many hundreds of others who share that pain, I commend this bill to the House.
Mr HILL (Bruce) (11:48): At the outset, I acknowledge the remarks of the previous speaker and thank him for his service to our country, for the sincerity of those words and for his courage not just to get through the war within, as he described it—I was touched by that description; it perhaps gives those of us who haven't served an insight into that internal battle—but to speak about these issues and bring light to this problem. I respect that and thank him for it. I also acknowledge the many other members of this House and the other place that have served in the military over many years in different capacities.
I rise to speak on the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention Bill 2020 and the consequential amendments. I'll address my comments to both bills but also to the second reading amendment. I say at the start that I do believe every member of this House shares a determination to address the ongoing tragedy of veteran suicide. The desire to make change in this area is not a partisan matter and nor should it ever be. But we do differ, as is proper and reasonable on many matters, about what the right approach is, what the right and necessary action is. As colleagues have noted, Labor is gravely concerned that the establishment of a national commission, while better than nothing, absolutely does not go far enough to prevent veteran suicide.
There is still time for the Morrison government to establish a royal commission and ensure that there is effective accountability and transparent justice for veterans and their suffering families. I'm concerned that the Prime Minister is so desperate, as in so many areas, to avoid agreeing with Labor and calling a royal commission, so he's made up this convoluted workaround. It's not in any way to disrespect the sincerity of the previous speaker, and I'm sure many others opposite, but I encourage the Prime Minister to swallow his pride and call a royal commission. It would not be a surprise if one of the outcomes of a properly constituted, properly run royal commission was a recommendation for a standing commissioner with those powers as has been described, but I believe the Morrison government needs to actually listen to the voices of veterans and what they're saying.
I've been besieged by emails, and I'm sure every other member of this place has received emails, from veterans, from RSLs, calling for a royal commission. There is not us playing politics as we've been accused of. This is what so many veterans are saying and are calling for. We do not need to lose more lives waiting. It's a national travesty that men and women who served our nation are taking their own lives due to unresolved trauma and the inability to access adequate care upon their return.
I personally have never served, but it's been an enormous privilege to spend time with the men and women of the Australian Defence Force through the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program. I have previously stated in this chamber that I believe, it's a personal belief, there's a moral imperative on members of parliament, particularly those who haven't served, to put and to keep a human face to those who have served and continue to serve, because state sponsored violence and war is the ultimate, the greatest failure of politics.
When I was elected in 2016 I visited Afghanistan and have participated in many other ADFPP programs. I have committed to myself—a little promise to myself—that I'll spend at least a week every year that I serve in this place with the ADF to learn and to keep that human face front and centre. COVID, of course, has disrupted that for all of us, but otherwise I'm on track and will remain so.
During these times I witnessed firsthand how in conducting their service ADF personnel honour life by sacrificing their own safety and security to defend ours. It's, therefore, our duty and our moral responsibility to honour their lives by ensuring there are appropriate and effective supports in place for them on their return to civilian life. If we send young men and women to theatres of war and they return with damaged bodies and minds, it is our failure if they feel disrespected, unheard, forgotten, and it is our failure if we do not do everything within our power, everything possible, to help them heal.
If anything demonstrates the ongoing, continuing systemic failure of not supporting veterans it is the suicide rates for returned service personnel. The statistics are well-known but should be repeated by all of us. Recent reports suggest that 41 ADF personnel and veterans have taken their own lives this year, that's 41 human beings who have needlessly died and now 41 families and loved ones who are also victims. The trickle-down effect of these deaths will be long felt throughout the community and our country. Ex-servicemen are 21 per cent more likely to die by suicide, and 465 people took their own lives between 2001 and 2018, and indeed most of the experts tell us that those statistics are underreported. Every suicide is a tragedy that reverberates for decades and down the generations. Tragically, of course, veteran suicide is not new. I visited the War Memorial only this weekend. When in Canberra I try to pop in there quietly from time to time—spend an hour, keep that human face, learn something new. I read a few stories of the early VC recipients. The first story that I read I thought, 'What incredible bravery and it ended in suicide' and that was back in the early 1900s.
I asked someone a couple of years ago when we were talking about this and also the trauma, the PTSD, that many Australian Federal Police experience for different reasons. It was a private conversation. I said, 'I don't understand—why does this seem to be a growing problem these days?' They observed—wisely, I think—that soldiers have always suffered mental trauma in the horror of conflict, but the black truth they offered me was that, these days, we're much better at keeping their bodies alive than in years past, decades past, and we're much better at recognising and naming PTSD. So now we must become much better at helping people heal their mental trauma, or the war within, as the member for Herbert so aptly described it. Things on that front need to change, and they need to change fast. We don't need another marketing exercise from the Morrison government; we need change. These people we're talking about are not numbers and statistics; they're real people who sacrificed and served our nation. We disrespect their inherent humanity and betray our values and their service when we don't take every step within our power to address the ongoing injustice that faces veterans and their families.
I'll take this opportunity to acknowledge the suffering of the families and express my sincerest condolences to those who've lost loved ones, including in my electorate. Sometimes the families are invisible in these debates, and so are those with long-term physical and psychological injuries. So, even though we cannot see those psychological scars, we want you to know we see you. We want veterans and families to know that, despite the bureaucracy they fight, often on a daily basis, people in this chamber do truly care about their circumstances and suffering, and hear them.
Inquiry after inquiry has found that the system is broken and that people are falling through the cracks. The suicide rate is evidence of this. As Julie-Ann Finney, the mother of David Finney, who tragically took his own life in February 2019, stated, 'The failure to address PTSD is creating a whole new war zone for our veterans.' That is why Labor has repeatedly called for a royal commission to address the continuing systemic failures that a royal commission—with those powers, with those resources, with that evidence and with that compressed time frame—does focus on. It is time for change; it is time for a royal commission. Any steps to support veterans and their families and, in turn, address the rates of veteran suicide is something that we all should support. As I said earlier, it would not be a surprise if the proposal for a commissioner arose out of the royal commission, but we should have the royal commission, with those powers, with that mandate, with those resources, to really shine light on this and come up with the best possible solutions.
We need to ensure that, if this legislation passes, as I believe it will, a national commissioner will have the same powers as a royal commission, and it doesn't appear to us that this is the case. A royal commission would ensure accountability—that there are public hearings, that there's the ability to compel witnesses and to produce evidence. Importantly, a royal commission will have the power to refer charges of criminal or official misconduct. This is about the dispensation of justice, not the appearance of justice. It's also important that there is institutional independence, that any commissioner will have the independence required to bring down impartial findings that can then be implemented to create long-term and systemic change. Inquiry after inquiry has been fraught with issues of independence, and that is a risk with the commissioner model. This is central not just to accountability but also to ensure that veterans and their families feel heard and have some greater semblance of justice, and to ensure they have closure.
The government must start listening to families—not just hearing them but listening to them. So many families are calling for the royal commission. That's why Labor referred the legislation to a Senate inquiry to allow for proper scrutiny. However, I must stress: the longer the Morrison government stalls, I fear the more veterans will take their own lives. Only the government has the power to establish a royal commission now. I conclude by saying that this bill is certainly better than nothing, but it's not good enough. We need a royal commission.
Mr PEARCE (Braddon) (11:59): I'm honoured today to speak in favour of this bill, the National Commissioner For Defence And Veteran Suicide Prevention Bill 2020. Before I do so, I want to tell a story, a story that I've alluded to in the Federation Chamber, but I think it's important that it's said today. In the months preceding my discharge from the Australian Regular Army I was called to a civilian police station. They put me in the back of the car and they took me down to the Gold Coast hospital. They took me down to the morgue, where I was required as a sergeant major of that unit to identify one of my soldiers, who had taken his life in the early hours of that morning. I can tell you now that's a difficult thing to do. It's one of those things that we do in the military called our duty—and you do your duty. So, having done that, I then returned to the unit back in Toowoomba: 7th Signal Regiment, electronic warfare. The commanding officer and I broke that tragic news to the brothers and sisters that that young digger had in the unit. I can tell you what, Deputy Speaker: I can still today, in this particular second in time, close my eyes and see the looks on their faces and the looks in their eyes. The grief, the shock, the sadness.
In the military we are a family. We would gladly in an instant give our life for our friend and we mean that; it's not just something we go by. No one says it, but we all know it. And, as a leader in the military, there's an added issue that we all need to consider, and that is the responsibility issue. I can tell you that, as the sergeant major and the leader of that unit, I still feel responsible for losing that digger that day and all the other diggers I've lost, sadly, under my watch. I was the one who then had to go back and grab his mates. We went back to the lines and we cleaned that kid's room out. We packed his stuff up—his personal stuff, his letters. And I can still today in this place remember the looks on those friends that he had as they packed his room up.
I told them to keep one uniform aside—his polyester uniform—and later I'd take that back to the funeral director and I'd help the funeral director dress him in his polyester uniform. I can remember standing there with that open coffin, with that kid with his polyester uniform on, and telling him that I was sorry, that I didn't see it, that I didn't recognise the signs, that I should have seen it coming and it was my job to know the dire situation and the global impact that this was having on that young person. I missed it.
Fifteen years later I'm still sorry and I'm sorry for all those veterans that we've lost through suicide, and I mean that so sincerely today. It's something that I live with every day and every night. It's something that those mates of his live with every day and every night. We went through the funeral process, and those young blokes were trained by me to carry that coffin draped in the Australian national flag, his bayonet and his accoutrements. At the end of that service we folded the Australian national flag in a very ceremonial way. I grabbed it off the young bloke that folded it, and the commanding officer and I then walked over to the next of kin and presented her with a flag. I can still remember the look in that mother's eyes as she took it. She clenched it and she cried and, as her flag was covered in her tears, I couldn't help but think that that is the only thing that poor mother has of her own flesh and blood, of her precious son. I guarantee you she thinks about that every day and every night and every week and every month, and next year and the year after she will continue to think about that.
That is why it is so important that the measures that we put in place as a government, as a nation, look after our veterans not just today, not just tomorrow, not just next week but forever. An ongoing commissioner is what we need. Sure, you can have a royal commission that will look retrospectively at what happened and what occurred and put recommendations in place, and they will sit in some department somewhere. But is that going to be any good for that mother that's going into next week and next year? This needs to be an ongoing commission. It needs to have the powers of a royal commission. It needs to have the ability to subpoena witnesses and to put things in place that will stop it and fix it. And that is why this is so important.
The military is a big family, and I was proud to spend 20 years of my life in that family. I acknowledge my mate and my colleague the member for Herbert, because we're brothers; we'll always be brothers. But the point I make is: the impact and the fallout from a death, particularly by suicide, has a dramatic and devastating impact on a family. That is why I support and I welcome the Veteran Family Advocate and Commissioner Gwen Cherne's appointment to that position. Families are important. Families are going to play their part in the transition process of leaving the big family that we have as the military—in my case, the Army. When you leave that after 20 years, you feel that a part of you has gone. You've got to start a new life. And that's where families come in, and that's why families are so important. That's why the family commissioner is so important, in enabling this to happen smoothly.
We need to reconnect our veterans to a new family, to a new way of life. We need to give them purpose again. These are some of our finest young men and women that we're talking about here. They stood on a wall with a rifle and they said: 'Not on my watch.' They were prepared to lay their life down for their mates and for their nation. They're proud people. They're competent. They're smart. They're driven. They have a set of principles that is unmatched in any civilian space. These are the people that we need to help to make that transition.
As we leave, certain things will stay with us, and I'll talk to you briefly today about the things that stay with me: the thoughts that I have; the responsibility that I carry. And it's a burden. I don't mind saying that I suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder and I'm medicated daily for it. I don't say that for pity—don't get me wrong. I say that to let all veterans know that, yes, I understand that you may have a similar affliction, like me or my mate from Herbert, but there's help there, and it's a positive thing. You can still function at a high level and get on with your life and look after your family, and this is a positive thing. Too often we see conventions and seminars and meetings about mental health, and it's all a dark picture—it's all so dark. But I want to tell the positive story, that help is there. It's there today; it'll be there next week and next year; it will always be there. And blokes like the member for Herbert and I will make sure that that happens, I can tell you. But it's a positive thing.
The other thing that I will also talk about is the fallout on the family. When I left the military, my little boy was 2½ years old. He was eight years old when we buried his mother. She was also a serving member, the operations officer at 1 Aviation Regiment before she discharged. That little boy is now 18. He understands that he has a life. He understands that Dad recognises him as an important part of his transition, and we worked together; we stood alongside each other. That's the Australian way. That's what we do as Australians. We look after our mates, shoulder to shoulder. When your mate falls over, you're there to help pick him or her up. It's no different in this place. It's no different when you look at how we treat our veterans. That is exactly what this rolling commissioner, this standing commissioner, and the Family Advocate, will do: be someone to stand there by you; someone to pick you up when you need it. We're not there to mother you or to mollycoddle you. We're there just to be a mate and to make sure that you've got access to resources and the things that you need so that you can transition and make a new family, a new way of life. We're there to reconnect our veterans to a purpose.
Our private enterprise, our businesses, will play an important part as well. I want to assure every business owner today, right across the nation, that employing a veteran is good for your business. Yes, veterans might have had to do a tough job, but not all veterans have a degree of illness or affliction that would preclude them doing a fantastic job. They're talented, they're smart, they're driven, they understand team work and they understand sense of purpose and mission focus. If there's a problem in front of them a veteran will look for the way around it, roll his or her sleeves up and get on with it, and that's what we need to help them do—get on with it.
To bring this back, a royal commission will look over their shoulder, and I was taught as a young bloke that if you look over your shoulder too long you'll end up tripping over. I was taught to look forward. I was taught to stick up for my mates and to help them when they need it most. I was told to be positive, that the glass is half full and not half empty. I'm here to tell the veteran community and the whole business community out there that veterans are good for your business and they will excel in whatever they do. All you need to do is give them a go.
Finally, I give my wholehearted support for the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention. I support this bill and I commend it to the House.
Mr WILKIE (Clark) (12:11): Can I begin by tipping my hat, or, more accurately, saluting the member for Braddon for that remarkable contribution and also the member for Herbert. I also would like to express my concern for the many serving personnel and veterans who are living with the scars of their service, in particular the physical and psychological trauma and the severe mental illness that they battle every day and that we in this place should be looking for every opportunity to help with and to serve. My heart also goes out to the great many families, friends and loved ones of the hundreds of serving personnel and veterans who have suicided.
As a veteran of 20 years in the Army myself, most as an infantry officer, I believe I have a very privileged insight into this issue. I, like my ex-military colleagues in this place, have been witness to the tragedies of service. I stand here not as a veteran but, for starters, as the son of World War II veteran who spent two years in Europe as a tail gunner on Lancaster bombers, who did a remarkable 32 missions over occupied Europe when the life expectancy for tail gunners was three missions and who for the rest of his life battled demons, including the demons that I saw as his son when he was alive and I was alive. I stand here also as the brother of a Vietnam veteran, my late brother Joe. He also battled demons from the day he returned to Australia to the day he died of cancer. I remain quite affected by what happened at his wake, when the surviving members of his signals squadron were there to honour my late brother. I remember asking one of the veterans: 'Are there many members of your squadron here?' He said, 'No, no. Most members of the squadron are dead, mostly from cancer and from suicide.' Of course, we didn't treat our veterans from Vietnam at all well, and much has been said about that since, but we do have an opportunity here today to chart a new course to look after our surviving veterans and serving personnel so much better.
I stand here also as an MP who, like my colleagues, I'm sure, has spoken to many parents, friends and loved ones of serving soldiers and veterans who have suicided. We've heard all of their stories firsthand, and I would hope that everyone in this place understands that although we might disagree on what to do about suicide we should at least all be trying to do our best to address the alarming suicide rate among serving members and veterans. In fact, just last week I was at an event where there was a veteran who was shaking almost uncontrollably as he was talking to me—strength to him. I won't say more about who that was, but strength to him. If he hears this speech, he'll know I'm talking about him. There's a very fragile, very damaged man. He's a good example of the sort of man we should be trying to help.
Given what I've seen, I'm regrettably not at all surprised by the statistics. The statistics have been spoken about at some length in this place already, but, just as a reminder: a report by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare found 432 serves or ex-serving members died by suicide between 2001 and 2017. In 2018 alone, 33 died by suicide. And they are only the men and women that we know of.
The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, in its third annual report, found that, once out of the ADF, men are 21 per cent more likely to die by suicide than their civilian male counterparts. These are shocking figures. These might have been the figures from after the First World War, they might have been the figures from after the Second World War and they might have been the figures after the Vietnam War, but they shouldn't be the figures after the wars in the Gulf or in South Asia or after the peacekeeping operations everywhere from Cambodia to East Timor and the Pacific Islands. They shouldn't be the figures.
I should add, the figures often include people who are still serving and people who have departed the ADF but didn't see operational service. We should remember that, even in peacetime and in training, there are rigors in the ADF, which people who have not served would struggle to understand. I say to serving members and to veterans who didn't see operational service: 'We in this place are also thinking of you and looking at ways to help you. You have also put on a uniform. You have also served. You have also seen and done things that are completely unlike anything that happens in civvy street. We understand that you have many, many challenges too.'
I did salute the member for Braddon, but, regrettably, I'm going to have to disagree with him about the merits of this commission. I am an advocate for a royal commission. I think these bills are a missed opportunity for a detailed and comprehensive review of Defence and veteran suicide. For a start, the powers of the commissioner as laid out in the legislation simply do not go far enough, nor is the commissioner independent enough. Indeed, by its statutory nature the commissioner will be restricted by the legislation and simply not have the inherent flexibility that an ad hoc inquiry like a royal commission would have. Moreover, the commissioner sits within a government department, so we'd end up with the ludicrous situation of the government effectively, and repeatedly, investigating itself. Clearly a commissioner has to be independent and has to be seen to be independent, not embedded in a government department.
Moreover, the restrictions in this legislation will have the effect of denying friends and families the ability to adequately inquire into the root causes and contributory factors of the death of their loved ones. In other words, this legislation would be a bandaid to a much broader and in-depth issue. It would appear to some people to address a challenge but not actually address it, so, in some ways, it would be worth them doing nothing at all. In other words, we need to go straight to the best solution and not find ourselves stuck with an unsatisfactory solution.
It's no wonder so many members of the community, including myself, have long lobbied for a royal commission. I would hazard a guess that every member in this place and probably every senator in the other place has received hundreds of emails, letters and phone calls and had interactions on footpaths—maybe thousands of them. Between the lot of us, I reckon we have received many tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of communications from members of the community. The community knows what the problem is. The community knows what the solution is. I think we should be listening to the community. That's our job: to represent them and to represent the people who have the lived experience and have great insight and can help us to understand what the best solution is, and that is a royal commission.
A royal commission would have broad terms of reference and it would have the flexibility to strike out in unforeseen lines of inquiry. A royal commission would be able to compel witnesses to appear. A royal commission would be able to refer people to the justice system in some cases when that's warranted. A royal commission would have a clear end date. A royal commission would make powerful recommendations for reform that couldn't be ignored and which would provide some surety that veterans would be better supported and protected in the future. And, unlike the commissioner as envisaged by the government, a royal commission would deliver its findings in the media spotlight and hold hearings often in the media spotlight, rather than in some annual report to parliament dropped at half past four on a Thursday afternoon, which too often results in difficult issues being watered down or, worse, swept under the carpet.
I do acknowledge that the people who favour a commission see merit in the fact that it would exist for as long as this place decides it would exist—for years or decades. I do see merit in that, but I think we need to have a lightning-bolt response at the start, right now, with a royal commission ordered as quickly as possible, to report as soon as it can, to come up with recommendations that can be implemented and to save lives now and in the short term. But then I do envisage some sort of standing arrangement that would come out of the royal commission that could provide support for serving personnel and veterans for years to come. So I do see some merit in that, but, as I've described, I think we need what I'll call a lightning-bolt response initially to jolt everyone and everything into action and with solutions. Then we can talk about perhaps something like the commissioner on an ongoing basis beyond that. So maybe we need a hybrid model.
I do ask the government and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to look afresh at this issue. I expect that the legislation will go through this place. It will go through the Senate. We will have a commissioner. But I say to the government and to the minister: don't think the job is done, because we won't have had that lightning bolt. We still need that. There is still time for that. In the event of a change of government at the next election, I would hope the next government would revisit this matter. That's what the community wants and that's our job: to represent the community and to represent and help people in uniform and people who have taken their uniform off and are on civvy street now doing their best to battle with their demons. At the end of the day, it is all about them. It is all about our service personnel, both those in uniform and veterans. It is all about the people who have put on a uniform to serve the country, whether they have seen operational service or not. Many of them are battling demons, and it is our job serve them the very best we can. So far, we are letting them down and we are letting down their loved ones, who are calling out for a royal commission.
Mr CONAGHAN (Cowper) (12:23): I'm pleased to rise to speak on the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention Bill 2020. In doing so, I would like to firstly acknowledge the members for Braddon and Herbert for their service and their very balanced submissions today. Indeed, I recognise the service of other members in this place and current serving defence men and women.
Our serving and former Australian Defence Force members and their families make great sacrifices for our nation. They protect our rights and freedoms as Australians and the rights of other nations throughout the world when they are threatened. They put themselves through harrowing acts of combat and face life and death situations. I could not imagine running into the theatre of war.
The latest report on the incidence of suicide amongst current and former serving ADF personnel was released earlier this month. Sadly, it revealed there were a further 33 ADF member and veteran member deaths by suicide in 2018. The loss of one veteran or of one serving member of the ADF is one life too many. Addressing this tragedy is a national priority for the Morrison-McCormack government and indeed for the whole of the government. We can all acknowledge that there are many different factors that can affect someone's mental health—a person's childhood, an occupation or a lifestyle—but when that person's service in the Australian Army, Navy or Air Force is the cause of their poor mental health we should be absolutely committed to ensuring that those veterans and service men and women are supported.
According to veteran group Open Arms our World War II, Korea and Vietnam veterans are susceptible to experiencing depression, alcohol dependence or misuse, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Open Arms suggests that those who have served in Afghanistan, East Timor or other places where modern conflicts have occurred are susceptible to a range of mental health disorders. More-recent analysis from the National Suicide Monitoring of Service and Ex-Serving Australian Defence Service Personnel 2020 Update shows that ex-service personnel face an increased risk of suicide. In particular, the reason for discharge has been identified as a significant predictor of suicide among ex-serving ADF members. The rate of suicide in those who are discharged on medical grounds is far higher than for those discharged for other involuntary reasons and more than three times greater than for those who discharged voluntarily. Therefore, I support establishing a National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention as an independent statutory officeholder within the Attorney-General's portfolio.
The national commissioner will have the inquisitorial powers of a royal commission. However, unlike a royal commission the national commissioner will be an enduring institution with the power to monitor the implementation of their recommendations into the future. This is important. As an enduring institution it is not limited to a point in time. Royal commissions come and go but a national commissioner will not. A veteran advocate in my electorate of Cowper, Richard Kellaway, agrees that an independent national commissioner would be a good person to unpack what he calls 'an age-old problem that even the ancient Greeks and their philosophers debated'—how do we best mitigate the effects of combat on men? Mr Kellaway, at the Veterans Centre Mid North Coast, works tirelessly to assist local veterans and their families with compensation claims and other issues. He is also honest, and openly shared with me his battles with post-traumatic stress disorder from his time of service in the Vietnam War. It is a disorder that he says he manages through meeting with a psychologist and helping veterans. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Mr Kellaway for his advocacy for veterans and for his service to his country.
Under this bill, it is proposed that the functions of the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention will include: inquiring into the circumstances of relevant defence and veterans death by suicide; making findings and recommendations addressing defence member and veteran wellbeing and suicide prevention strategies; working collaboratively with state and territory coroners to understand issues contributing to defence and veteran deaths by suicide; and promoting understanding of suicide risk for defence members and veterans and opportunities for improved wellbeing and support.
I'm pleased that the national commissioner will hear from veterans, their families and others affected by suicide. It will provide the opportunity for veterans and their families and other people who have been affected personally to share their story in a supported way. Their contributions will be critical to informing the national commissioner's work. The bill provides that, as a guiding principle, the national commissioner should take a trauma informed and restorative approach in exercising the functions of the office and should recognise that families and others affected by suicide have a unique contribution to make to the national commissioner's work.
I'm similarly pleased that the national commissioner will provide better coordination across government, the Australian Defence Force and stakeholders in the private and charitable sectors. Government inquiries have identified that there is a need to improve integration. The national commissioner will work closely with the Prime Minister's National Suicide Prevention Adviser, and he or she will liaise regularly with the state and territory coroners. The bill provides pathways for information sharing between the national commissioner and other bodies to support their close collaboration. In the event that the national commissioner identifies potential criminal or other improper conduct in the course of their work, they may refer these matters to the police or prosecution bodies for independent investigation. This aligns with an equivalent referral process available to a royal commission.
Establishing a National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention builds upon the reforms of the coalition government that have been made to better the lives of our veterans. In October last year, for example, the Australian Defence Veterans' Covenant was enshrined in legislation. This covenant outlined the importance of veterans to our country and put in place a statement requiring the Department of Veterans' Affairs to adopt a beneficial approach when interpreting legislation. It also enshrined in legislation that DVA staff are to apply a fair, just and consistent approach to veterans' claims. I acknowledge the work of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Darren Chester, in delivering such reform. I look forward to hearing from veteran advocates like Mr Kelloway, in the future, that these and other measures have made a positive difference.
Through these bills, we, as parliamentarians, have the opportunity to establish a new national commissioner. It is a position that will deliver genuine transparency and uncover the root cause contributing to the death of Australian Defence Force members and veterans by suicide. It is a position that will work on a problem that goes all the way back to the ancient Greeks: how to better support the mental health and the wellbeing of our service men and women, those who form our armies and protect us in times of war.
At this point, I would like to recognise Soldier On, which has been supporting the veteran community since 2012. Through the delivery of holistic services, Soldier On enables veterans and their families to thrive. Soldier On has provided support to veterans and their families, both those who have served and those who continue to serve in the ADF.
I support this bill and I commend it to the House.
Ms MURPHY (Dunkley) (12:33): I rise today to speak on behalf of all of the locals in my electorate of Dunkley who have taken the time to email me to ask me to support a royal commission into veteran suicide deaths. I am proud to say to all of you and to all the other veterans in my electorate and across Australia who haven't been able to contact me: I am standing here to support that royal commission. I also am speaking today to recognise the Frankston RSL; the Seaford RSL; the Vietnam Veterans Association, particularly Cheryl, who is so tireless in all of her work; the Frankston Naval Memorial Club in Langwarrin; the Young Veterans who work in my electorate; and all of their members, and everyone who has served and is serving our country, and to say thank you.
It's been a while now that Australian veterans and their family members have been calling for a royal commission, and those calls have got increasingly louder. We need a royal commission into veterans' suicide because this is a real issue, and one that we can't allow to continue. It should have bipartisan support. It's not a political exercise. It's not only about the people that take their lives; it affects the lives their families, their friends, their children and their communities. The latest data shows us that the veterans death toll by suicide since 2001—and I understand it's a conservative figure—is 10 times greater than our losses in Afghanistan. That's not something that we as a society should accept.
It is clear from the conversations that I have had with veterans who live across my electorate of Dunkley that there is system-wide institutional failure and there are real concerns with some of the ways in which the Department of Veterans' Affairs—not the people who work there but the department, the system, as a whole—is operating. So it is time, and many would say high time, that we have a royal commission, which we need to determine why the interventions that have been in place over the years aren't working, and where we can go. Not everyone supports a royal commission. Not everyone who is a veteran supports a royal commission. But, certainly, in my community I have had many people lobby me to ask for a royal commission.
One of the things that a royal commission, through public hearings, can provide—which a standing commissioner can't provide—is closure for some people, and healing and restorative justice. We know from the royal commissions we've had in this country into institutional sexual abuse, mental health, aged care and disability services, which are ongoing, and we know from inquiries that we've seen around the world into social ills, that often one of the most powerful things about those inquiries is the chance for people to tell their stories and to have their stories heard. Yes, the recommendations that would come out of any royal commission are very important, and they may well include to establish a permanent commissioner. But it is just as important to make sure that people's voices are heard, their experiences are taken into account and they know that they are not forgotten or ignored.
We also know that, within our veterans community, there are a range of issues in addition to suicide, but they are often interrelated with that ultimate, terrible and irreversible act. We know that there are issues for many veterans with accessing affordable housing and with homelessness. We know that there is an issue with veterans accessing mental health services before they get to the stage of no return. We know that many people who have served and then come home find it very difficult to re-engage in the community, and they suffer in unemployment and from a sense of isolation. We know that, for the widows and widowers, and children and families of those who have lost their lives while serving, there is ongoing grief, there are often ongoing financial issues, and there are often, again, feelings of isolation. That's where the RSLs, the Young Veterans, the navy clubs and the Vietnam Veterans' Associations are so important—to provide that sense of community. So I am supporting a royal commission because it will be the opportunity to look into all of those issues as well. From my perspective, that's important, because we know they are related to suicide.
I want to finish by saying to the people who have served our country and the people who are serving our country: be assured that I and my colleagues will continue to stand up for you and listen when you ask us to act.
Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne) (12:39): I rise to speak in favour of the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention Bill 2020, which goes to the heart of a very important issue, and that is veterans suicide. I'd also like to give formal recognition to all those members and senators that have continued their service in this building after their own service in the armed forces. We're eternally grateful for everyone who dons the Australian uniform and serves their country—who have heard the call of the country—and at times put their life and limb in mortal danger.
Veteran suicide is a vexed issue. It is a big issue and the whole coalition is very aware of it. The health ministry, the Prime Minister, the health minister, the veterans' affairs minister, the defence minister and the minister responsible for defence procurement are all in unison—we are trying to improve the situation around veteran suicide. It is a really well-analysed problem. In fact, in the broader community, there are more people who fall victim to suicide than die in road accidents. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare has recently issued a report about that. In 2016 to 2018, the age adjusted rate of suicide in serving males whilst they're in the forces was 37 per cent lower than in the general Australian population. That just goes to show you the strength of the camaraderie and the clear role and definition of what service is when people are in the services. In that same period, 2016-18, the age adjusted rate of suicide in the Reserve forces amongst males was even lower—47 per cent lower than the general Australian male population. But where it comes unstuck is when they leave the services. Ex-serving males, who are discharged from service, had similar rates to Australian males. But ex-serving males who discharged from service on medical grounds were a group that had higher rates of suicide than Australian males. Amongst serving Australian female servicewomen, the same applies. I think amongst serving females who have been discharged it's something like 115 per cent higher, particularly those that have had medical discharges. So that's a really important statistic, because of all the programs that we have in place to support veterans and help them adjust to leaving the service and finding a meaningful role outside the services, it is really important that those at greatest risk get the most attention.
It is my great pleasure to have used my medical career for the betterment of the electorate by having a medically trained person in this building. With the 3,000 plus veterans who live in the beautiful Lyne electorate, I have the utmost respect and always try to support them. Whether it's an RSL function, it's a Soldier On function, or if it's a Vietnam veterans event, I try and get to it.
This legislation has come in for some criticism from people on the other side because it's not a full royal commission, but, most importantly, you've got to realise that this is a rolling royal commission. The commissioner for veteran suicide will have the powers, the inquisitorial powers, like those a royal commission would have. Royal commissions cost, in some cases, hundreds of millions of dollars. They shine a really bright light, like a blowtorch, on whatever issue they're looking into. They come out with an extensive report. As the months and the years roll by—this is not necessarily on any hypothetical royal commission into veteran suicide but this is about all royal commissions—the intensity and the focus goes and then the things fade into the distance. Whereas this is an ongoing problem. Having a commissioner who's there the whole time to inquire and analyse, both retrospectively and prospectively, and to see what methods, what programs, what can be done differently to reduce the numbers of veteran suicides, particularly amongst that high-risk cohort—those that are discharged but discharged on medical grounds—that is where we really can get the biggest input.
As you probably recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have been a regular at Pollie Pedal. I think this year's Pollie Pedal event was about my eighth. For the last 3½ years—I say 3½ years because due COVID we had a reduced, minimalist Pollie Pedal three or four weeks ago—the recipient of the funds raised for Pollie Pedal has been Soldier On. That is one of the many organisations that are trying to support people who have been in the services who are having trouble adjusting to their life. For people in a very regimented company or institution like the Army, Navy or Air Force everything is defined. There are strict boundaries. People go in at a very young age. People have been on campaigns together. The training is sometimes incredibly rigorous. There are mind games. There are physical games. There are bombs. There are unknown enemies. There are unknown risks. There are things that you and I can't dream of going through. Then when you leave and it's all gone—all that solid formation of your life, your role, your definition, your standing amongst your peers—it all evaporates, and that can be really tragic for some people because they don't have the coping mechanisms. It's no reflection on them. That's just part of the human frailty. Then there are some people who have seen horrible things and have had post-traumatic stress disorder, and those sorts of things linger for ages.
All the commission will be able to do is to look into every one of these past deaths, prospectively what's happening, make inquiries, force the production of evidence and information, just like a royal commissioner. So I think it's actually a better solution to an ongoing problem, rather than having the big hoopla, the big fanfare, a report and then things tend to fade away.
I know DVA has changed their processes. In this building in my time here we've changed it so that anyone who served a day in the armed forces is able to access psychological and psychiatric support. There are all these other transition mechanisms that we've got teaching people how to use the skills they've learnt in the forces and apply them to a different industry. We've got support groups. We've got support for families. We've got so many initiatives that will make it better for people who leave the forces. Hopefully we will see reduced depression, reduced incidence of post-traumatic stress disorder. All these servicemen and women who leave the forces leave with huge skills, which are great for the economy. But sometimes it's just connecting the dots and getting them together and then they take off and they launch into their second career.
What I have learnt on the Pollie Pedal because we have people who have served that come on the Pollie Pedal with us is that they're rock-solid people. They support their friends. Many of them have helped me up many mountains. This athletic, svelte physique that you're familiar with is actually not that athletic these days, but I love cycling and I feel really empowered that by raising funds for this great organisation we're getting help for a lot more people than are on the Pollie Pedal with us. But that's just a small thing. The big thing is all the legislation, all the funding, all those other initiatives that I have mentioned that are going to make a tangible benefit to our servicemen and women and their families. Hopefully, in the coming years, as we see this commission and commissioner doing their work and all these initiatives that we have rolled out in the last three or four years and that DVA have been doing for more than that, trying to change the culture of how service men and women move on to their non-service career, things will be better.
We have an aim to lower suicide around the whole nation to as close to zero as possible. But, with this commission and with the support and all this legislation and funding that goes with it, I hope that we will see a really tangible and physical reduction in the scourge of people losing their life as a victim of suicide. I think all the families that have been touched by these tragedies and people who have supported friends and who have been in the services with them will really appreciate this bit of legislation. It is different, yes. It's not a cop-out. I think it's a bespoke response to an ongoing long-term problem which will need constant management, constant supervision and support, and tweaking around the edges. I commend this series of bills to the House.
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (12:51): The National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention Bill 2020 is a very important piece of legislation and, whilst at the outset we in the Labor Party will reserve our ultimate position until we see the outcome of the Senate inquiry, we would advocate and have advocated for a royal commission and we will continue to do so, for the range of reasons that have been put here by other members in their contributions today.
I want to acknowledge at the very outset the contributions, particularly that I have heard this morning from the member for Pearce and the member for Braddon as well as that, of course, from the member for Clark, all of whom are former serving men, and we'll later here from my friend, the member for Solomon, Luke Gosling, who is also a former serving officer and who has been a driver behind Labor's position to advocate for a royal commission. But I just need to say that I thought the contributions from the member for Herbert and the member for Braddon were particularly poignant. I think it would be important to all of those who have listened to their contributions to understand how much better we are in this place by having the experience of people such as they who have served in the Australian military and by hearing their own experience. We heard from the member for Pearce, the unfortunate victim of an IED, and then the role of the member for Braddon in dealing with a suicide in a unit for which he was responsible. And then there were the arrangements which needed to be entered into not only around dealing with the deceased person but with the team. I think that, when we contemplate these things—I stand here as a former Minister for Defence Science and Personnel and a former Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Particularly during my time in this place and previously, having had that experience—and I've said this before—those of us who have not put on the uniform and served in the way our comrades have here cannot really understand the circumstances of our serving men and women. We have a program here that gives people the opportunity to experience a week a year working with defence personnel and being involved in units and activities, but we cannot ever understand, unless we're in those shoes, what it means to put that uniform on knowing full well that you might end up dead.
What we have heard today from the experiences that have been related to us by the member for Herbert and the member for Braddon—it was a great privilege to have heard from them—is significant for us. I hope it is significant for the whole of the Australian community to understand what it means, having heard them, to be wearing that uniform and what the outcomes can be.
I've spoken many times with my friend the member for Solomon and with other serving and ex-serving personnel over many years. There is an absolute frustration with our failure to be able to really comprehend and understand why it is that the suicide rates for ex-serving men and women are as high as they are. As the member for Lyne pointed out, the suicide rate for people serving is less than that of the general population, yet ex-servicemen are 21 per cent more likely to die by suicide than their counterparts, as the AIHW report indicates to us. For serving women the rate is twice that of the general female population. I don't know the real numbers, but we know that since the end of the 1990s, when we had the defence commitment to Timor-Leste and then the subsequent commitments to the Middle East in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have had tens of thousands of Australian men and women in uniform serve overseas, many doing multiple deployments—eight, nine, ten—particularly relevant for people in the special forces. I always pondered what impact those successive deployments might have on the health and wellbeing of those serving men and women once they left the Defence Force.
I can't attribute a reason for every one of the 465 deaths that have occurred over the period 2001 to 2018. It would be salutary to understand what the rates of suicide were for the decade prior to that. What I do know is that it is incumbent upon us to find out. That's why the royal commission is so important, and that's why Labor have been advocating for a royal commission in the way we have.
As the member for Lyne pointed out, and as I've just explained, the suicide rate for serving men and women is a lot less than it is for the general population. Indeed, the suicide rate for Reserve males was even less than it was for full-time serving men and women, and still less than the general population. What we know is—the member for Lyne made this observation—the suicide rate for those discharged on medical grounds was over three times higher than for those discharged voluntarily. We need to understand why that is. It's also the case that the suicide rate for those who are discharged for other involuntary reasons—they may have been kicked out—is also significantly higher than for those who are voluntarily discharged. Significantly, and surprisingly to me, the suicide rate for those who'd served in the Army was less than for ex-serving males who'd served in the Navy. Indeed, the suicide rate for ex-serving men who'd served in the Air Force was only half that for those who'd served in the Navy and significantly less than for those who'd served in the Army.
These issues need to be properly explored in a detailed way. We know that serving in the Defence Force is really a young person's game. Despite the longevity of service of both the member for Clark, the member for Braddon and my friend the member for Solomon—I think he had 12 or 13 years in service—it really is a young person's game. The average length of service is somewhere around seven years. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, you can imagine that people who enlist at the age of 18, 19 or 20 are done and dusted by their mid- to late 20s. So it's no surprise that the suicide rate for those under 30 is significantly higher than it is for those over 30. When we think about the impact that has on the community, on the families—how sad it is—then we need to have a way of finding out what happened. That's why this royal commission proposal is so important.
The issue of transition out of uniform into the civilian community is going to be different for different individuals. It's been perplexing now for many years. We can put in place all the support structures—and we should, and I'm pleased to say that the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Department of Defence have been working strongly and collaboratively together to ensure that happens—but we still can't explain why it is that people leave and don't make use of the support services that are available to them, yet clearly that's the case. So, of all the people who have been involuntarily discharged, what happens to them? How do we keep a connection with them? How do we make sure that they, and those who are medically discharged as well, are okay? What ongoing relationships are there? We've got Soldier On, the RSL and a whole range of other organisations that we'd like them to be attracted to and talk to, and many do, but clearly not enough. The sadness that's put on the community by these poor people taking their own lives: how can we accept the notion that it's like that? We can't do that. We need to support the member for Braddon, who acknowledged his own PTSD. That's a brave statement. There are so many like him. They need to know, as these men know, that they have our support, but there are so many who don't. We need to be able to demonstrate somehow that it's okay to cry for help, it's okay to seek assistance, and that assistance is available. It is available but, for whatever reason, we've still got unacceptable suicide rates amongst ex-serving men and women.
It's a great privilege and honour to serve in this place, and that privilege and honour carries with it a responsibility. That responsibility is to do the very best we can for the people of Australia and, in this case, most importantly, those who are prepared to put on the uniform and defend us with their lives. We have a responsibility to them and their families. It is not acceptable for us to turn away. I know we're not, and I acknowledge that there is strong bipartisan interest in and support for dealing with these issues. It's just that we have a different view about the merits of the commissioner as opposed to the merits of a royal commission. Nevertheless, it is incumbent upon all of us in this place to do whatever we possibly can, and are able to do, to work together to fix this problem. I am sure, if we are prepared to do that, we can. But it does require motivation, it requires sincerity and it requires respect. If we show that respect to those men and women in uniform, we can achieve the outcome we all want.
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (13:06): As we are discussing this bill, the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention Bill 2020, an inquest is underway in Sydney into the death of Sergeant Ian Turner. According to the reports of the inquest that I have been following, Sergeant Turner had enlisted in 2000 and been deployed seven times to Afghanistan, Iraq and East Timor. He took part in combat operations for nearly three years. The evidence being given is distressing. The evidence from his family, his doctors and his own letters indicate he was overwhelmed by PTSD, depression, anxiety and drug and alcohol dependency in the months before he took his own life in July 2017. He sought treatment at various places over the years, including at St John of God hospital in North Richmond, which is in my electorate and has a special focus on defence member and veteran mental illness treatment.
This coronial inquest and so many others give us some insight into the treatment veterans and Defence Force personnel can access, how they transition into civilian life, how mental illness is treated within that cohort and how the Department of Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs each operate in these situations. What they don't do is bring together all of those isolated cases and look for the way forward at a broader policy level. Nor do they have the power to make anyone make any changes. That is why it is so important for this parliament to be looking at these matters. It's absolutely important to the communities that I represent in the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury. The presence of St John of God in our community and the large number of local staff who work at that hospital, combined with the Richmond and Glenbrook RAAF bases and the past and present personnel who live locally, means there is a really strong awareness of the need for things to change in the way that we support defence personnel and veterans who struggle with their mental health. There is a strong recognition that we need to change things so they don't kill themselves.
I know from the conversations that I've had with personnel and veterans within my community, where they sometimes do disclose their own challenges or talk about those who have lost their struggles, that this is a very real issue. I've also spoken with veterans and their advocates from the RSL who have been guiding people through the processes of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. I'll never forget one young man who was applying for assistance to transition into civilian life and move on with his career plans. He brought me his file, which was at least 40 centimetres thick, and he was in the early stages of trying to get the assistance that he needed. He was coping with those documents and having to provide more and more reports and documents, all while battling the challenges of mental health issues that were as a result of his service. I looked at that pile and shook my head and just wondered, 'How could we have let it come to this?'
The overwhelming nature of dealing with the Department of Veterans' Affairs is a common theme when we're talking about suicide within this community, and it struck a chord with me when Julie-Ann Finney—the mother of David, who died last year—who has been such a fierce advocate for a royal commission, said:
The claims process is so difficult and so complex and so long-term that by that time they're not coping and we're ending up with all these suicides …
The wait for appropriate treatment, the stigma about even disclosing mental health problems, the myriad issues that contribute to the loss of a life: these are the things that do need to be exposed publicly, not behind closed doors. And families need to be able to share their stories, as do those who have survived suicide attempts. In fact, they have some of the best insights for us to learn from. What stopped them? What actually worked?
The latest data is another horrible reminder of the extent of this issue. The most recent data that I saw was from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. It releases an annual update. There were 465 suicide deaths of serving and recently discharged Defence Force personnel in Australia between 2001 and 2018. We know that those currently serving in the armed forces full time, or in the reserves, are considerably less likely to die by suicide than men in the general population. But, among ex-serving men, the figure jumps considerably, to 21 per cent more likely than other Australian men, so that it's 28 deaths per 100,000. While the rate of suicide amongst ex-serving women is lower than for men, it is still more than twice the rate of women in the general population. We sometimes forget these women who have served their country in just the same way men have; they are suffering, too. The report also shows—which we know and this parliament knows well, as it is often the case—that men who are discharged for medical reasons are more likely to die by suicide than men who voluntarily discharge. Hence our raising these issues time and again in this place, on both sides of the parliament.
For those reasons, Labor and I supported the calls last year from families and advocates for a royal commission into veterans suicide. We were disappointed that the government didn't. When the government made its announcement of a National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention earlier this year, we cautiously welcomed it as a step in the right direction, if not ideal. What's happened in the nine months since then is that many of the families whose sons and daughters have, tragically, taken their own lives have increasingly become worried about the powers of a national commissioner—that it won't be, as the government has claimed, better than a royal commission. My view is that a permanent body like a national commissioner would be much better informed by a royal commission being held, and that is what we will continue to urge this government to do. We will work through the details of the national commissioner, but, fundamentally, a royal commission will remain one of our principles. Only a royal commission can, for example, have absolutely unambiguous powers to hold public hearings, to summon witnesses, to compel the production of evidence, to pursue disciplinary proceedings, to refer charges of criminal or official misconduct to the appropriate authorities and to make recommendations for compensation.
I have to say I was a bit concerned earlier today to hear the member for Lyne say that a royal commission is a big hoopla and then things just fade away. We don't think of royal commissions in that way, and I really hope those opposite don't either. Look at what has come out of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse—a truly significant process for the people who experienced child sexual abuse within institutions. And we are still, with them, fighting through to ensure that the compensation they need emotionally and financially is delivered to them.
I certainly hope it's not the attitude that the other side of this parliament has when I think about the current royal commissions underway. There's the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. That needs to lead to genuine changes, as does the Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements, which is crucial to communities like mine who suffered so much in the last summer bushfires. And then there's the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. There's no way we will let that be anything other than a fundamental changing point—a place where we can finally fix a system that is so flawed and is letting down so many people. That's the sort of power a royal commission can have. My view is that the families of people who have suffered mental illness that lead to suicide deserve the respect of this place—that is, to put it before a royal commission.
I think it goes to one of the key differentiators of what we would like to see to what the government's proposing and that is that a royal commission can provide closure, healing and restorative justice for the Defence and veteran community and their families. I'm sure nearly everyone in this place will have had conversations with family members of people who've served in the Defence Force. I haven't recently spoken to a family member who has lost someone, but I have recently spoken to family members who can see the toll that serving in the Defence Force has taken on their child—for example, a grown man paying the price for the choices that he made—that we asked him to make—to serve this country and to be prepared to defend and to die for his country. When he comes back home, what his family deserves and expects is that we support him to live, and to live a rich life beyond his service in the Defence Force.
I believe only a full royal commission can really help us pull together the threads that are needed with the resources. We're talking of the financial resources that come with a royal commission and of the time frame that it brings with a clear start date and a clear end date. One of the concerns I have, when I look at the coronial inquests that happen into the individual cases of people who commit suicide having left the Defence Force, is that this national commission will end up being not much more than a glorified federal coroner. That would be a real lost opportunity.
Let's think about how we could move forward about this. The devil will be in the detail, which is why we have committed to having the Senate look at the detail of this to, most importantly, work through with the people who have fought to have their voices heard, like Julie-Ann Finney, the Bird family and other people whose children have taken their own lives, especially those who have battled with the DVA over a long period of time. The detail that we look at in the legislation will be absolutely key.
We also think there should be further genuine consultation with stakeholders. They should be able to scrutinise the proposal. I meet with, for instance, the advocates who are part of Windsor RSL. They are those who support families going through all sorts of processes with the DVA. These are people who have lived experience not only of being in the Defence Force but also of trying to navigate the complexities of getting assistance for people who are transitioning and have left the forces. They have extraordinary insights into things that can really make a difference. They don't often get their voices heard in a coronial inquest, but a royal commission would give them a place to do that. In lieu of a royal commission, a Senate inquiry into this bill will provide an opportunity for them to give us their insights. And that would allow us to show the community that, as a parliament, we are genuine in wanting to tackle this scourge of suicide. It really is a blight on our name as a parliament that we allow this to go ahead without doing absolutely everything in our powers to do.
There is still time for the Prime Minister to reconsider his view and to allow there to be a royal commission. It isn't too late. Having to appoint an interim and temporary national commissioner without a full terms of reference is obviously difficult. Whoever becomes the permanent commissioner would be so empowered by the findings of a royal commission. It would create a terms of reference for that commission that would unquestionably have the support of the veteran community and of this place. So I would urge the Prime Minister to consider that. We want to work in a bipartisan way on this matter. It's a very synergistic coincidence, I suppose, that today is headspace day. I heard the member for Ryan speaking about headspace yesterday. We know the lengths we need to go to to encourage young people to seek help early. We need to look and see what we can do so that veterans and those serving in the defence forces are able to seek help.
We remain absolutely committed to a royal commission, whether the Prime Minister changes his mind or not. It's what defence members deserve, it's what veterans deserve and it's what their families deserve. We ask so much of them. They are prepared to defend us with their lives. And we do have a responsibility to make sure that, when we bring them home, they stay alive.
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (13:21): I want to pay tribute to all of the contributions to this debate that have preceded me, particularly those of my Labor colleagues, who continue to prosecute the case for a royal commission into veteran suicide, and it is to that amendment that I wish to lend my support today. I am very pleased to rise and speak on the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention Bill 2020 and cognate bill following those earlier contributions.
A lot has been said over many months now of the merits of a royal commission into veteran suicides, and I acknowledge the work of the shadow minister, the member for Blair, outlined in his earlier contribution, mapping out some of that history. It is absolutely worth repeating some of the terribly sobering statistics that should shame this parliament into calling for a royal commission. We know that since 2001, for example, we have lost at least 10 times more defence personnel to suicide than we lost in Afghanistan—10 times more. We also know that our serving and veteran suicide rate is not diminishing. It is growing. All of the numbers, all of the indicators, are going in the wrong direction. It's doubled from 19 in 2001 to 42 in 2017 and then 33 in 2018. So this is a very worrying trajectory. One suicide is devastating, but to see a quite significant increase now, year after year, of ex-service men and women suiciding is deeply worrying. We know also that, if nothing changes, if we remain on that trajectory that I just brought to the attention of the House, we would risk losing another 600 veterans to suicide and have 6½ thousand more plan or try to take their own lives in the next seven years. That's what the estimated figures are. So I would suggest that anyone faced with that kind of evidence would be deeply moved to really bring out all stocks to put a stop to that tragic and senseless loss of human life and potential.
We know that the transition from uniformed life into civilian life is challenging, and I, having sat on a number of inquiries in my parliamentary life to date, know that we still have so much to learn about understanding that transition more thoroughly. I don't think anybody in this space should pretend that we have understood those challenges that ex-service men and women face in the transition to civilian life. We know that our losses are greater than the UK veteran suicide rate, for example, and, unlike Australia, however, their trajectory is going down. So there are certainly lessons to be learnt there. Comparing our veteran suicide rate with other countries shows that there are a wide range of possible outcomes for the journey from service life into civilian life. This could partly be explained by the varying levels of post-reintegration veteran support services and different policies that exist. Among other things, a royal commission could absolutely investigate best practice to look at those other international jurisdictions—to investigate what is best practice and find out very clearly what is working and not working.
So that's what we do know about veteran suicide today. We are on a trajectory that should shock and alarm each and every one of us in this House. What we don't know, as the member for Blair pointed out, is equally disturbing. I know that there are many ex-service men and women in my community of Newcastle who have reached out for improved services in this area of mental health and suicide. There are men who have dedicated their lives to providing terrific peer support amongst veterans communities, but the level of unmet need continues to grow.
I'm the daughter of a Vietnam veteran. I see what PTSD does to families at a very close range. I know that this is deep—that so many families like mine are affected in this way, and that the more resourcing we have the better. I know we're on very limited time here, so I will try to wrap this up with this very personal plea to the Prime Minister and members of government. I've been listening very closely to the debates that proceeded me, and I was nervous to hear one of the government contributions refer to a royal commission as just events that come and go, and that the reason the government wanted to argue for a National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention was because there was a greater level of permanency. I would caution government members from referring to a royal commission in that way. Again, I'm the member for Newcastle; I have seen the difference a royal commission made when we did a deep investigation into horrific child sexual abuse in institutions. I have seen the lasting legacy and the deep and necessary reforms that come as a result of royal commissions. There is nothing to be scared of and everything to be gained by shining a big light into areas that people may find uncomfortable. It is absolutely necessary in order to bring about the restorative justice for these men and women and their families. So, Prime Minister, it is not too late to change your mind and I beg you to show faith with the veterans and their families and to establish a royal commission, so that we can get to the bottom of veteran suicides and deliver some real accountability and justice for our veterans and their families once and for all. This issue will not go away. The numbers are all going in the wrong direction. Ultimately, Labor wants to have a bipartisan position on this important issue. I beg the Prime Minister to call a royal commission today.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
COVID-19: Benefits and Payments
Suncorp Super Netball Grand Final
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (13:30): [by video link] Hello from Melbourne today. I'm in my Werribee office. The pandemic has taught us a lot about ourselves. It has taught us a lot about what and who is essential in our lives. Today I want to give a shout-out to some unsung heroes—those manning our bank branches, our customer-facing bank workers. This week I met with Liz, Yvonne and Rahool. These workers in my electorate are essential. They deserve our thanks and they deserve to have their work acknowledged. During this pandemic, they are working with banking customers sometimes on their worst financial day. They are distraught. I want to thank those workers in my electorate and across the country who are giving the support that people need when they're entering their banks at the moment. I support the Finance Sector Union's call for an essential worker payment for our customer-facing bank workers.
I would also like to congratulate the Melbourne Vixens on their fabulous win on the Suncorp Super Netball grand final on Sunday. They did it for Victoria. They are a champion team. I'd also like to note that we're also saying goodbye to some real netball champions, particularly some Victorian champions. We're honouring the retirements of Tegan Philip, Caitlin Thwaites and Madi Browne, all great Victorians and great netballers.
National headspace Day
Mrs McINTOSH (Lindsay) (13:32): Today is National headspace Day, a national day of awareness for youth mental health. More than a quarter of young Australians, every year, will experience mental health issues. With the challenges they have faced this year, from the bushfires to coronavirus, it is more important than ever for our young people to look after their mental health. Locally, headspace supported 964 people aged between 12 and 25 in my electorate of Lindsay to receive mental health and wellbeing support last year.
I'm passionate about making our community a healthier and more active place, and looking after mental health plays such an important role in that. That's why I started the Lindsay Healthy Active Living Network—to investigate solutions to our community's biggest health problems, including mental health issues amongst our young people. This year our year 12 students, who started their HSC exams just this week, have faced challenges like no other year 12s have before. It's been an incredibly challenging time and an incredibly important time in their lives. During times like this, taking time to focus on everyday things, like young people's wellbeing, is really important. On this National headspace Day, I think it's such an important time to take note of what our year 12s have gone through, to congratulate them on their achievements and to wish them all the very best for their future ahead. Their futures are so bright, and I'm encouraging the young people in our community to continue doing the things they love. (Time expired)
Member for Hughes
Mr BURNS (Macnamara) (13:33): [by video link] On 4 August I wrote to the Prime Minister with a simple request—that members of his government not give medical advice, during a health pandemic, that they are not qualified to give. I was of course referring to the member for Hughes, who has consistently undermined the Prime Minister's own chief medical officers as well as making outrageous claims against state medical authorities. It has been almost three months since I wrote that letter to the Prime Minister, and he hasn't even bothered to reply. I understand the Prime Minister's office has been busily checking the Prime Minister's emails over the last few days, so can I request they go back and find the letter from 4 August and stop the member for Hughes from giving false and dangerous medical advice.
I know the Prime Minister personally intervened in his preselection, but how long will the Prime Minister run a protection racket for the member for Hughes? When the member for Hughes called on the federal Deputy Chief Health Officer to resign because he wouldn't promote hydroxychloroquine, the Prime Minister said he was entitled to his views. When the member for Hughes teamed up with the member for Dawson to accuse the Queensland Chief Health Officer of committing crimes against humanity for banning hydroxychloroquine, the Prime Minister stuck by his man. When the member for Hughes compared Victoria to Nazi Germany, the Prime Minister said nothing. It is time the Prime Minister stopped attacking the Victorian government and brought the member for Hughes into line. (Time expired)
Fairfax Electorate: Community Organisations
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (13:35): I had a great time recently at the Maroochydore Junior Rugby League Club, throwing a football around after donating a marquee to the club, in recognition of the important role they play in our community. Now, donating a marquee is only a small gesture, but it's one that I've been happy to make to organisations including Hoofbeats Sanctuary, the Buderim Lions Club, the Maroochydore Surf Life Saving Club, the Marcoola Surf Life Saving Club, the Coolum Crusaders Soccer Club and the Bli Bli United Football Club. Community organisations deserve all the support they get, whether they're a coast care group that protects the coastal environment, a community garden that passes on knowledge about sustainability or a men's shed that promotes good health and wellbeing. As we recover from COVID-19, it is these organisations that are providing the leadership on the ground at the local level, ensuring people are engaged, socially included and physically active. And so that's why I stand here today, Deputy Speaker O'Brien, to say thank you. To every coach, to every volunteer and to every executive of every club and association within Fairfax, on the sunny coast, thank you for the leadership you provide to make our community stronger, united and more resilient.
Climate Change
Mr BANDT (Melbourne—Leader of the Australian Greens) (13:36): [by video link] Yesterday we heard two truly earth-shattering and climate-threatening revelations out of Senate estimates. First, the Bureau of Meteorology has confirmed that we are on track for 4.4 degrees of warming in Australia. That is a hell on earth, and it means civilisation will collapse. Then, later, the government admitted that gas is far dirtier than previously thought. But instead of changing their plan after listening to the science, like a responsible government would, they decided to retrospectively change their own targets and rewrite the rules to allow them to pollute even more.
This government of climate criminals' disastrous plan to open up five new gas basins, which Labor backs, will blow Australia's carbon budget. By our estimates, an extra 150 million tonnes of climate pollution will be released into the atmosphere, above what was originally estimated, worsening global heating and sending us further back from a safe climate. The government has been caught doing 200 kilometres an hour in a 60 zone, and instead of slowing down it's lifting the speed limit. We're hurtling towards the end of a cliff. We should be slamming on the brakes and changing direction, but the government is putting its foot on the gas.
The glaciers won't be fooled by this accounting trick, and nor will the countless Australians who are still dealing with the fallout from the black summer bushfires. Gas is as dirty as coal, and the more of it we burn the more likely frequent and intense bushfires will become. The good news is that solutions already exist. A Green New Deal will power our recovery from this pandemic— (Time expired)
1770 Cultural Connections Immersion Festival
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn—Deputy Nationals Whip) (13:38): I wish to finish an important speech I started last sitting week. On Friday 2 October I attended the 1770 Cultural Connections Immersion Festival. It's an event held over two days and it celebrates the history of the traditional owners of the region. During my visit on Friday, I spoke to many people from all over the region, from Rockhampton to Bundaberg and further afield. I believe the festival was a huge success. That was obvious from the happy group of people at the festival, enjoying each other's company.
The location was perfect. There was plenty of room and great live music. There were lots of activities that you could join in or watch and plenty of activities to get involved in, like bush tucker walks, smoking ceremonies, weaving a dolphin sculpture and learning about corals. There was also relaxing music, didgeridoo playing, dancing and storytelling. Congratulations to Brother Kerry Blackman and his team for an excellent event. I'm hoping this will become an ongoing event in the future.
Udani, Deyaan
Saffron Day
Dr FREELANDER (Macarthur) (13:39): Tomorrow is Saffron Day, and I'd like to express my appreciation to the member for Chifley for his advocacy of this very worthy cause. Saffron Day, 22 October, is a day in which we raise awareness of organ and tissue donation in Australia and commemorate the life of Deyaan Udani. Deyaan was a bright and beautiful young boy who tragically lost his life at the age of seven in 2016. Deyaan's family chose to give the gift of life, and Deyaan was able to save the lives of four others. Deyaan's legacy is extraordinary and one that we should all celebrate.
As the co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Organ Donation, I want to express my gratitude to Deyaan's family for promoting this day. I'm encouraging all to honour Deyaan's everlasting legacy and, please, have a conversation with your loved ones and register your decision to become an organ donor.
We pay tribute tomorrow to Deyaan and his family's incredible decision when we commemorate Saffron Day. Saffron symbolises courage, strength and sacrifice, qualities seen in little Deyaan. Saffron is particularly important to the Udani family, as orange was Deyaan's favourite colour.
Far too many Australians are presently awaiting an organ donation. Organ donation transforms and saves lives. It takes less than a minute to register to give the gift of life, and state based drivers licence schemes no longer exist. To register their intention to become an organ donor, people can visit donatelife.gov.au. (Time expired)
Neale, Mr Lachlan (Lachie)
Mr PASIN (Barker) (13:41): I rise today to offer my congratulations to Lachie Neale, who, on Sunday night, took out the prestigious Brownlow Medal. Lachie might be a Lion today, but he started his football career as a Tiger with Kybybolite. Kyby is a footy club in my electorate. It's a town of 100 people. In fact, until recently, they didn't even have mobile phone reception.
Those who knew Lachie as a young lad always commented about how he always had a footie in his hand and was always keen to get to training. While taken at pick 58 in the national draft, he went to Fremantle and showed real dedication and hard work. He worked on his craft, and was recognised there by winning best and fairest twice.
But what impresses me most about Lachie is not his footballing skills but his humility and the professionalism he's shown throughout his career. When accepting this prestigious award, he barely mentioned himself. Instead, he thanked his wife, he thanked his family and he thanked his community. Lachie's a man who, in my community, we look up to, rightfully, and I am beyond proud for all that he has achieved. And I know, Lachie, that, no matter who we support in the south-east, there's always a little part of us hoping that you get the ball, clear it and deliver it well. Thanks, Lachie.
Saffron Day
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (13:42): I follow the great member for Macarthur in recognising that 22 October is Saffron Day, which focuses our attention on the special role that organ donation plays in saving lives. The inspiration behind the day was the incredible seven-year-old Deyaan Udani, who, while he was on a family holiday in India, suffered a brain haemorrhage and, sadly, passed away in 2016. His dad, Rupesh, who is a Chifley constituent, spoke with me about his boy and how they'd made the incredible decision to donate his organs. And that amazing gesture helped save the lives of four people. Deyaan and his sister Naisha had learned about organ donation at Quakers Hill Public School and they told their parents they wanted to help save lives.
Saffron Day, which is now in its third year, encourages Australians to 'do it for Deyaan', and to wear orange to school or work—which is why I'm wearing this orange tie—and to register as an organ donor. As the Udani family say, a pinch of saffron goes a long way, as does the powerfully generous gift of organ donation. As I speak, 1,700 Australians are waiting for a lifesaving transplant, and a further 12,000 people are on dialysis waiting for a kidney transplant. So I'd urge everyone to have that conversation with their loved ones and to become organ donors. Registering is quick and easy; it takes less than a minute. Go to donatelife.org.au and register. You could help save a life. Well done, Rupesh, and everyone supporting Saffron Day.
University of Tasmania: Burnie Campus
Mr PEARCE (Braddon) (13:44): I welcome this opportunity to update the House on the progress of the University of Tasmania's new Burnie campus, which is on track to be completed mid next year. As a proud north-west-coaster, it is tremendous that the Burnie region is the first to benefit from the Northern Transformation program, which will have long-lasting positive outcomes.
What we're building here is a world-class teaching and research facility. The north-west, west coast and King Island is a unique area, and I welcome UTAS's commitment to focusing on leveraging off the many strengths of our region. The commitment is to ensure that courses offered meet the specific needs of our local community, align with our future workforce needs and continue to attract students from across Australia and the world. I acknowledge Mayor Steve Kons and the Burnie council for driving the vision and providing the land to enable this high-profile project to proceed, which is currently supporting over 100 jobs.
Congratulations to Fairbrother construction, general manager Kurt Arnold and his great local construction team, who are overseeing the innovative landmark development. He's got young Tasmanian tradespeople literally building their own future. The greater Burnie region has everything a young person heading off to university is looking for, so put UTAS Burnie campus on your list of future options.
headspace
Ms McBRIDE (Dobell) (13:45): It's often said that COVID-19 doesn't discriminate, but it does, and young people especially have felt the impact of the virus. It's no surprise then that headspace saw a 33 per cent increase in demand for e-headspace and counselling services this April compared to the same period last year or that there was an over 40 per cent increase in webchat demand this May. This is consistent with the findings of the National Youth Mental Health Foundation survey, where young people reported COVID-19 had negatively impacted their relationship with friends, study, day-to-day routine and mood and four out of 10 reported feeling the pandemic had impacted their ability to achieve future goals.
This year my niece Iona started kindergarten at my old school, St Cecilia's Wyong. Coming back from school, she said to my mum: 'Nanna, in my little life there have been bushfires, floods and COVID-19.' These are big problems for anyone to face and very big feelings for a five-year-old, so today I join with others across Australia in marking headspace Day and encouraging young people to think about small steps they can take to support their wellbeing—small steps like exercise and keeping in touch with friends and family. I'd like also to recognise the school teachers, youth workers, health workers, peer workers and coaches doing all they can to support young people and their families as they feel the social and economic impact of this virus.
This headspace Day, I'll finish by expressing my hope that Australia comes out of COVID a fairer place, because where you live, are born and grow up have a profound impact on your health and wellbeing.
Wentworth Electorate: Waverley Community Men's Shed
Mr SHARMA (Wentworth) (13:47): Last week, I was pleased to take the Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters, Zed Seselja, to visit the Waverley Community Men's Shed, the only men's shed in the eastern suburbs, in my electorate of Wentworth. It is an organisation that supports the health and wellbeing of men at a difficult time. Men's health sheds have been particularly relevant during COVID by providing men with the tools, the training and the social connections to combat issues such as isolation and mental health, which many men experience upon ceasing full-time employment.
As Minister Seselja and I smelt the freshly cut wood and talked with members about our own less-then-perfect woodworking skills, we were impressed by the craftsmanship of some of the items on display. We admired an exquisite jewellery box that was being crafted by the treasurer, Rodger Jamieson, and the detail in the delicate ship being worked on by the vice-president, Tom Wolf. Tom Wolf, interestingly, also spoke about his ordeal fighting COVID and how, having survived ventilation and after being in a coma for 10 days, he no longer takes his health or his mates for granted. He is grateful to be back at the men's shed turning wood in the company of his friends. While it wasn't needed on the day, I also viewed the much appreciated air conditioner that was purchased and installed for the men's shed with a successful grant from the Stronger Communities Program.
I'd like to thank the president, Clif Munro, and board member Peter Black for facilitating our visit to the men's shed and congratulate all the members in that men's shed and, indeed, men's shed across Australia for providing much-needed support to men at this challenging time.
Coalition Government
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (13:48): First there was sports rorts. The Auditor-General uncovered that this government's ministers had pork-barrelled millions of dollars of taxpayers funds into projects in coalition electorates against the advice of Sport Australia and with the approval of the Prime Minister's office. Then we had water rorts, where the government paid almost double the independent valuation for water licences to a company that was established by the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction and based in the Cayman Islands. Then there was grass rorts where—guess who?—the minister for energy, again, lobbied the then minister for the environment to have environmental laws watered down after a company that he was a shareholder in was investigated for breaches of land-clearing laws. Then, of course, we had airport rorts, where the Morrison government paid 10 times the land value for a plot of land at Badgerys Creek to—guess who?—a Liberal party donor. It is unbelievable. The latest snout-in-the-trough revelations came today when it was revealed that an independent investigation into the alleged misuse of taxpayer funds in the electorate office of the Assistant Treasurer was conducted by—wait for it—the law firm that he used to work for.
You could not make this stuff up. The list of the dodgy dealings of the Morrison government just goes on and on and on. The Australian people deserve better. They deserve proper independent investigation of these dodgy dealings by a national independent corruption commission. Labor supports a national ICAC. Why don't those opposite? (Time expired)
Mangan, Mr Gary
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (13:50): Today I want to honour the work of Gary Mangan who is retiring as the manager of the Galston and district branch of the Bendigo Bank. Gary Mangan joined the Galston branch having had a successful career in banking and also being self-employed in the finance industry. Gary believes in the model of the community bank, community banks being governed by a board of local people so that 50 per cent of their profits are returned to the community. Gary's warmth and enthusiasm is infectious and it was immediately evident how much he cared for the Galston community. He is known for his realistic advice, whether it's to school levers or retirees.
During his tenure, he saw over a million dollars returned to the community through projects and sponsorship. He was awarded the Paul Harris fellowship by the Rotary Club of Dural and the pride of workmanship award for Galston Rotary for his efforts and contribution to the community. Gary has been instrumental in getting community groups to work together, organising free community events, such as women in business and aged-care seminars. He has also driven the Paul Wade program, with the former Australian Socceroo captain, delivering life skills programs to local schools and carols for the community where he played the popular role of Santa. Gary's retirement is a very sad loss for the Galston community and the Bendigo Bank. However, Gary should be proud of the enormous contribution he has made to our community and the great deal of affection that so many people in the community hold him in. I wish Gary, his wife and his family all the best for a long, healthy and happy retirement.
Paterson Electorate: Health Care
Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (13:51): Last week I met with Michelle Hudson and Donna White who are the hard-working management team at Shoal Bay and Anna Bay Providence Medical practice. They are at the end of their tether. Issues effecting every medical practice across the Tomaree peninsula were at the top of their list of things that they need addressed by this health minister. The single biggest issue that they raised though is the lack of GPs for areas like ours, like the Tomaree peninsula, like Nelson Bay—which is an incredible place to visit. Very sadly they cannot get GPs. In my community we are facing a crisis with this government failing to take action to support overworked GPs, who can't attract additional staff to the local area, because of the flaws in the government's model. Where in Australia is it more pertinent to have GPs than a tourism area with a large retirement population? Every year the bay is inundated with tourists—and we love it. We love people coming and enjoying our beautiful waterways, our magnificent beaches, climbing the Tomaree headland, having a great time, but if they— (Time expired)
Norwood Football Club
Mr STEVENS (Sturt) (13:53): I rise today to pay tribute to the Norwood Football Club and congratulate them on the recent opening of the Wolf Blass Community Centre at their home ground, Coopers Stadium, on The Parade in Norwood. Very unfortunately, nearly 20 years ago, the Norwood Football Club's clubrooms, just adjacent to the oval, had to be sold off because of some financial challenges the club had, that I won't delve into today, given the controversies at the time. Thankfully, less than 20 years later the club has a proper home again.
I particularly pay tribute to Mr Wolf Blass. The centre is named after him thanks to the enormous contribution that he made financially. Equally the Commonwealth government made a very significant contribution to that. The Norwood Football Club community came together. So many members of the club are making financial contributions and others are doing so much to ensure that the club has a home again.
It was a great thrill to be at the first event. Unfortunately it was a meal before the last game of the season, which was an unsuccessful outing for the club, and we didn't make the finals this year. But we are focused on next year now. Very soon, in a few weeks time, the official opening of the venue will occur. So many members of the club, who have been so loyal to it and supported it all their lives, are so thrilled that now we have a proper home again. It changes game day significantly. It's also a great asset to the local community in Norwood.
Queensland State Election
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (14:10): The LNP have shown their true colours in this Queensland state election campaign. Last week we had the Prime Minister wandering around with Deb Frecklington. I wonder if they discussed the fact that a major political party is preferencing a party with known racist policies: the One Nation political party? They're putting One Nation ahead of Labor in every seat in Queensland. How can the candidate in Stretton, one of the most multicultural electorates in Queensland, put One Nation after the Liberal National Party? It is amazing that they are connected with a party with such racist behaviour.
I remember when Pauline Hanson started her political career back in 1996 and she said:
I believe we are in danger of being swamped by Asians.
Things have moved on, but the racism has continued. Even on 6 April this year, she said:
I have no time for the Chinese. As far as I'm concerned, get out of our country.
These are dangerous, damaging, misguided comments, yet we have a major political party doing a preference deal.
Then we saw up in Redcliffe the LNP candidate campaigning with a Young Liberal who is supposed to have been suspended for sharing offensive opinions about Indigenous culture. What has happened to the Liberal Party of old? Why don't the Liberals speak up against such racism?
National headspace Day
Mr LLEW O'BRIEN (Wide Bay—Deputy Speaker) (14:12): Today is National headspace Day, and this year's theme is the small steps we can all take to better our own mental health. Improving the mental health outcomes of young people in Wide Bay has always been a passion of mine. It was when I was a country copper and it is now when I serve in this place, and I'm really proud to have secured mental health funding for my area, particularly headspaces for Gympie and Maryborough. While it took a bit of time to get the premises for headspace in Maryborough, we have a great location in Lennox Street, and it will be opening soon. In Gympie there is an increased demand for headspace services, and I am working with Minister Hunt and the PHN to gain further funding for more consultations.
People under 24 were the first to lose their jobs in the COVID-19 pandemic, accounting for nearly half of all job losses nationally, and headspace provides a range of extremely valuable services for them. This year's headspace Day is about small steps, but the Morrison government has also taken some big steps to help people of all ages, budgeting to double individual psychology sessions under the MBS to 20. When it comes to our nation's mental health, all steps in the right direction are good steps, and I'm very encouraged by the Morrison government's funding for this program.
Tasmania: Employment
Ms COLLINS (Franklin) (14:14): The ABS payroll data that was released this week shows that Tasmanians have been particularly hard hit by deliberate decisions of this Morrison government. Indeed, the Tassie payroll data shows that jobs are down 4.5 per cent since the middle of March, with a further fall of one per cent in just the last fortnight since JobKeeper was cut. We've seen Tasmanians have the worst drop in wages since March: 4.9 per cent, worse than what we've seen in Victoria. That is what is happening in Tasmania. The employment-to-population ratio in Tasmania is the lowest in the country. The unemployment rate of 7.6 is the second-highest in the country. There are currently 15,321 businesses receiving JobKeeper in Tasmania, supporting 58,000 workers, and we know that, since this government made a deliberate decision to cut JobKeeper too early, 2,400 Tasmanians have lost their jobs in just the last month. It's simply not good enough from this government and the state Liberal government not to have a comprehensive plan for jobs for Tasmanians. The changes to JobKeeper and JobSeeker that this government has made is ripping an estimated $60 million every fortnight out of the Tasmanian economy. Tasmanians need better. (Time expired)
Boothby Electorate: Warradale Primary School
Ms FLINT (Boothby—Government Whip) (13:59): On 22 October, the Warradale Primary School community will celebrate their 60th birthday. Warradale primary has a rich history. As Adelaide's population grew with the post World War II baby boom and overseas migration, so did the need for a new primary school in the area. To meet the demand driven by local families, Warradale Primary School was built on repurposed orchards and opened in May 1960 with 274 students.
Fast forward to 2020 and the school boasts 376 students and 26 teachers, led by Principal Josh Vick and Deputy Principal Sarah French. Warradale has an active governing council, chaired by Mrs Carol Douglas, and it also manages the operation of the Warradale Urban Camp School, which is co-located on the site. The urban camp school was established in 1983 and provides low-cost accommodation for students from isolated regional areas who are visiting Adelaide for educational and sporting activities.
Warradale Primary School is a very environmentally conscious school and has a number of initiatives, including eight vegie patches, a native food trail and a wetlands program run in conjunction with the urban camp school. I have been delighted to visit Warradale primary over my years as the member for Boothby, including their breakfast club. I have welcomed many of their year 6 and year 7 students to Parliament House as well. I wish Warradale primary and its school community a very happy 60th birthday.
The SPEAKER: Under standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
National Integrity Commission
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (13:59): My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I ask this: where the bloody hell is the national integrity commission?
The SPEAKER: That question is poorly phrased. I've made my point.
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (13:59): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I can tell you one place it's not. It's not on the Labor website that had 'donate $5 to Labor' underneath, 'We need to do more to win back the trust of the Australian people.' That's not where it is. That was the Labor version of an integrity commission—
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order, members on both sides!
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
Mr McCormack interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Rankin and the member for Sydney will cease interjecting. The Deputy Prime Minister will cease interjecting. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order?
Mr Burke: Unsurprisingly, it's on direct relevance. There was nothing about alternative policies, and being flippant about an integrity commission probably makes our point.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr Dutton interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order, members on my right and the Minister for Home Affairs! I will say to the Manager of Opposition Business that he's correct. There wasn't a reference to alternative policies. I'm also going to say that that question could have been ruled out if I took a strict interpretation of the standing orders. I don't need to detain the House by going through them all. I'm simply going to make the point that, for a question asked in that fashion, you cannot expect any other sort of response, really. If it's asked in that fashion, with that ironical expression, and it's asked where something is, I'm certainly going to allow the Attorney-General to address the question.
Mr PORTER: They don't get irony, unfortunately, because, if they did, they wouldn't have asked the question that way. In fact, the member for Isaacs put out an email, saying: 'Something must be done to restore the public's faith in government. We need your support to ensure that a national integrity commission gets off the ground. Will you pledge your support?' How were they to do that? With a red button donating $5 to the Labor Party! It is a very serious issue. In fact—
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Rankin interjects again and again. If it continues, it's very predictable what will happen.
Mr PORTER: The next stage for the integrity commission will be a consultation phase. That will be detailed and it will be extensive. In fact, why is that necessary? Because it is a serious issue. As the member for Maribyrnong said, 'As you would appreciate, a reform of this magnitude is complex and would require extensive consultation and design work.' The fact that we chose not to conduct that consultation during the height of a global pandemic seemed to us to be a matter of some common sense. The member for Sydney was on Insiders on the weekend, and she made three statements about the integrity commission. Unfortunately, all of them were wrong. Every single one of them was wrong. In fact, one of the very important issues that we would need to consult on is the issue of retrospectivity—retrospectivity of the criminal law, retrospectivity of standards such as conduct. The member for Sydney said of our model, which we have been very clear about, 'It can't look at behaviour that has happened in the past.' Well, that is just wrong. It is just wrong. The issue of retrospectivity is clearly one that needs to be part of a very detailed consultation process.
To the credit of the Greens, they actually did bring a bill into parliament. It had a—remarkably, in our view—vague and low standard for corrupt conduct. It also believed that new criminal offences and new standards should be applied retrospectively. What's Labor's position on that issue? They said that that bill should not pass parliament, and voted for it. And that is what Labor's position is. Our position on the issue of retrospectivity is, I think, well-summarised in the words of the former Law Council of Australia president, who said:
… retrospective legislation directly undermines the rule of law, which requires that laws must be knowable and able to be obeyed.
Retrospective legislation is neither.
That is just one issue that requires consultation. This is not a game. This will be a very important structure that needs debate and consultation.
Budget
Dr ALLEN (Higgins) (14:06): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House how the Morrison government's economic recovery plan, outlined in this year's budget, is setting up Australia to make the most of digital technology to increase jobs and grow businesses as we come out the other side of the COVID-19 recession?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:06): I thank the member for Higgins for her question and I thank her for the expertise and the advice that she's provided to the government as a member of our team through one of the most difficult years in terms of the global pandemic, and I appreciate her input to that process very much. It has been a tough year for all Australians—one of the toughest on record for most of us in our living memory. But, amidst all those difficult challenges, we've looked for the opportunities as to how we can drive Australia's recovery, our recovery from the COVID-19 recession.
In the early phases of this pandemic, McKinsey found that digital adoption by consumers and businesses leapt ahead at a pace of five years in a period of just eight months. Nine out of 10 businesses took up technology in order to ensure their business continuity. Forty per cent of small and medium-sized enterprises established remote work capability, with many more going down that path.
Our Jobmaker Digital Business Plan, which formed part of the budget this year, which we indicated last November in our aspiration to ensure that Australia is one of the leading digital economies in the world by 2030—that plan, which was concluded in the economic recovery plan, which was this year's budget that was brought down by the Treasurer a few weeks ago, invested $800 million in four key projects. First of all are the infrastructure and skills needed to drive a digital economy, particularly the acceleration of 5G rollout and take-up; digital skills training through the JobTrainer program; and the Digital Skills Organisation Pilot to ensure that today's workers—in whatever their industries or roles—have those digital skills to move forward, supporting our investment in digital infrastructure for communications.
Small and medium-sized enterprise support and capability is specifically addressed, with training for directors and readiness assessment tools to assist small businesses become digital. There are business partnerships between large businesses and small businesses to ensure they're on the same page and able to use this technology. There are fit-for-purpose regulations. The consumer data right has been hailed by Rob Sims, the Chair of the ACCC, as an economic reform as significant today as floating the dollar. Doing business digitally with government will ensure that we're paying people on time. There is e-invoicing and the digital identity framework. This is revolutionising how businesses deal with government. This is all part of our digital business strategy for the economic recovery, and it's all on the basis of trust and security, with cybersecurity investments of $1.67 billion. That's the plan. (Time expired)
National Integrity Commission
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:10): My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer to evidence given today before Senate estimates by the Attorney-General's Department that the government has had an exposure draft of legislation to create a National Integrity Commission since last December, December 2019. I ask the Prime Minister: don't Australians have a right to see this draft, and will the government table it?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:10): Yes, they do and, yes, they will. But it may have passed the attention of the leader of the Labor Party—as it seems to on many occasions—that, since December of last year, there has been a significant crisis this country has been dealing with, and a rolling set of crises—
Mr Albanese interjecting—
Mr MORRISON: and the Leader of the Opposition is correct—bushfires, followed by the COVID-19 pandemic, a COVID-19 pandemic that has escaped the attention of the Leader of the Opposition, who doesn't seem to have understood that that is what has caused the COVID-19 recession in this country. As I said the other day, if you don't know how you got into the problem—
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Members from both sides will cease interjecting. The Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order.
Mr Albanese: On relevance, Mr Speaker. The question contained a very specific ask: 'Will the government table the legislation?' They can do that. They can do that today. They could have done it on any day since December 2019.
The SPEAKER: I'll just say to the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister addressed the specifics of the question in perhaps the first 15 or 20 seconds, and what he's now doing is explaining why the government's taken certain action. I think that's still directly relevant to the question that's asked, so I'll allow the Prime Minister to continue.
Mr MORRISON: If the Leader of the Opposition doesn't understand how Australia went into a COVID-19 recession, he hasn't got the faintest idea how he could get Australia out of that situation. But this government knows how, and it was set out in our economic recovery plan for the COVID-19 recession, which was in the budget handed down by the Treasurer—which has seen one of the biggest spikes in consumer confidence we've seen in response to a budget since those surveys were undertaken. It was the budget that Australians needed. It is the shot in the arm that Australians have needed. And that's our plan.
Budget
Mr CONAGHAN (Cowper) (14:13): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Will the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House how the Morrison-McCormack government budget is supporting regional Australia, through additional investment in infrastructure, including in my electorate of Cowper?
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development and Leader of the Nationals) (14:13): He's a good member for Cowper, I tell you! He's looking after those communities and people on the Mid North Coast, and he's making sure that the infrastructure is being rolled out in Cowper and, indeed, the rest of the country—$110 billion of investment in infrastructure, to make such a difference to the lives and livelihoods of people who live in regional Australia, who live in our nation. Our plan invests in every region, in every electorate and in every community, through more than 32,000 projects across Australia.
In the budget, the Coffs Harbour Bypass project received an additional almost half a billion dollars to ensure the delivery of this project which will remove more than 12,000 vehicles per day from the Coffs Harbour CBD; which will deliver travel-time savings of 11 minutes, bypassing up to 12 sets of traffic lights; and which will deliver 12,000 direct and indirect jobs. We understand that investments in roads and railways are an investment in business, in local communities and in the future.
The Singleton bypass is a $700 million project which will deliver significant benefits for the community and local industry. A prominent local from the area, who often agrees with the policies, the projects, the plans and the philosophies of the government, and disagrees often with the opposition leader and certainly with getting verballed from the member for Isaacs, had this to say:
It's going to make a huge difference not only to the Singleton community but all those commuters to and from work every day, typically coal miners and those in associated industries, it will improve safety and economic efficiency.
I couldn't have said it better myself, member for Hunter. Well done! Come on over, son. Come on over! This project will support 1,370 direct and indirect jobs in communities across the Hunter electorate.
Another project which the member for Cowper referenced, in regional Australia, giving benefit, is the Barwon Heads Road upgrade, a boon for the local community much like the South Geelong to Waurn Ponds rail upgrades. A prominent local from the area said:
I appreciate the Morrison-McCormack Government—
on message—
has taken a bipartisan approach to funding local infrastructure projects. Both projects will have a positive impact on jobs and cut congestion.
We agree with you, member for Corangamite. Thank you very much for this. And it is bipartisan. I'm happy to work with anyone to get infrastructure built, and your attitude and that of the member for Hunter should be replicated right across that side, because it is refreshing, it is warm to hear. I know you're championing us for re-election. I know you want to bring us home.
Our budget is designed to boost jobs and local economies. That's what we're doing—protecting lives and livelihoods through COVID-19 and building the infrastructure that Australians need, want, expect and deserve.
Maguire, Mr Daryl William
Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat) (14:16): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister, and I refer to his answers yesterday. Has the Deputy Prime Minister had any discussions with disgraced former Liberal MP Daryl Maguire regarding any land acquisitions or road projects?
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development and Leader of the Nationals) (14:17): Road projects? Yes, I have had discussions with the former member for Wagga Wagga, certainly in the electorate of Wagga Wagga, which he represents and which I, of course, represent as part of the Riverina electorate. You would expect a state member and a federal member to have those discussions, and I'm proud to say that the Riverina Intermodal Freight and Logistics Hub is benefiting from having a coalition government in New South Wales and a coalition government federally to build the enabling roads, to build the infrastructure, that will support the inland rail when it goes through that project north of Wagga Wagga. So, yes, I have had discussions with the former member for Wagga Wagga in that regard. As far as other land acquisitions: no.
Gas Industry
Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (14:17): To the Prime Minister: the government's economically short-sighted obsession with a gas-led recovery is currently going so far as to consider supporting an exploration licence for gas off the east coast from Newcastle to Manly, known as PEP 11. The adjacent coastal area has a gross regional product of over $50 billion, much of which is from tourism. PEP 11 could put all that at risk and is opposed in all communities along the coast, including in the government's own member for Mackellar's electorate. Will you rule out gas exploration and gas rigs being approved by your government off our coast?
Mr TAYLOR (Hume—Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction) (14:18): I thank the member for an important question about gas and the role that gas can play in our economy and in Australia's recovery from the pandemic. Of course, any gas project that meets stringent environmental approvals, both state and federal, should proceed, but it does have to meet those preconditions.
I was up in the Beetaloo Basin just last week and, of course, there we see a world-class gas resource that needs to be developed, where approvals have to occur in the right way—and this is the crucial point in answer to your question—and where, in that way, we will get more jobs, more investment, more opportunity for blue-collar workers, and that is absolutely crucial right across this great nation. To do that we have to unlock supply. We have to see investment in efficient transportation and pipeline infrastructure. And we do have to see customers empowered. We want to see Australian gas working for all Australians. We are absolutely united on this issue, because we want to see the 850,000 people working in manufacturing in this country with the affordable, reliable supply of energy they need for their jobs, for their prosperity and for their regions That is our focus, and we are absolutely united on this issue, unlike those opposite, who have no plan for gas and no plan for reliable, affordable electricity for this great nation.
COVID 19: Economy
Mr ZIMMERMAN (North Sydney) (14:20): My question is to the Treasurer. How is the Morrison government's economic recovery plan, including tax cuts, helping small businesses and families to recover and make it to the other side of the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in my electorate of North Sydney? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Treasurer) (14:20): I thank the member for North Sydney for his question, acknowledging his experience as a councillor before coming to this place and his deep commitment to the people of North Sydney. The honourable member understands that the economic recovery is underway. Four hundred and forty-six thousand jobs have been created over the last four months. Consumer confidence is now up seven weeks straight, having recovered 95 per cent of its losses, and consumer sentiment increased by 11.9 per cent—the single largest increase in a budget month since the series first began in 1974. Yesterday, Australia's AAA credit rating was reaffirmed.
I had the good fortune to travel to the member's electorate and to meet with Miller Tripods, a local manufacturing business supporting more than 30 staff and exporting around 70 per cent of what they produce. They told us how JobKeeper has been, in their words, a 'godsend' for their business and for the wellbeing of their staff. They described the instant asset write-off announced by the Morrison government as a 'little ripper' and something that will be supporting their business. Also in the budget there are tax cuts for more than 11½ million Australians, helping to create 50,000 jobs.
But I'm asked: are there any alternative approaches? We know that only those on this side of the House support lower taxes. The same cannot be said for those opposite. They've had more than 12 months of soul searching and a once-in-a-century pandemic to rethink the $387 billion of higher taxes that they took to the last election. Yet it is still on their books. You ask yourself: why are those opposite against lower taxes? Last week, the member for Rankin let down his guard. He went down to the Press Club and he was asked about the legislated tax cuts. What did he describe the legislated tax cuts as? He described them as a 'handout'. Tax cuts are not a government handout. They are the people's money. We are handing back the people's money. Only those on this side of the House believe in lower taxes. Only those on this side of the House will deliver lower taxes.
Maguire, Mr Daryl William
Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat) (14:23): My question is again to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Has the Minister for Regional Development had any discussions with disgraced former Liberal MP Daryl Maguire regarding Gateway International, the regional business based in Wagga Wagga that was the vehicle for the cash-for-visas scam?
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development and Leader of the Nationals) (14:24): N-o.
Superannuation
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (14:24): My question is to the Treasurer: Will the Treasurer outline how the Morrison government is lowering the cost of superannuation and helping Australians make a more informed choice about who will manage their retirement savings? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Treasurer) (14:24): I thank the member for Goldstein for his question. At the last election he fought on behalf of Australia's retirees, and now he is fighting on behalf of the 16 million Australians with superannuation. He, like those on this side of the House, understands that superannuation is not the Labor Party's money. He, like those on this side of the House, understands that superannuation is not the fund managers' money. He, like those on this side of the House, understands that superannuation belongs to the members. It belongs to the members.
We, on this side of the House, are very proud of the reforms that we have undertaken when it comes to superannuation. We have banned exit fees. We have been able to consolidate inactive accounts, helping to save $700 million. We have also been able to cap the fees on low-balance accounts. And we've also been able to allow 800,000 people in the enterprise agreements to choose their superannuation fund. We've also allowed insurance to be opt-in for younger people so that they don't have unwanted and unnecessary insurance.
In this budget we also made some other significant reforms to super, including preventing the automatic creation of duplicate accounts. Right now there are some six million duplicate accounts, costing $450 million. This is a reform recommended by the Productivity Commission and also by the Hayne royal commission.
We're also helping by holding underperforming funds to account and giving them nowhere to hide by setting up an annual objective performance test for those funds. We're also making it easier for superannuation members to choose their fund by setting up a website with the ATO, with APRA data, which will rank the MySuper products in terms of both fees and returns. That is our policy.
Our policies that are set out in the budget will save members $17.9 billion over the decade. That is in stark contrast to the superannuation tax that those opposite took to the last election and that remains on their books. When it comes to superannuation, when it comes to superannuation members, when it comes to defending their interests, when it comes to driving down fees, when it comes to ensuring that they get into better performing funds, only this side of the House will deliver those reforms.
Maguire, Mr Daryl William
Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat) (14:27): My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Regional Development, and I refer to his earlier answer. When was the last time the minister for regional development had contact with Wagga based businessman and disgraced former Liberal MP Daryl Maguire?
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House, on a point of order?
Mr Porter: I can't see how that's related to the Deputy Prime Minister's portfolio, and I'm failing to see how it's related to the last question.
The SPEAKER: Let me hear from the Manager of Opposition Business.
Mr Burke: To the point of order, the question began by referring to earlier answers.
The SPEAKER: Yes, that's right.
Mr Burke: Earlier answers have referred specifically to conversations with Daryl Maguire and the Deputy Prime Minister. And this asks when the last of those happened. In terms of being able to interrogate answers that are given, this is specifically on that point.
The SPEAKER: Look, I'm going to uphold the Leader of the House's point on this. We've been over this ground before. It is certainly the case that you can ask about previous answers. That's certainly the case. I think I made this point to my friend the member for Isaacs, who's in his electorate office in Melbourne, when he was here a couple of years ago. You simply can't use that as a cover to ask a different question. I think there's no way that is in order, unless it was something in the previous answer that you were seeking. Each of the previous questions were quite specific about roads or other projects, so to then just ask when someone's met with someone is not within the minister's—
Mr Burke interjecting—
The SPEAKER: No, it's not. There's been lots of questions ruled out of order, and I can rule on it for as long as you want me to, but I'm very sure that's out of order.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I think that interjection from the Leader of the Opposition about the next press conference actually reinforces the point I make.
An honourable member interjecting—
The SPEAKER: They don't have standing orders; we do.
Energy: Gas
Mr THOMPSON (Herbert) (14:30): My question is to the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government's plan for a gas led recovery will provide reliable, secure and affordable energy for all Australians as we recover from the COVID-19 recession? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr TAYLOR (Hume—Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction) (14:30): I thank the member for Herbert for his question, for his extraordinary service and sacrifice to this nation and for his focus on affordable, reliable energy for his constituents and for all Australians. He knows that Australia's competitive advantage has always relied on affordable, reliable energy, and gas will be central to our ongoing economic recovery. We want to see Australian gas working for all Australians. That means unlocking supply, it means investment in efficient transport and pipelines, and it means empowering customers to get access to internationally competitive prices. We're building a robust and competitive gas industry that will ensure both suppliers and customers prosper.
As I said earlier, just last week in the Beetaloo Basin I saw a world-class resource that offers extraordinary opportunity for people in the Top End—for the hardworking Australians that live in and around Darwin and the Northern Territory. That's why we're supporting development of the Beetaloo and other basins through our $28 million strategic basin plan. But don't take my word for it about our gas plan. Manufacturing Australia said of our gas plan, 'It means that we won't have to choose between cutting emissions, lowering gas prices and jobs.'
The truth is there are alternative approaches, but I have no idea what the approach is of those opposite, because they don't have a plan. On the one hand, you have LEAN, led by the members for Hindmarsh and Shortland, who are running around the countryside supporting the Greens, in the words of Peter Jordan at the CFMMEU. LEAN's submission to Labor's electoral review confirms what we all suspected: they are against development in the Beetaloo Basin. They are against it because it hurts their preference deal with the Greens. Team LEAN are more interested in securing Green preferences than the jobs of hardworking Australians.
On the other side, we have team Otis, led by the member for Hunter, who has exposed LEAN's fundamentalism—their plans to rip up gas cookers, heaters and ovens. The member for Hunter loves gas. He's spot on when he says the quickest way to create jobs is to do it through gas fired generation. The Leader of the Opposition is hoping that if he hides for long enough this will all go away—that he won't have to make choices between blue-collar workers and his Green Left mates.
While they're fighting amongst themselves, we're getting on with delivering more affordable, reliable—(Time expired)
Western Sydney Airport
Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat) (14:34): My question is for the Minister for Infrastructure. When asked in Senate estimates if he agreed with the minister's assertion that $30 million to purchase the Leppington Triangle was a bargain, the finance minister stated that compulsory acquisition should have continued to be pursued. Why did the government change course to acquire this land by agreement instead of through compulsory acquisition? Does the minister stand by his statement that this deal was a bargain?
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development and Leader of the Nationals) (14:34): I thank the member for Ballarat for her question. I was not the minister at the time. I became the minister for infrastructure in February 2018. This took place before that. That said, the entire purchase of the land is under three investigations—investigations that have been called for by the department itself and by the ANAO, an organisation with which the member for Ballarat is very familiar. The Federal Police are looking into it, as is an independent auditor. I'm sure that when those investigations, thorough as they will be, take place, the government will consider that review and act accordingly then.
Employment
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (14:35): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government's plan for economic recovery is supporting a skilled workforce through our JobTrainer package to help businesses and provide more job opportunities, including in my electorate of Bonner?
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson—Minister for Industry, Science and Technology) (14:35): I thank the member for Bonner for his question. I had the pleasure last week of meeting some young apprentices in his electorate, and they know that this government has their back. They know that, from the start, JobTrainer has been a crucial part of our plan for economic recovery from the COVID recession, and businesses right across Australia know it too.
Rob from Specialist Electrical Solutions at Murarrie, in the member's electorate—and they're a great Aussie business—knows it too. They are great Aussie manufacturers. They design, make and export high-quality complex electrical switchboards for some of the biggest switchboard projects right across the world. Rob has just signed on two new apprentices, and that adds to the six that they already have. Thanks to the instant asset write-off, he's also started a new business around automated copper bar punching, and that's creating another five jobs. They used to outsource that work to China and Thailand but they are bringing that home to Australia—
A government member: To Queensland.
Mrs ANDREWS: to Queensland—and that is exactly the sort of activity that we as a government are supporting with our strong economic plan. There are many positive signs, but we know that we are not out of the woods yet. That's why we are investing almost $7 billion to boost skills training, and we're making sure that people are trained in the skill areas that their businesses are going to need for the future.
We're also very focused on making sure that we have a workforce that has significant digital skills, and we're making sure that people have the opportunity to upgrade those skills so that they can add more value to the jobs that they are already doing, or, alternatively, that they can skill-up for other jobs that they may be able to move into. It's very important that we bring industry with us on this journey, and that is exactly what we are doing.
I do want to give a shout-out to the tech sector, because they are doing some amazing work. I've had a number of discussions with them about making sure that they have the digital skills in the workforce that they need for the future. As the result of a discussion that we had back in April, when the discussion very quickly went to digital skills, the tech sector have stepped up. They've taken the initiative and launched Skill Finder, which is an online marketplace where people can get the technical and digital skills that are going to be immediately useful to them in their jobs, and, of course, to their employer. So we back the digital economy and we are very committed to growing it in Australia. (Time expired)
Western Sydney Airport
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:38): My question is to the minister for communications. Yesterday in this House the minister said that he stood by his answers at the National Press Club in relation to the Leppington Triangle airport rort. Those comments included a statement that when he read the Auditor-General's report he 'absolutely learned things I did not know before'. Can the minister inform this House what he learned?
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts) (14:39): I thank the shadow minister for his question. I was asked a number of questions when I spoke at the National Press Club on the 23rd of last month about the Leppington Triangle matter. I gave very comprehensive answers to the questions and I stand by those answers.
Tertiary Education
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (14:39): My question is to the Minister for Education. Will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison government is supporting Australia's world-class university research and encouraging stronger links with industry to drive jobs in our post COVID-19 economic recovery?
Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Minister for Education) (14:40): I thank the member for Robertson for her question and for her absolutely passionate advocacy on behalf of the University of Newcastle, especially for enabling places. Enabling places are locked in under our Job-ready Graduates Package, and well done for your passionate advocacy on behalf of the university. In this year's budget we're providing record funding for higher education: $18 billion, and it grows to $20 billion by 2024. That's an extra $2 billion for those on the other side who can't add up. There is $1 billion extra in the budget for university research.
Now, this is really important. This is the biggest single annual investment in higher education research ever.
Mr Morrison: That's a long time!
Mr TEHAN: That is a long time, Prime Minister—a very long time! Not only did we put that $1 billion in there; there's $157 million for research infrastructure in the budget and $5.8 million to design a scheme to accelerate turning university research into new products, job creation, productivity gains and economic growth. And this is really important because we do have world class research in this country, but we've got to make sure we can translate it and commercialise it. That's what we're going to dedicate the next few months to achieving.
It's very interesting to see what the sector said about the budget. They were very complimentary.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr TEHAN: I hear from those opposite, but listen to what Professor Helen Bartlett had to say:
The new research funding in the research block grant will help regional universities expand world class research capacity in areas such as health, agriculture, environmental studies and engineering. Investment in research in the regions generates jobs and economic growth
What did Luke Sheehy, the Australian Technology Network of Universities executive director, have to say? I'm sure the shadow minister is very interested in this.
The Morrison Government have put universities at the centre of their plans for recovery and we stand ready to do our part.
What did Professor Deb Terry have to say?
The Government clearly understands you can't have an economic recovery without investing in research and development.
This will ensure world-class research and discovery can continue on Australia's university campuses. That means universities can play their part in the national effort to rebuild the economy.
(Time expired)
Morrison Government
Mr MARLES (Corio—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:43): My question is to the Prime Minister. Last night it was revealed Peter Crone, an associate of John Howard and the current Treasurer, was awarded a contract worth $242,000 with the Bushfire Recovery Agency based on the recommendation of the Prime Minister's office. The head of the agency, Andrew Colvin, confirmed this week he'd never heard of the bloke. When Australia was suffering its worst bushfires, why did the Prime Minister's office give a job to the bloke they all call 'Crony'. Why did 'Crony' get the job?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:44): The initial contract and, in fact, the entire payment that was made was $136,237.98 for a period of work from 13 January to 2 June 2020. The member referred to another figure, which was well above what was actually paid to the individual who was, as he rightly noted, employed in that role by the National Bushfire Recovery Agency, and the decisions were made there and with the assistance of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, which ensures that these matters are dealt with in the appropriate way.
Those opposite may know that Mr Crone has worked as an economist throughout his working life. He worked at the Commonwealth Treasury for seven years. He worked for the office of the Premier in Victoria as an economist. He worked for the Prime Minister's office; he worked for Access Economics; and he worked for the National Commission of Audit, the Business Council, Coles, and Ernst & Young as a respected economist, with a master's degree in economics and a Bachelor of Economics from the University of Western Australia. So Mr Crone is an eminently qualified economist. His political views are a matter for him, just as they are for any other economist that the government may employ. The secretary of Treasury, himself an outstanding economist, served the previous government extremely well. On this side of the House, if you're good at your job, you'll get a job. That's how it works.
That's why the secretary of the Department of Home Affairs, an outstanding public servant; and the head of the Attorney-General's Department both sat at the same desk in Kim Beazley's office when he was Leader of the Opposition. Where there's talent and good works and good experience and great skills, we will put that to work for Australia. That's exactly what we'll do. I know there's one job the Leader of the Opposition would never get, and that's as an economist. He has no qualifications in that area whatsoever.
Waste Management and Recycling
Ms BELL (Moncrieff) (14:46): My question is to the Minister for the Environment. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government is supporting Australian jobs and our economic recovery from the COVID-19 recession through major environmental initiatives in waste and recycling?
Ms LEY (Farrer—Minister for the Environment) (14:46): I thank the member for Moncrieff for her question on this government's actions to protect our environment and support the creation of new and innovative products and jobs by reprocessing waste. Each state and territory, including the member's home state of Queensland, will invest with the Commonwealth in projects on the ground—job-creating projects—thus leveraging $600 million of new investment in recycling infrastructure. Not only will this divert over 10 million tonnes of resources from landfill; it will create more than 10,000 jobs through the largest renewal of the waste and recycling industry capability in our history.
Part of what's on our agenda is product stewardship. What this means is reducing waste when you manufacture a product, sell that product and then collect that used product and make something new from it. In Australia, it's about industries coming together and finding solutions to reduce the impact of products on the environment. I want to see more schemes like MobileMuster, Paintback and Cartridges 4 Planet Ark.
Think of child car-seats, for example. Currently, for the nearly 1.4 million car seats that are sold annually in Australia, there are two options when they near the end of their usable life. Either they continue to be used, risking the lives of young children, or they end up in landfill. Now, for the first time, Australian manufacturers and retailers are coming together to tackle that problem through a product stewardship code. We have well and truly stepped into the waste space. In 2009, the federal government spent $30 million on waste. Since 2019, we've invested $436 million.
I visited BINGO Industries in Eastern Creek, who are constructing a second materials-processing centre at a cost of $70 million. They're helping to close the loop in aid of transitioning to a circular economy. This will possibly be the largest and most advanced facility of its type in the world. It will process both building and demolition waste and commercial and industrial waste, and it will achieve recovery rates in excess of 90 per cent. The recycling industry is supporting our approach, with the BINGO chairman saying, 'We're very supportive of the government's Recycling Modernisation Fund and Modern Manufacturing Initiative. They provide much-needed focus on the recycling centre and they have provided us with the confidence to invest.'
Across the whole government, it's a team effort, whether it be the work the assistant minister for waste reduction is doing, whether it be the dynamic reef envoy determined to keep plastic out of the ocean or whether it be the member for Moncrieff in the work she's doing in her electorate to promote recycling. The Morrison government is creating jobs and economic opportunity.
Assistant Treasurer
Mr CLARE (Blaxland) (14:49): My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that, when the government had to choose an investigator to conduct an independent investigation into reports the Assistant Treasurer used taxpayer funded staff to branch stack, it chose the exact same law firm the Assistant Treasurer used to work for? Can he also confirm the government paid the law firm $25,000 for the privilege of investigating its former senior associate, who the law firm describes as a firm friend?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:50): The investigation that you are referring to was conducted on behalf of the Department of Finance, and they had that review conducted independently, at arm's length of the government. The minister was rightly not consulted about the structure or the manner of the review. He engaged freely and complied with the request of the Department of Finance at all times, and this was made clear in the department's statement.
The member casts an aspersion on a well-respected legal firm who undertake these matters, as many firms do, for governments all around the country from time to time. What we have from the member opposite is, again, the opportunity taken to come in here, cast a slur on a member in this place on a matter that is being dealt with independently by an investigation and, in the same process, sling mud about at a respected legal firm in this country. Such is the desperation that has gripped the opposition, such is the depth that they've sunk to in their desperation—
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Gorton is now warned.
Mr MORRISON: that I think the Australian people can conclude rightly that, if they don't have anything of any merit to say, they could save everybody a lot of time.
Australian Defence Force
Mr PEARCE (Braddon) (14:51): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government is working to strengthen the Australian Defence Force? Minister, how is the government working with international partners to keep Australians safe?
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Home Affairs) (14:52): I thank the member for Braddon and thank him for his service to our country as well. Obviously the Morrison government is absolutely committed to making sure that we can put greater financial and moral support into the Australian Defence Force. We know that, under the opposition, defence spending dipped to 1.56 per cent of GDP, which was the lowest level since 1938. Because we've been able to manage the economy well, because we've been able to manage the budget well, because of strong economic management, we have been able to build a stronger, more prosperous Australia and, indeed, a safer region as a result.
As a country we do face many significant challenges in what is certainly an evolving global security environment. It is absolutely critical that we provide support to our service men and women, who defend our nation not just here but across the world in our different equities, and we are backing our armed forces in a way that no government before has. We are investing $270 billion in defence capability over the next decade, and these investments are getting the best equipment into the hands of those service men and women while creating opportunities for our defence industry in Australia to create jobs in local communities right across the country. Over 15,000 companies and 70,000 Australian workers are benefitting from the Morrison government's investment in defence. These numbers will continue to grow. We are building more than 70 naval vessels in our country. We know that when Labor was in government over a six-year period they built how many naval vessels? I'd like to say 'one', just to try to provide them with some cover, but it was not one—they didn't build anything. They were right into boats, but not into building boats, only into receiving the boats from other parts of the world. And we know the detail of that tragedy.
As Minister Reynolds has announced, we have a very significant engagement, and it builds on the work that the Prime Minister did with Prime Minister Modi in June to increase and improve and enhance that collaboration. It is a very significant partnership that we are endeavouring to build with India, but also, of course, with Japan and our traditional ally in the United States. We have a lot to be proud of in that relationship and there is a lot of upside as we continue on the Malabar naval exercise. It will mean that our service personnel can continue to work together to build those relationships, and that is very important not only for our country's interests but for our regional interests as well, and I commend all of those in the Defence Force who worked very hard to make that a reality.
Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:55): My question is to the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. I refer to his previous answers, where he's been connected to scandals on water buybacks, the destruction of critically endangered grasslands, a fake City of Sydney document and, for the second time now, an ICAC investigation—this time, about land near Western Sydney airport. Can the minister please name which scandals from this government he has not been involved with?
The SPEAKER: That question is out of order. Let's move to the next one.
Budget
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Chief Government Whip) (14:55): My question is to the Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government's budget infrastructure package will create jobs, which will be of critical importance as we come out the other side of the COVID-19 crisis?
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure ) (14:56): Can I thank the member for Forde for his question. He's another great person in this chamber who brings to this place considerable experience in managing businesses and employing people and of course has been such a tremendous advocate for his community on infrastructure in particular.
In this budget, we allocated an additional $9.7 billion of funding on projects which are shovel-ready now. Those $9.7 billion of funding will deliver a further 30,000 jobs across this great nation. That brings our total over the next 10 years to $110 billion, an extraordinary amount of money.
There's one project in particular which I know that the member for Forde is keen on, and that is of course the Coomera Connector Stage 1, a huge project, to which $750 million has been allocated. It's going to deliver 700 jobs alone. That's a great project for Queensland, which he has advocated for, for some time.
Also in Queensland, though, was $112 million for the Centenary Bridge upgrade, which is going to create 670 jobs. I know the member for Oxley welcomed this investment, which goes through his electorate, telling his constituents that he was excited that the Centenary Bridge is funded and that construction was going to begin in 2021.
Across the nation, though, we have great projects. In New South Wales, there's $120 million for Prospect Highway. That's going to support 490 jobs, and the member for Greenway has told her constituents that that means the community wins—and the community absolutely does win with that tremendous investment, and I couldn't agree more with the member for Greenway.
Down in my home state of Victoria, we have committed close to $85 million to the Hall Road upgrade, which is another 135 jobs, and the member for Dunkley knows how well that has been received and she's said that it's a great result for the local community down there—a tremendous result for the local community—and, again, I couldn't agree more.
We've also had tremendous support, of course, from the Western Australian infrastructure minister, who I work closely with, of course. She says:
We've worked collaboratively with the Commonwealth Government to identify projects that will create and support local jobs while also improving safety and capacity across our road and rail networks.
The Victorian Premier, Mr Dan Andrews, even said: 'I say well done to the Commonwealth government.' We haven't heard that from him in recent days! But that's what he's said in relation to our infrastructure budget. And of course so many stakeholders have also supported this budget because it delivers jobs: 30,000 jobs, which this infrastructure project will deliver, and we proudly stand by it.
National Integrity Commission
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:59): My question is to the Prime Minister, and I refer to his previous answer today, where he used bushfires and the pandemic as the reason why the exposure draft of the National Integrity Commission legislation, which the government received from the Attorney-General's Department last December, hasn't been released. What is it about either the bushfires or the pandemic that stops the government from tabling legislation that it has had for almost a year?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:59): It may escape the attention of the Leader of the Opposition that, when serious crises confront this nation, it's the entire government, that comes together and it's the entire Public Service that comes together to act on a whole-of-government basis to deal with that crisis. And that is what our government has done. Whether it was prior to COVID, as we dealt with the black summer, or whether it was as COVID hit this country in early January, as we first learned and then moved to close the borders and then move through the many other measures that we had to take to save lives and save livelihoods.
As the Attorney-General outlined before, this is complex legislation and it requires detailed consultation, and that involves the actions of the Public Service. It involves the involvement of the Attorney-General to engage in that process out in the community. Now, I was not going to have one public servant diverted from the task of focusing on our whole-of-government approach to dealing with this pandemic, as the Leader of the Opposition would suggest.
It may have escaped the attention of the Leader of the Opposition that the Attorney-General has been involved for many months now in bringing both employers and employee representatives together to fashion a set of proposals to get more Australians back to work. The Leader of the Opposition doesn't understand the crisis facing this nation, and that makes him totally unequipped to participate in ensuring Australian lives and livelihoods can be protected.
Mental Health
Mr DRUM (Nicholls—Chief Nationals Whip) (15:01): My question is to the Minister for Health. Noting that today is headspace Day, will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison-McCormack government is supporting young Australians, particularly those living in Victoria, with increased access to vital mental health services and support?
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service and Cabinet) (15:02): I want to thank the member for Nicholls for what is a very important question on National headspace Day. I'm pleased that we've been able to support the youth in his electorate with headspace in Shepparton. Work is being completed now on bringing headspace to Echuca, as it is in more places around the country. We've gone from, I believe, 56 headspaces across Australia when we came to government, to 124 now, and we're on track for 153 over the course of the next two years. We do this because, even in the best of years, youth mental health is a national challenge. We know that, in any one year, 1 in 4 young Australians—560,000 young Australians—are struggling with the challenge of mental health. It's in every one of our electorates, and virtually every one of our families will have been connected to it over time.
Against that background, it's been made harder this year by the challenges of COVID. What we've seen is that MBS items for mental health over the last month have increased by 14 per cent nationally, but by 31 per cent in Victoria, where things are so much harder still. In particular for young people we've seen, with Kids Helpline in Victoria, a 24 per cent higher rate of utilisation over the last month than the rest of the nation. But perhaps most concerning are the latest figures I've been given by the Department of Health. There has been an increase of 40 per cent in presentations for eating disorders by young people in Victoria over the six weeks to the end of September. And that's an agonising condition.
Headspace is a fundamental and important part of what we do to protect young people. The budget has $640 million to assist with headspace support over the next four years. With eating disorders, we know that we've massively increased the number of Medicare sessions for eating disorders, with the first dedicated eating disorder MBS items. That was one of the first things the Prime Minister did in coming to this office.
In addition to that, we're establishing eating disorder clinics around the country, with a $70 million investment. But particularly in Victoria now, we know that the mental health challenges facing young people—the risk of anxiety and depression, and fear about the economic situation—play into their concerns. That's why we're investing $27 million in 15 new Head to Health clinics ,which have already been established, within three weeks; and now we are investing $17 million, through the budget, in Victoria with a mental health focus for all Victorians but especially for young people with funds for Kids Helpline and for eating disorders. We're in this together, we're going to fight through this together, we're going to get through it in Victoria and we're going to support our young Australians.
Mr Morrison: Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (15:05): Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Child Care
The SPEAKER (15:05): I have received a letter from the honourable member for Kingston proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
How the current child care system is failing to ease financial pressures on families and is not supporting families who want to work more.
I call upon those 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—
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (15:06): It's often said budgets are a statement of a political party's values. Two weeks ago the Morrison government delivered a budget that left too many people behind and held too many people back. In fact, after $1 trillion worth of debt, there was nothing in it to help families struggling with the cost of child care, nothing to provide structural reform for our economy and nothing that would provide a long-lasting legacy for this country. It's been described as 'a blokey budget from a blokey government'. It's not me saying that. In fact, it's not women saying that. It was actually Ross Gittins, the economist, who said that today. The government tried to spin, in the usual way, that this budget was for women because 'it helped women drive on roads', because they were investing in infrastructure. I guess that is a little bit better than arguing that women would benefit from an extra lane because they could give birth in it—anyway!
This Liberal budget and the budgets before it have done nothing to fix our broken childcare system, which, under this third-term government, now has some of the highest costs in the world. Their budget has done nothing to fix how expensive this is for so many families. Many families are now choosing between working for nothing or staying home. The most recent evidence is that 100,000 families are locked out of the system because they just can't afford it. This year, the fees have been jacked up by 4.5 per cent, pushing up out-of-pocket costs again, and they have now gone up by almost 36 per cent since this government was elected. It's a system that is so expensive that more than half of families say it impacts on their weekly grocery budget. It's a system that has built-in design faults that are a barrier for the second income earner to work more. These barriers are caused mainly by the current subsidy and taper rates and cliffs—and that dreaded annual cap.
This has resulted in the birth of a new term: 'the workforce disincentive rate'. It is this government that has caused this new term. This workforce disincentive rate measures how little financial return the second income earner gets if they increase their days of work from perhaps three days to four or five days. Let's be clear here, the second income earner is usually a woman. We had a government senator saying yesterday that this is an insulting term, that in this day and age we shouldn't be talking about the second income earner usually being a woman. But he acknowledged afterwards that it usually is a woman. Of course it is!
This government needs to live in the real world.
Modelling by the Grattan Institute has shown that a father earning $100,000 a year working full-time and a professionally trained mother with a salary of $70,000 full-time working three days faces a workforce disincentive rate of 91 per cent if she wants to work five days. That is, she will only get nine cents in every dollar she earns. The Prime Minister's childcare system, which he designs, penalises women who want to work full-time.
This week we've heard from families struggling under the current system. Bec from Perth is a solicitor and a mum of two who only works three days a week because she says working four days left her worse off under the Prime Minister's childcare scheme. Bec's family has a combined income of $193,000. The government's budget did nothing to help women like Bec get ahead by taking extra work during this recession.
Liz works as a software professional. She and her partner together earn $200,000 and are paying $25,000 a year in out-of-pocket costs for childcare. Liz says she can't go for promotions at work because she would be expected to work more hours and would lose money paying for child care. Why is this government holding back women like Liz from taking on extra duties and responsibility at work? The Prime Minister likes to say, 'If you have a go, you get a go,' but not if you're Liz. Not if you're one of the many women actually wanting to go back to work but facing this expensive childcare system.
Two weeks ago Labor delivered a reform plan to better support working families, smash down barriers for the second income earner and supercharge Australia's economic recovery. Our plan will increase the subsidy rate and tapers, and will mean that 97 per cent of families in our childcare system will be better off. The same family who gets nine cents in the dollar under the Prime Minister's system will get 32 per cent better under our plan. Overall, the Grattan Institute has found that Labor's policy will lead to an 11 per cent increase in hours worked by the second income earner with young children. This will increase our productivity and will deliver a sustained boost to economic growth.
Economic modelling by the Grattan Institute and KPMG has estimated that policies similar to Labor's would increase the GDP annually in the range of $4 billion to $11 billion. This is a strong return on investment. Australia will only pay off the trillion dollars of Liberal debt by growing the economy. That might be news to the Liberal Party, but Labor, on this side, understands. Our policy will help to do that. The government has been tying itself in knots over the week trying to work out how to attack Labor's plan. First, the minister, or someone from the minister's office, said, 'We've got to lay the groundwork. We've got to do better. There'll be something one day.' Then the Prime Minister attacked the cost and said that it would just cost too much—that was the day after, or a couple of days after, he announced a trillion dollars of debt. Then they spruiked how much they already spend on child care, which does nothing for families doing it tough. Then they talk about how much child care costs per hour. Do they seriously think they can pull the wool over families' eyes? When they talk about $5 an hour you've got to times it by 12. Then you've got to times it by five, because that is what families are paying. When you hear the government say $5 an hour what they're talking about is $300 of out-of-pocket costs every single week for Australian families. That's what they're trying to do. Of course, it's the normal spin by this government, but families are not fooled.
What we need to do is seriously have a conversation about making it easy for families to participate. We need to have a serious conversation about economic recovery. But, as usual with this government, they continually try and spruik that women's workforce participation has increased on their watch. Of course, what they never tell you is Australia has one of the highest part-time-employment shares in the OECD. Australian women are working part-time because, in most cases, they are working in a system that this government has designed that makes it economically disadvantageous for them to work full-time. This is the system that the Prime Minister has designed.
Of course, in question time this week, we had the government attack Labor's policy because it says it's for the 'top end of town'. This is an extraordinary comment from senior Liberals to make, and shows what a tin ear they have when it comes to Australian families. This system punishes many families with a range of combined incomes, but, particularly, as we've highlighted through the annual cap, punishes families with a combined family income of over $189,000—$189,000 is a police officer and a teacher working full-time. Does the government seriously think these families are rich? Does the government seriously think that these families should have a workforce disincentive built into their take-home pay?
It's also worth remembering that the Prime Minister's original 2015 budget marketing brochure for his new system included a 20 per cent subsidy for all families over $200,000. But he's abandoned this now. He's abandoned this, saying that these families don't deserve extra funding and these families don't deserve extra support. Why? Because this Prime Minister is just too proud. He cannot bring himself to support Labor's good policy, but this policy is the right policy for the country. Labor's policy is good for families, good for children, good for business and good for the economy.
Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Minister for Education) (15:16): It's quite extraordinary. Two weeks ago, here in this place, in his budget-in-reply speech, the Leader of the Opposition said:
So our long term goal, and the mission we will set for the Productivity Commission, which will be asked to report in the first term of a Labor government, is to investigate moving to a 90 per cent subsidy for child care for every Australian family.
That was said in the budget reply speech two weeks ago. Yet now we have the shadow minister up here not even mentioning that mission. Why would that have disappeared from the rhetoric of those opposite? Why would that disappear? Do you know what that means? That means that a family that earns $1 million and has two children in centre based day care for 30 hours a week, who currently receive nothing in childcare subsidy, will receive a taxpayer subsidy of $561 a week. That's over $28,000 a year for not one extra minute of work. So I'm wondering: why didn't the shadow minister mention this? Why has this mission—this mission!—just disappeared from their rhetoric? Why has it? Because the penny's dropped, after two weeks, that it is a policy which has no friends.
It reminds me of that other policy that we never hear about anymore—the one about offering a wage subsidy. When we had an MPI a couple of weeks ago, I think it was on the day of the Leader of the Opposition's budget-in-reply speech, I asked: could we please find out what is happening to that policy? Because we know the shadow minister, when it came out, was sort of like, 'Where does this come from?' The shadow minister for employment wasn't quite sure where it came from. But Bob Carr was fairly clear about what he thought of it:
One policy was simply bad: a government subsidy for the wages of childcare workers. The idea that taxpayers should subsidise wages in one sector has no precedent in the programs of state Labor governments, and it shouldn’t. The notion is open-ended: it could be pressed for workers in other community services.
He finishes by saying:
It was expensive: $10 billion over a decade.
We haven't heard from those opposite. Is that still your policy or not? We're waiting to hear. That one's worth $10 billion. The other one is worth $6 billion baked in, and of course—
Ms Rowland interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Greenway will reduce the level of interjection.
Mr TEHAN: we've heard nothing on how we're going to pay for it. It's $16 billion just in those two policies. If Labor are spending, what does it mean? They're going to tax. If they're going to spend, we all know they're going to tax. With those two policies alone we're looking at about $16 billion of extra funding.
What have we been doing? The coalition is providing record funding for child care: $9.2 billion in 2020-21, growing to over $10 billion in the coming years. That's nearly double what Labor was spending when they were last in office.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr TEHAN: Our once-in-a-generation reforms—and I hear the shout from those opposite—have delivered a 3.2 per cent reduction in out-of-pocket costs to parents since our package was introduced. That is a decrease. That's two years after they were introduced. Around one million Australian families who are balancing work and parental responsibilities are benefiting from the package. 71.4 per cent pay no more than $5 per hour in day-care centres, and within that subset 24 per cent pay no more than $2 per hour. Ninety per cent of families using approved child care were entitled to a subsidy rate between 50 per cent and 85 per cent. Our childcare subsidy supported families during all-time high women's workforce participation. I'll just repeat that for the shadow minister because she doesn't seem to be able to hear this message: our childcare subsidy supported families during all-time-high women's workforce participation. It was 61.5 per cent in January 2020, up from 58.7 per cent in September 2013.
A recent parents survey suggests the subsidy has increased female activity levels. The proportion of female parents reporting more than 48 hours of activity per fortnight rose from 56 per cent prior to the introduction of the package to 63 per cent in November 2019. And, of course, what have we seen as we've come out of this COVID-19-induced recession? 61.8 per cent of the jobs created since May have been filled by women.
What else have we seen? Sadly, we don't see the recognition given to the sector that we should from those opposite. The sector worked and was supported right through this pandemic. There was $900 million of extra assistance given to the sector. And you know what that led to? It meant 99 per cent of providers were open and ready to go as we came out of this pandemic. And that is what's helped that 61.8 per cent of the jobs created being filled by women. We worked with the sector and those magnificent educators who were in there day-in, day-out, providing that care, to make sure that 99 per cent of the sector was open.
Now, it is worth stopping and examining what happened in other countries. Member for Corangamite, when you're finished here, go and Google it to see what happened to the sector in other countries. Rather than scoffing, you might actually learn something. What happened is that, because they didn't get the support and they didn't get the assistance they were provided here, those sectors were decimated in other countries. Yet here we made sure we worked with them to support them and protect them, and 99 per cent of providers remained open because of that support, because we worked cooperatively with them. They were ready to step in and help and assist as we came out of this. So we will continue to work with the sector. We will continue to support the sector. We've already seen record demand come back into the sector everywhere except Victoria. We're now seeing better demand than was there when we entered the pandemic in every state and territory other than Victoria. So we will continue to work with them and provide that support.
I'll finish on this point, because it is very important and it compares and contrasts what happens under our system to what would happen under a Labor system. A single parent working part time as a nurse or retail worker and earning $30,000 a year receives a taxpayer funded subsidy of 85 per cent of the cost of child care under our childcare subsidy. With average fees for centre based day care at $10.40 an hour based on the March 2020 data, that single parent would pay $1.56 per hour per care and the taxpayer the rest. If that single parent wanted to take on more shifts and double their income to $60,000 per year, they would still pay $1.56 per hour and the taxpayer would pay the rest. The Labor contrast, however, is that a family with a combined income of $360,000 with two children in centre based day care for 30 hours a week who currently receive no subsidy in our childcare package would receive an additional taxpayer subsidy of $212 a week, or $10,608 a year, under Labor's policy and not need to work any extra hours. Our policy is targeted; it's means tested. Those opposite have a dog's breakfast of a policy.
Dr ALY (Cowan) (15:26): We all know that there can be no more important task than that of raising children. I don't think we'll get any argument about that point from anybody here in this House. We all know that those early years in a child's life are the most formative and are the foundation for a child's brain and emotional development. But let's be very clear: those who choose a career in early childhood education and child care don't do it because they want to help women get into the workforce. That's not front of mind when they graduate with their university degree or start their first job in a childcare centre. We talk about women's workforce participation and the contribution to the economy here, but they do it because of their love for children. They do it because of their dedication to their work. I personally am forever and eternally grateful to those who looked after my children so that I could return to work.
But, on women's workforce participation, the government have let women down. It's that simple. There is nothing in their budget to help women participate in the economic reconstruction of our nation. Yet women have been the hardest hit by COVID, and we know that women bear the brunt of child care. Under this third-term Liberal government, childcare fees have gone up 35 per cent. They have no plan to reform a childcare system that has some of the highest childcare costs in the world right here in this country. Under this government's childcare system—the one that was designed by the Prime Minister—for a family with two children in child care and a primary earner making $100,000 a year the gain to disposable income for the secondary earner, who is usually the woman in the partnership, in working more than three days a week is zero. In other words, under this government's plan, there is no incentive for a woman who is a secondary income earner in a family to return to work more than three days a week, because her salary, her contribution to the family budget, gets eaten up by child care.
Today in The West Australian, Lanai Scarr, who is The West Australian's federal political editor, writes about the Labor day-care plan. She writes, 'The ALP day-care plan works for parents.' She should know. She's a mother of four children. I don't think there is anybody in this press gallery who is more qualified and has more knowledge about child care and the childcare sector than Lanai Scarr. In this article, she clearly outlines the benefits that our childcare sector reform brings to families.
A few weeks ago I spoke to Matt and Sandra, who live in Landsdale in my electorate. Sandra is about to give birth to their second child. Matt and Sandra are seriously considering whether it's worthwhile for Sandra to go back to work after she gives birth, with two children in child care. Matt's a good bloke. He really wants to support his wife to ensure that she doesn't have career interruption, to ensure that she achieves her dreams within her chosen field and to ensure that she can go back to work not just for the benefit of the family budget but for her own fulfilment as well. I understand the kinds of decisions they're having to make, because I had to make those decisions too. I know families all around Australia are making those decisions every day about the value of putting one or two children into child care when they are getting zero return because the secondary income—which is usually the wife's income—is going entirely to child care.
Only Labor has a vision and a plan to enact the real and necessary reform of our childcare system. This government is happy to sit back and tell women that they should be grateful that they're able to drive on a road. That's what this government wants. We say we want more for women. We want women to participate in the economy as they wish, and we will deliver the reform to be able to let them do that.
Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne) (15:31): This is such an important MPI, because we want to put the facts on the table. The other side is putting out trumped-up misrepresentations and suggesting major reforms when there's just a shallow commitment to maybe do another Productivity Commission or consumer competition inquiry if they get into government. It's all hollow words. Since 2018, we have had the runs on the board, because we did get the Productivity Commission to look at the cost of child care and early education, and we reformed the system so that the subsidy goes straight to the childcare provider. The more you work or the more you're training or studying, up to a certain limit, you will get more assistance—up to $10½ thousand, which is really significant. As the minister said, it is means tested, but there are not many people in my electorate that earn over $189,390. And there are certainly not many people that earn $353,680, where it stops. If you're earning under roughly $189,000, the more you work or study, the more assistance you get direct to your childcare provider. And the proof of the pudding is in the eating, because there are more women working more than 48 hours than there were before these reforms came in. Workforce participation figures for women are also going up.
I know I've got one of the oldest demographics in the country, but we still have lots and lots of young children. From the figures that I've seen, we have almost 2,000 children. I have the oldest demographic in the nation, but, from the banks of the Hastings River down to the Hunter River, there are also 2,000 children in preschool or long day care or out-of-school-hours care, and they all get great treatment. During the COVID pandemic, when the whole Australian economy was collapsing, we kept child care afloat. The subsidy was continued so that people could have their children in day care if they so wished. Ninety-nine per cent of childcare businesses continued. None of them went to the wall, which is really good, because lots of other businesses unfortunately did go to the wall in the course of the pandemic.
We're spending $9.2 billion on early childhood education and child care. That's record funding, and it's going to go up to $10.7 billion. That is a massive amount of money. I have three children, who were in family day care, centre based day care and individual home care for short periods of time, but mainly in the centres. It's a great system here in Australia. There is a paradox that it costs money, because parents have some responsibility. We're trying to support the children and the parents that need it most. That's why you get more assistance if you work more or if you are in a situation such as trying to get back into the workforce or having family disruption or you're a grandparent looking after a child. Those people get more assistance—the lower your income, the greater the proportionate amount. It's fair and it's equitable, but you have to set a limit somewhere.
I think the other side are just hypothesising that they'll get a miraculously different result out of the Productivity Commission. That's why the Productivity Commission exists. It is a great system. It's better than that of many other countries and it's really delivering. Just about anywhere you live in Australia you will have access to some sort of child care for your children. Even in the most remote areas in the Northern Territory that I've been to, some of them have childcare systems supported by the state and/or the Commonwealth. Really, when you travel around the world, I don't know what country gets even more child care than we do in Australia, except maybe for some of the Scandinavian countries, but they have tax rates far, far, far higher and they have a socialist sort of system
We really have got the runs on the board. We have reformed the system. Workforce participation is the proof of the pudding that it's working.
Mr GORMAN (Perth) (15:36): There is no more appropriate day for me to be speaking on this MPI about child care than my son's third birthday. Today Leo turned three. Happy birthday, Leo! I'm not going to sing, but I will say that it's an exciting day for him and a very proud day for me and Jess.
Leo has benefited, like millions of Australian children, from a quality early childhood education, and Jess and I have benefited from the support that you receive from early childhood educators who allow you to follow your passions in life and your vocations and careers. I want to make sure that every Australian family can have access to quality early childhood education. Working families get the importance of this. The member for Kingston gets the importance of this. But it is amazing to hear in the arguments against this that there is no passion. It comes down to a dollars-and-cents approach from the government that has created a trillion dollars of debt, but all of a sudden it can't afford to support families or working parents. Working parents understand the childcare cap. They get it. They now the cost of the fourth or the fifth day. If people do not understand how this system works, they should go and ask someone who has kids in child care. They understand it and they'll explain to you exactly how they make the calculations of whether they will work the fourth or fifth day.
The system that this government is trying to defend right now is bracket creep on steroids. It proves just how out of touch they are with working Australian families. What they've decided to do instead of saying that child care is too expensive is try to increase the cost of everything else. They increased the cost of university degrees to try to bring them closer to the high childcare fees that they seem to be entirely comfortable with. Labor's plan is clear: a more-productive workforce, more early childhood education, more money in the pockets of working families and, of course, respecting the choice that parents should have as to whether they choose to look after their children at home, choose to go into the workforce or, indeed, how much they choose to participate in the workforce. All of these things are possible only because of the quality early childhood educators and childcare centres in our country. In my electorate of Perth alone there are 62 centres. We add another two or three every single year because there is increasing demand despite the financial disincentives for many thousands of parents. I do want to say a huge thank you to the early childhood educators—161,000 of them in Australia. This is a huge sector. It is a huge workforce. Those opposite should remember that when they talk about this sector they are also talking about thousands of people in their electorates who work in the sector doing incredibly difficult work day in and day out.
The member for Kingston referenced Bec, who is in Perth. I asked the Prime Minister about Bec, who has two children and a household income of $193,000. She is one of the thousands of Australian families who lose money if they work a fourth or a fifth day, even though it would be good for her career as a solicitor if she could work those extra days. When you ask the Prime Minister about something he doesn't like he just throws insult after insult at the Labor Party. We didn't get a serious answer. We still don't have a serious answer as to why the Liberal Party thinks this is not a good idea. I think the only reason they think it's not a good idea is that they didn't come up with it. This is a serious issue for so many families in Perth.
I posted the Prime Minister's response from question time to my Facebook page, and the responses were not happy ones. Lana said, 'Please push this. My young family with two kids can't afford to go to work either.' Nicole said, 'He totally just avoided your question and went to justifying Liberal debts.' The Liberals' one trillion dollars of debt and nothing for child care: a trillion dollars, that is a lot of 'dollarbucks' when you don't find a single cent for child care.
The Prime Minister says that he's pleased with the system. Remember he told us he was proud of it. He said, 'I am so pleased having been directly involved in structuring these reforms'. So for every working parent, where this system doesn't work just know that the Prime Minister's hand was on every single error in the current system. He does sometimes admit his mistakes. It has been a while since we talked about his much promised nannies program, where he was going to fund nannies in the home. Apparently they had enough money for that but not enough money to make the childcare system more affordable. The Productivity Commission we've heard about—good enough to look at the Liberal Party's plans but not good enough to look at others. Who knows the truth? The West Australian newspaper knows the truth: 'ALP day care plan works.' (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will not use a prop. I call the member for Higgins.
Dr ALLEN (Higgins) (15:41): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am delighted to rise to speak about this MPI, because it's clear that the Morrison government continues to invest record amounts in child care, with another $9.2 billion in this financial year that will grow to $10.7 billion in the coming years. Labor is just good at talking down good investment. We are supporting around one million families with access to affordable childcare services. On top of this, the investment the Morrison government has provided through the COVID pandemic shows how much we care about the childcare sector. We invested $900 million to help this important sector ride the bumpy wave that has been COVID.
Our childcare sector is working and that's because we introduced a very important new set of childcare packages into 2018, which was a once-in-a generation set of reforms. This saw out-of-pocket costs absolutely plummet. Even two years later, thanks to our reforms, the cost of child care has plummeted by 3.2 per cent. This is in contrast to what happened with Labor where we saw a massive increase in childcare cost and that is because the funding that they provided went to increasing the cost through childcare services rather than into the hip pocket of taxpayers.
Our childcare system is targeted, so that those who earn the least receive the highest level of subsidy of 85 per cent. Importantly over 70 per cent of families do have out-of-pocket costs of less than $5 per hour per child and nearly a quarter are paying less $2 per hour per child for centre-based child care. I do hear mutterings from the other side and that's because when you look at the numbers that the shadow minister has given us, she tells us that there's going to be a cost of 12 times five, which is 60 hours a week. We're talking about parents who mostly use child care in the way which is not 60 hours a week. They're using it in ways of 30 to 40 hours a week. To be talking about an average cost of 60 hours per week is really an extreme example, which is not very helpful to the actual argument.
What's really important about childcare support is that we want it accessible, we want it safe—
Ms Rishworth interjecting—
Dr ALLEN: and we want to make sure the sector is supported to provide the best care for the special people in our lives, which are our children. I know this. I know that when mothers want to send their children to child care, they want to know they have got quality, accessible child care and safe child care. I know this because I am a paediatrician who has worked with children my entire working life. I have four children myself and I know how hard it is sometimes for parents to juggle their child care and getting ahead in their career.
But our childcare package has supported families during a period which has resulted in the highest workforce participation by women in our history. It was 61.5 per cent in January 2020, up from 58.7 per cent in 2013. This is incredibly important because, as Australian women enter the workforce, we are going to see an uplift in productivity, participation and, therefore, in our economy. It is such an important thing to invest in. Under Labor, however, there were fee increases of 53 per cent, and sharp practice was rife.
Our childcare support package provides families with that extra support they need. As a family's income decreases, the amount the government provides increases, so there is a 95 per cent subsidy available to families who are transitioning to work. There is also a subsidy of up to 120 per cent for families who are experiencing financial hardship, meaning that, in most cases, child care for these vulnerable families is free. More and more families are using child care every year, and we are now seeing one million families benefiting from this policy. I will say that, in Victoria, unfortunately, the threat of COVID has had a bigger impact on our childcare situation, and I'm very pleased that the government has been providing extra support for Victoria through this very important time.
I would like to conclude by saying that, basically, the Morrison government not only has a childcare plan but also has an economic plan to deliver workforce participation, growth and female economic empowerment. The Morrison government is committed to child care. We're committed to affordable and accessible child care, and we were providing that before COVID, we're providing that during COVID and we have a plan for after COVID. This is something that Australians, and Australian women in particular, can feel very proud of.
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (15:46): I think what we've been hearing this afternoon shows just how out of touch with regular families those on the government benches are. I suggest they do what I did and pop a post on Facebook and ask families directly: 'How's it going? How are you managing your childcare costs compared to your incomes?' Let me tell you some of the things women in the Hawkesbury and Blue Mountains told me. In response to the question, 'Is it tough?' Em says:
Yep, in this boat. It just doesn't make financial sense for me to work full time right now. I tried. It wasn't worth it.
Now, what does that say about women's participation? And this chamber has got a lot of women in it right at this moment—more women in it, I would guess, than men. We should be trying to make the pathway for women to get into careers easier than it currently is. Melissa said:
I choose to work part time. It wouldn't be worth increasing my days because higher income=higher daycare fees.
That's the reality that women face. Liz says:
Daycare fees is a very depressing topic in my household. With my second son I was finishing teaching pracs so had no income but had to have him in fulltime care from 5 months old to get it done. Then when I started casual teaching, I worked 5 days a week which took us over the maximum hours on the old CCR/CCB system and not much changed when it went to CCS—
that's the current childcare subsidy—
He will start school next year.
You might think that means she'll breathe that sigh of relief you breathe when your kids are about to start school and you think, 'No more childcare fees!' But, no, Liz is having another baby in December, and of course that is wonderful news. But she says she plans to go back one to two days a week simply based on the fact that she'll be paying day care fees for the baby and before- and after-school care fees for her six-year-old. That's the reality that women are facing. For years, when their children are young, they are making choices about whether to fully engage in their careers, not necessarily because they don't want to but because they can't afford child care.
Karen says:
Childcare is a huge challenge for families—
and it isn't just the fees when you add in all the other complications—
1. You need to be on multiple waiting lists because trying to get a spot is next to impossible.
2. When a spot comes up, you need to take whatever day(s) are offered, even if it's only one day (which is all I've been able to secure at this stage).
3. Whilst waiting for day 1 of childcare, you worry about the out of pocket expenses.
Her little one is due to start in early childhood education in a few weeks. She says, 'I have no idea about the gap amount I need to pay on the day rate of $132. It's nerve-racking for jobseekers and current employees alike as to what flexibility your employer might require of you, so trying to seek the days you can is like a chicken and egg situation.' That is what women are facing right across the country.
Alison tells me that 'the net take-home pay after day care, particularly for families with multiples, is not much until the career improves'. Again, if you've taken significant time out of your career, that is even harder to do. 'For women who don't earn good money,' she says, 'there are plenty of barriers to the workforce regarding the entry. For many, who cannot even cover day care, it takes a special partner to allow family finances to go into negative for a short period of time while you re-establish your career.'
That is reality. This is what women were telling me in the last week about how they are struggling with the choices they are having to make. That's why we desperately need changes. Laura recognised that free childcare made a huge difference to us during COVID. That was something that gave women a taste. It was tantalising, this taste of how you could actually have some freedom to make choices around the work you do—and then it was just whipped away from them within weeks. That's what we want to see changes to. We want to make it so much easier for families. Whether the secondary income earner is a woman or a man, we want their choices to be easier—by scrapping the childcare subsidy cap, by lifting the maximum childcare subsidy to 90 per cent and by making sure that we increase the subsidy rates and taper them smoothly so that every family has a chance to fulfil their career potential and their parenting duties.
Dr WEBSTER (Mallee) (15:52): I rise to indicate to the House that families in my electorate are accessing affordable childcare through the Commonwealth government's childcare package, and to demonstrate the government's commitment to supporting childcare services at this difficult time. Dramatic falls in attendance at the being of the COVID-19 pandemic threatened the viability of the sector and provided an impetus to develop a solution. The childcare sector told the government in no uncertain terms that, without government action, operators would go out of business, workers would lose their jobs and families would lose their childcare service altogether. The government acted swiftly with a $1.6 billion early childhood education and care relief package, which provided free childcare to families. As a result, 99 per cent of families' services remain open and viable despite the pandemic.
The Australian Childcare Alliance backed the relief package, describing it as an extraordinary measure that helped struggling providers keep their doors open to vulnerable children and to those parents who needed to keep working. The alliance said that 30 per cent of childcare providers face closure in the weeks leading up to the announcement of the package due to massive withdrawals and enrolments. Although the package was effective at ensuring the viability of childcare services, providers were eager to return to the government's childcare subsidy arrangements when demand for their services began to increase as parents returned to work. Again, the government responded swiftly with a $708 million support package to assist providers to transition to normal arrangements. A return to the childcare subsidy, a return to the system that the opposition is bringing into question, not only gave providers in Mallee the flexibility they needed, it gave them the confidence to grow and expand to meet rising demand in their services.
I recently heard from Rob at Little Swans Early Learning in Swan Hill. He said that, since the return of the childcare subsidy, he has been able to grow his business, taking on new enrolments and hiring several casual staff members. Thanks to the government's childcare package and the return to the childcare subsidy, he's been able to take on an additional 20 children per day. He's also confident that his services are affordable for families. Rob knows families facing genuine difficulties are able to access the support they need and can even access additional subsidies and payments, to the point where his childcare services are free.
The government's childcare system is fair and targeted. Those who earn the least need it the most, and they get the support. They receive the highest subsidy, of 85 per cent. That means a single parent earning $30,000 a year would pay less than $2 per hour, based on average fees for centre based day care. If that parent took on more shifts or found a new job and managed to double their income to $60,000 a year, they would still pay less than $2 per hour. Over 70 per cent of families accessing childcare services have out-of-pocket costs of less than $5 per hour, and nearly a quarter are paying less than $2 per hour for centre based child care. And more support is available to families who need it. A 95 per cent subsidy is available for families who are transitioning to work, and a subsidy of up to 120 per cent is available for families who are experiencing financial hardship.
The government's childcare package has supported families during a period of all-time-high workforce participation of women, which was 61.5 per cent in January 2020, up from 58.7 per cent in September 2013. Instead of sitting on our hands and commissioning a new report into the sector, the government are making a record investment of $9.2 billion in this financial year, which will grow to $10.7 billion in the coming years. This will continue the government's support of around one million families and will meet growing demand for child care, which is increasing every year. I'll continue working with childcare providers in my electorate, such as Little Swans Early Learning in Swan Hill, Montessori Beginnings and Happy Turtle Childcare in Mildura, Green Leaves Early Learning in Horsham, Little Gems Child Care and Early Learning in Maryborough and many others, to ensure their voices are heard.
Ms COKER (Corangamite) (15:56): Put simply, child care costs us all too much. It costs women too much, it costs families too much and it costs our nation too much. In the 12 months to March, my electorate saw childcare costs rise substantially. The increases in my electorate ranged from 4½ per cent to 21½ per cent. At a 21½ per cent yearly increase, the cost of child care would double every 3½ years. Child care costs so much that parents are forced to work less. Instead of working full time, a parent, generally the mother, will work only three days or not work at all because the cost of full-time child care is just too great.
The consequences of this are significant for our economy, for our productivity and for the health and wellbeing of families, women and children. Kids lose out on their development when their entire education is set back at the first formal step. The economy loses out because the pool of workers is reduced, driving down incomes and consumption. And women lose out. They bank less superannuation. They are more vulnerable to homelessness and insecurity in their later years. They can also lose confidence in their skills and connection with their network. This is the exact opposite of what we want for women. I've been through this myself and I understand just how frustrating it is. It's not good enough and it needs to change.
Under Labor's plan, announced by the Leader of the Opposition, more Aussie kids will be in child care, more women will choose to undertake more work, and, importantly, 97 per cent of all families will save up to $2,900 a year. No family will be worse off. This will be good news for my electorate, because when I visit childcare centres and speak to young families in Corangamite they tell me the cost of child care is exorbitant. I recently spoke to Grovedale mum Pawandeep Gill. She wants her young girl to experience the benefits of an early childhood education but, under the current model, the childcare costs that come with working another day a week greatly outweigh what she would earn working in aged care. This is the exact opposite of what we want for Pawandeep and for all women.
The Morrison government's childcare policy undervalues women. It fails to support them. Unlike those opposite, we want women to achieve their potential. Pawandeep should be allowed to choose. All families in Corangamite and Australia should be allowed to choose. So, let's be constructive. We can fix this, and Labor has the plan. Last week, Labor announced that an Albanese government would introduce the working family childcare boost to cut childcare fees and put more money in the pockets of working families straightaway. Childcare fees in Australia are some of the highest in the world. Under this plan Labor will scrap the $10,560 childcare subsidy cap, which often sees women losing money from an extra day's work, fix the maximum childcare subsidy rate to 90 per cent and increase childcare subsidy rates and taper them for every family earning less than half a million dollars a year. This means 97 per cent of all families will save between $600 and $2,900 a year. Under Labor's system, many primary carers across my electorate will choose to work more, and the local economy will benefit by tens of millions of dollars every year as a result.
Economists in Corangamite are calling for this reform. Business owners in Corangamite are calling for this reform. Women and families in Corangamite are calling for this reform. Families should be able to afford child care for their kids, and women should be given the opportunities they deserve to strive and reach their potential. It's as simple as that, so let's make it happen.
Mrs ARCHER (Bass) (16:01): I must say it's been very frustrating to sit through this today and also over the last week, hearing about how the budget has disadvantaged women in relation to child care. I will go to the points that we've heard today about how this government is supporting affordable child care for Australian families, but I also want to talk about how important child care is as an issue, and, of course, recognise that it is important and complex for Australian families. What really disappoints me is that I'm not sure those on the other side are genuinely interested in exploring this really complex issue. They'd rather default to somewhat lazy politics—that is, big-spending ideology, which has just become their signature, and revert to, 'We'll just chuck a bit more money at it and that will fix it.'
I certainly recognise that child care does disproportionately affect women, and it's my hope that we, as elected members, can begin to frame the issue as a shared responsibility. It is one that does not lie entirely with the government, and I think it's important to recognise that as well. As someone who lives and works in a regional community, and as a mother of five children aged between five and 16, I'm well-acquainted with child care, and I've seen the cost of it across a whole range of governments of different colours. I've always been employed as a casual employee or a contract employee or, in 10 years, as a local government elected member. I've never had any maternity leave. And so I understand firsthand the struggles that families go through to find, to access and to be able to afford child care. I understand the choices that they need to make and the constant juggle and struggle that this can have on family life. Even now, as I come to this place, that is a struggle that continues, despite the cost of child care or the affordability of child care.
Some of these things are about choice, and some of these things are about cost. I'm incredulous at the tunnel vision that's shown by the other side by linking the pressures of child care to just being one that is a financial pressure. In fact I think it was only the member for Macquarie that touched on the fact that there is more to this problem than just cost.
If we want to talk about cost, let's talk about how we saw fees increase by some 53 per cent last time those on that side had their hand in it. That's some kind of financial pressure. But it's our government that's delivered on changes that target and assist those who need it most. We introduced the new child care package in 2018, which was a once-in-a-generation set of reforms that saw out-of-pocket costs fall. Two years later, it's shown that out-of-pocket costs for families remains 3.2 per cent lower than under the previous child care package. It's targeted. Those who earn the least receive the highest level of subsidy at around 85 per cent. Our childcare package has supported families during a period of all-time-high women's workforce participation, at 61.5 per cent in January, up from 58.7 per cent in September 2013. We continue to invest record amounts in child care, with another $9.2 billion in this financial year, growing to $10.7 billion in the coming years. In addition to this, the government is investing more than $900 million in extra support during the pandemic.
The childcare package is supporting families who need extra support and continue to do so. But I must reiterate that it's important to address and acknowledge that the cost of child care is not the singular issue that affects working families. What those on that side are proposing is not reform; it's just throwing a bit more money at it, and it won't address issues of accessibility, for example. You could have the cheapest childcare in the world but you'd still need to be able to access it.
It's a particular challenge for regional communities where there are no centres, or they're not set up, for example, to cater for shiftworkers. In my northern Tasmanian community, I've been contacted by parents who are interested in undertaking seasonal work, for example, but are unable to do so because they don't have the ability to get their children into care early enough or close enough to where they need to go to work, for example. I'm sure that these would be issues for regional communities across Australia and I'm committed to working towards solutions. If those opposite are interested in genuine reform that will change outcomes for families, I for one am more than happy to work with them, but if you just want to chuck a bit more money at it, you can't call it a reform.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Wallace ): The discussion has concluded.
COMMITTEES
Electoral Matters Committee
Report
Mr STEVENS (Sturt) (16:06): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I present the committee's advisory report on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Ensuring Fair Representation of the Northern Territory) Bill 2020.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Human Rights Committee
Report
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (16:06): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report entitled Human rights scrutiny report: Report 12 of 2020.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr PERRETT: by leave—I'm pleased to present the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights 12th scrutiny report of 2020, which was presented out of session on 15 October 2020. This report contains a technical examination of legislation with Australia's obligations under international human rights law. It sets out the committee's consideration of 11 bills introduced into the parliament between 6 and 9 October and 187 legislative instruments registered on the Federal Register of Legislation between 12 August and 20 September. The committee is seeking further information in relation to four instruments and has concluded its consideration of two instruments.
The report continues the committee's important work of scrutinising legislation developed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, the committee is seeking further information with respect to two human biosecurity emergency instruments which extend the human biosecurity emergency period for a further three months until 17 December this year. The effect of these instruments is to extend a range of determinations, including restrictions on cruise ships and a ban on Australian citizens or permanent residents leaving Australia. The committee notes that these instruments are designed to prevent the spread of COVID-19, and thus likely promote the rights to life and health, but they also limit rights such as the right to freedom of movement. As there has been no statement of compatibility provided, the committee is seeking further information as to the specific objective behind each measure and if they remain proportionate.
The committee is also seeking further information in relation to a legislative instrument which effectively extends for six months ASIO's powers to issue compulsory questioning warrants and compulsory questioning and detention warrants. These powers engage and limit numerous human rights, including the right to liberty, as it allows ASIO to detain a person for up to seven days. The committee notes that these powers have been extended in order to give the parliament more time to consider the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2020, which seeks to replace the current questioning framework and remove the current powers to detain a person. The committee has recently provided extensive commentary on this bill, and I encourage members to consider that advice, including the dissenting report provided by the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Greens members.
While the committee appreciates that the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in delays to the parliamentary schedule, it still needs to be demonstrated that the extensions of ASIO's questioning and detention powers are compatible with human rights and any limitations are reasonable, necessary and proportionate. I also note that it's a particular concern that these powers, which enable the security services to secretly detain a person without charge, were extended not by this parliament but by the minister via delegated legislation, despite parliament sitting on the very day that this instrument was made.
I encourage all parliamentarians to carefully consider this report. With these comments, I commend the committee's Report 12 of 2020 to the chamber.
BILLS
National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention Bill 2020
National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention (Consequential Amendments) Bill 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 other words.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Llew O'Brien ) (16:10): The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (16:10): Forty-two Australian service members have died in Australia's modern military conflicts, which is 42 too many. But, as of 2017, some 419 current and former ADF members have died by suicide. This does not count the lives unnecessarily lost since 2017. Since I've been in parliament, I've seen a flurry of reports and reviews, from the Senate to the Productivity Commission, each looking at the experiences of veterans. Their findings have been damning and distressing. There can be no dispute as to the persuasive nature of suicide or mental health more broadly across the veteran community. What currently eludes us is a clearer understanding of the underlying causes of suicide amongst the defence community and, importantly, a solution.
Many in my community and across Australia believe that a royal commission is the most appropriate path forward, and I share that view. I support the intention behind this bill, the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention Bill 2020, and I also recognise that the establishment of a national veterans suicide prevention commissioner has the support of ex-service organisations such as the Defence Force Welfare Association and the members they represent, but not all veterans and their families or the families of those who have lost their lives would agree and many are forceful in their opposition, and we must listen to them.
Opponents of the bill have raised concerns with respect to the perceived independence of the commissioner and the need to ensure appropriate resourcing of the office. The financial impact statement for the bill indicates a total of $42 million has been allocated for the first five years. In contrast, the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse received $330 million, while the disability royal commission has been promised over $500 million. If a thorough investigation is to occur, the commissioner must not be hamstrung by meagre resourcing.
Others are concerned that there will be a lack of accountability and transparency. The commissioner will release an annual report encompassing findings and any recommendations for reform. I accept the report will be a detailed analysis of the work carried out by the commissioner and that it will, given the qualifications of the interim commissioner, be a document of great value. But I have less faith, however, in the government's ability to respond to the report and implement recommendations in a timely manner. Twice a year, the President in the other place provides a report to the Senate on the status of government responses to Senate and joint committee reports. That report was released on 30 June 2020. The list of unanswered reports runs to 19 pages. And we are still waiting for the government to release the Productivity Commission's June 2020 final report from the inquiry into mental health, let alone any response to it. So what confidence can we or, indeed, veterans have in the government considering and implementing recommendations by the commissioner? While I understand that this bill will have bipartisan passage through the House today, Centre Alliance will await the findings of the Senate committee inquiry and continue to stand with Senator Jacqui Lambie on her call for a royal commission.
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (16:14): I thank the member for Mayo for her words. There have been many very fine contributions and some fine words here today. I think what I can add to the debate is some of my own personal experience. Before I get into that, I just have some clarifiers for some of the contributions I've heard today.
A royal commission will not destroy the job prospects of those who have served. One of the members opposite, the member for Fisher, said that he challenges employers to employ a veteran. I don't think it's a challenge to employ a veteran. What I say to businesses and organisations out there is: Do yourself a favour and employ a veteran. Make a smart business decision and employ a veteran. Also, I want to say that we're doing much better than we have in the past. So it's not all bad. A lot of the processes are still too complicated and disconnected. But I'll get into a bit of that later.
I don't speak for all veterans—I don't pretend to speak for all veterans; I've never claimed to—but I do talk to a lot of them, and every day I talk to a lot of those that help men and women who have served our country. Even today, I had a phone call with someone in my electorate who's working with a veteran that's on the edge. Some of those opposite said today that veterans don't want a royal commission. That's untrue. There are some that do, there are some that are not sure about a royal commission, and there are some that don't. Let's be honest about this. But no-one speaks for all veterans. That's why it's great that many members have used this opportunity to speak about their experiences and about what they think the path ahead should be. To those that say we on this side are politicising the issue, I say that that is untrue. In fact, it's offensive.
When I say I want to bring my personal experience to this debate, it's not just as a former serviceman; it's not just as a veteran. It is often multigenerational with us. Like the member for Clark said, it's in our families. Like him, I'm the brother of veterans—Army and Navy. Like the member for Newcastle and the member for Hindmarsh and others in this place, I'm sure, I'm the son of a veteran who fought in Vietnam and lost mates. Like many here, I'm the grandson of a veteran. My pop answered the call in 1939, fighting with the 7/6th Battalion. I'm the great-grandson of a veteran who had his lungs burnt out on the Western Front. He immigrated to Australia, but he had to head up to the hills of Kinglake in the mountains above Melbourne for the clean air, because he was only operating on a quarter of a lung. But he also headed up there for the solitude. So serving this country has been in my family's DNA for many generations. I know the pride and the passion and the legacy of service and the effects on individuals and families.
I also have hundreds of veteran mates, some of whom have lost their way to such an extent that they have lost the war within that the member for Herbert articulated so well and so bravely earlier today. I thank the member for Herbert for all his hard work in supporting fellow veterans. I know that he's working hard, also, to find a way through. Another mate, a local Darwin veteran, reflected to me today—as my friend and NT colleague the member for Lingiari did earlier—that there have been so many deployments over the last 30 years. There've been multiple deployments, and there are cumulative effects with those consecutive tours that our serving men and women have done. To compound the difficulty of multiple deployments, there are the cumulative effects of different compensation acts, depending on when they served: Somalia, Rwanda, Cambodia, Timor-Leste, Bougainville, Solomon Islands, Afghanistan, Iraq—the list goes on, but hopefully not too much. The member for Macquarie reflected on the current inquest into the suicide of Sergeant Ian Turner, who did multiple deployments, multiple tours, to multiple conflict zones before committing suicide.
When it comes to supporting and saving our former defence personnel, it's clear that we're losing the war. Former Special Forces Officer Major Heston Russell recently explained that he had lost more of his mates to suicide than during four deployments to Afghanistan, and he's far from alone in that experience. From my experience working in southern Afghanistan, I understand the cumulative effect of daily tension and threat. What I mean by that is that, when people are targeting you because they want to do you harm, that has a cumulative effect. It's in this environment that you obviously become tight with your mates, with those around you. You understand the reality of the risk, but you're all in it together; you're watching each other's back. You miss that closeness later. As my friend the member for Wills also explained, from his time working in Iraq, you do come back a bit changed. You jump at loud noises. You're tense. You're a bit on edge. But it's all so hard to communicate when you need help. As a result, there are generations of veterans who haven't received the care and attention that they deserved on return or in between deployments.
It's far past time for this royal commission. So many of the government speakers repeated the one point over and over: the stats are terrible; we need to find the answers. Well, let the sunlight in. A holistic and independent look from the outside in will be very helpful. The public assurance that we are listening and that we want the answers in order to fix the support systems in a holistic way will be good. A royal commission with a set start and end date and recommendations that are made public will really improve the overall system.
The national commissioner, which is the subject of this legislation, will pass this House and go to the Senate. It may be amended. Who knows. Let's see what happens. There's an inquiry on. My sense is there may well be some need in the future for a truly independent commissioner. I also want to acknowledge the member for Braddon's contribution, in particular his brave acknowledgement of the effects on him of several young men in his unit dying by suicide. With an independent commissioner, perhaps, through an investigation of the causes and harms, some of those subsequent suicides, after the first one, may have been prevented. But many veterans worry that the government's proposed National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention will not be up to the job, that this is simply a marketing exercise and won't have the resources or independence to ask the hard questions.
Hugh Poate's son, Private Robbie Poate, was killed in action in Afghanistan in 2012. Hugh and his wife, Janny, have been actively involved with helping troubled veterans ever since. They've had extensive dealings with veterans who have ideated suicide. Hugh says: 'There's a strong public perception that a defence officer is inappropriate to head such a commission. For a commissioner to be truly independent, that person should have no current or former association with the ADF.' I wanted to put that in the Hansard, as I think he deserves to be heard. I commend the Poates for the work they're doing.
The effective use of leadership would tell the PM, as it told former PM Julia Gillard in relation to institutional child abuse, that we have a problem and that what we really need is a full royal commission to fix it. That would lay out for the country the plan. It would allow us to hear from the experts so that the public understand the suffering of some—not all by a long shot—of the people that have served protecting us, serving our nation and our nation's interests. It would provide enforceable recommendations on how we can prevent these tragic and avoidable deaths.
Our ex-service men and women need our help and support to prepare them for life after the military. They need our help to manage their mental health and wellbeing and any injuries they bring home from service, to set them on new employment pathways and get them into stable housing. I acknowledge those working in my electorate. I acknowledge the staff of DVA, of Open Arms and of the Defence Community Organisation; health professionals like GP Dr Bernie Westley, himself a veteran; allied health professionals; and ex-service organisations in my electorate. They will be greatly helped by a real and holistic process, not a continued piecemeal approach to tackling veteran suicide.
Sometimes the financial cost of a royal commission comes up as a reason not to go there, but, quite frankly, it makes me a bit sick that a government that's just brought down a trillion-dollar budget warns the nation that a royal commission on veterans' suicide would cost up to $100 million. What price we pay for liberty and for making sure that our people and their families are well. It is past time for the Prime Minister to act. He should listen to the member for Fisher, who today said: 'The stats are so alarming. Why is this happening?' Yes, indeed—why? Why are these stats so bad? Why don't we have a holistic look at the whole continuum of support that we're giving our serving people? He also said he's got his own ideas about why it's happening, so I look forward to him sharing those with the royal commission.
I can also allay the fears of the member for Ryan, who said that the subject of this bill—the commissioner—could take evidence in private, unlike a full royal commission. I can assure him that, like the full royal commission into institutional child abuse, the Royal Commissions Act has been amended to allow private evidence for sensitive matters, so there are no barriers there. Let's not put any more barriers in front of what needs to happen here.
So I ask those opposite to keep an open mind on the need for a royal commission into veterans' suicide. We'll get there. We'll get to a holistic, independent assessment informed by the experts and the families of the members themselves. Their experience of service and sacrifice will really assist future generations of Anzacs. They'll give the parents of young Australians the confidence that the system is being reviewed and those that serve our nation will be looked after. After all, that is our covenant. We all agreed in this place that that is our covenant.
So we are backing the ADF. We're backing the Department of Veterans' Affairs. We are backing ex-service organisations. And we do acknowledge the significant work they have all done in improving the systems that help our serving men and women and their families. Those organisations can be assured that the health of their institutions ultimately will only benefit from a royal commission. But, most importantly, it is the health of our veterans and their families that will be greatly improved by a full and holistic review of the system, which is what I've heard from those opposite, those on this side—that's what I've heard from everyone today on this issue. All the speakers, who I respectfully listened to all day today, said that. It is the solemn hope of us all—I've heard it—that our veterans and their families are well; that they can serve with pride; that they can go on to live rich, fulfilling lives, just being totally awesome in the workplaces in which they work; and that they can get the help that they need. That is the solemn hope of all of us. I think that we'll be able to achieve that with a full royal commission, and that's why I support that. Lest we forget.
Mr CONROY (Shortland) (16:28): I want to start out by thanking and acknowledging everyone who has served this country who's either in the ADF now or a veteran. It's an immense privilege to have witnessed this debate in the national parliament and watched the contributions from some of our veterans who are members of parliament—the member for Herbert, the member for Braddon, the member for Solomon and the member for Denison. I had the immense privilege of sitting in the chamber for those four contribution, and I feel almost inadequate following those heartfelt, personal contributions. I will spend my time talking about what veterans and their families have told me. I will start by acknowledging them and, especially, congratulating the member for Herbert for the anniversary he talked about. To come back from the dark place he was in, having served his nation, and to be such a leading voice in this debate is something that is really remarkable, and I congratulate him and thank him for what he's doing.
I only wish all debates in this place could be carried on in the manner in which this debate is being conducted. It is incredibly respectful. Everyone is acknowledging that everyone else contributing to this debate is coming from a good place and that everyone's focus is on how to look after Australia's veterans. We have a disagreement about whether we should begin with a standing commissioner or a royal commission. That's a fairly significant difference of opinion, but we've seen no over-the-top rhetoric and we've seen no disrespect to the other side. It's a genuine acknowledgement that people have different opinions about what should be done. I think this debate is parliament at its best.
There is a significant issue here, obviously. One suicide is too many and one suicide of a veteran is obviously of an order of magnitude more difficult for us to canvass. Without turning to clinical numbers, the stats are that in 2018 there were 33 veteran suicides and between 2001 and 2018 there were 465, and those are only the ones that are recorded. There are many, many more veteran suicides. The rate of homelessness among veterans is five times the national average. I had the wife of a veteran say to me that she knows many, many veterans who are medically discharged. Her anecdotal evidence was that every single medically discharged veteran had attempted suicide. So we should start by acknowledging what the problem is, and then we need to talk about how to solve it, how we can make a contribution in this place.
The member for Braddon, I think might have made this contribution, but it has been remarked often that, while veteran mental health has always been a massive challenge in this nation and in many other nations, it is getting more of a challenge as we get better at looking after the physical health of our veterans. Combatants in World War II, the Vietnam War or even Gulf War mark 1 who would have died had they suffered a blast are now surviving thanks to the great advances in military medical approaches and technology. But that, if anything, makes it a greater challenge to look after the mental health of veterans, because what they see and what they've been exposed to—the impact of percussive forces from explosions—are just a few examples of things that make this challenge even greater for us than it did perhaps for previous generations of policymakers.
We need to acknowledge that every family has some connection to a veteran in their community. Every family sees this challenge in different ways, from World War II veterans who came back from POW camps unable to talk about their experience, unable to really communicate what they saw, to modern veterans of recent wars. We now have more veterans from Afghanistan and Gulf War mark 2 than we do from Vietnam, for example.
This legislation is important, and I acknowledge that it seeks to help solve a problem, but I disagree with the basic contention that a standing commissioner is the best approach to this process. My firm view is we need a wide-ranging and well-resourced royal commission to look at the myriad of issues and to then guide and inform the establishment of a standing commissioner, if that's what the royal commission recommends. The truth is that the standing commissioner established in this bill does not have the same powers as a royal commission. In fact, the budget of the body in this legislation is half the budget of the average royal commission, just to give an indication of the different range of resources that are allocated to this. The commissioner is not independent. They are part of the Attorney-General's Department, which obviously makes it more challenging for them to really get to the nub of problems in particular government departments and the way that government departments serve our veterans. And, as other people have remarked, some people think there's a fundamental conflict between having a serving ADF officer or a Reserve officer fulfil that function. That is no reflection on the nominated commissioner—absolutely not. It is merely the status of someone from the ADF who's task, quite frankly, is to look at how the ADF treats veterans—both serving veterans and people who've left the ADF.
Finally, a standing commissioner, as constructed in this legislation, does not have the range of inquisitive powers, to get to the myriad of issues that make our veterans' lives so much harder and challenging. I want to go to that in some detail. At a mobile office I held last Friday at Lake Munmorah on the northern Central Coast, I met the wife of a veteran. She came to me to highlight all the challenges that she and her family face because of the myriad issues returned veterans have. Her husband was medically discharged as completely, totally and permanently incapacitated. He has the gold TPI card. She highlighted some of the issues that they face, and they are not just about DVA. This is a key point she was making. Any reform or legislation that's focused on how the Department of Veterans' Affairs treats veterans will miss other issues. She gave examples. Access to home care for families of veterans is limited and very bureaucratic. She talked about the interaction of the veteran system with Service NSW. She gave an example: because her husband has a gold card TPI, they get one free car registration a year. But the way the classification works under her husband's particular TPI is that it's not an automatic process. Service NSW don't automatically say that her husband is entitled to free registration. They have to get a letter each year from the Department of Veterans' Affairs. They take that letter to Service NSW, who say that it isn't constructed in the correct way. They then have to go back to DVA, who say that it is. Then they have to manage this argy-bargy for months on end before they get the correct language to get one free car registration. This might seem a relatively minor matter, but if the person having to do this is suffering from PTSD, the last thing they want to go through is this bureaucratic wrangling.
Other examples from this particular meeting I had involved psychiatrists. If you have PTSD and you're under a TPI, you've got access to psychiatric assistance. But the challenge in the Newcastle and Central Coast area is that there are no psychiatrists taking on new patients on the coast or in Newcastle. So there's a huge issue about access to mental health support. The person I had the meeting with also made the point that, even if you've got a gold card, the rates that the gold card pays health professionals is well under what they ask for normal consultations. So she was making the point that these health professionals really assist gold TPI recipients as a matter of giving something back to the nation. That's good, and we should applaud that, but we should fix this by paying appropriate commercial rates so those health professionals can get that support.
Another example is the vexed and challenging issue of child support, where many veterans go through a really entrenched process to get access to lump sum payments, and then, when that lump sum payment is paid, it comes into the child support system. That's not a reflection on the really important system that child support plays in this country in supporting kids and families. She was just making the point that the child support agency is not used to dealing with one-off lump sum payments, particularly for veterans who have received a TPI settlement. So that just adds to the stress and adds to the pressure on someone who is suffering from PTSD. Going through that process just makes it worse.
Another example is within DVA. DVA is now providing assistance with service dogs. I think everyone recognises the power of service dogs to really improve the mental health of returned veterans. The issue is that they will pay for training only if the dog is provided through the Department of Veterans' Affairs, so if you have a service dog through an internationally recognised organisation like Whiskey's Wish you will not get financial assistance to train that service dog. Again, this is an example where the bureaucracy that's been put in place hinders a good intention. Mail redirection—and I'm sorry to go into the minutiae but I think it's really important for someone who is not a veteran to say, 'I've heard from veterans and their families.' A veteran on the TPI gets one free mail redirection, but if it has the wife's name on it, if they're married, it's not free. How does that actually provide a service? These are all the sorts of issues that exacerbate the challenge for veterans in this country.
I met with the mum of an SAS veteran. This mum is a schoolteacher in my electorate. Her son served this country in the SAS, which is obviously the arm of the ADF, the Army, that has probably seen the most intense and traumatic service. He suffers from PTSD, and that trauma is so great that he cannot live in his country. Everything in his country reminds him of his service and his trauma. So he moved overseas. The Department of Veterans' Affairs, as part of his support, pays for mental health counselling. Unfortunately, this was just another example of the bureaucracy—until my office intervened and DVA came through in the end. He wanted to continue, via Zoom, mental health counselling with his counsellor from Perth. Obviously, the SAS barracks is in Perth, so he had an existing relationship with that counsellor. Instead, they insisted on him paying for counselling in his host country in South America, even though the Zoom counselling sessions were cheaper for the Commonwealth and were with someone experienced with Australian veterans' affairs. It took about four months of wrangling before we solved that problem. Again, this is just a small example of these impediments that make veterans' lives harder.
I got an email from someone last week. I won't use her name, because I haven't had time to seek her permission. She said to me:
As a mother of a young veteran I'm begging you to jump on board and be part of this royal commission, we owe this to our children, sisters, brothers, mothers and fathers but mostly our mates , there needs to be more done , they are left in the cold by veterans affairs, they leave the adf and they are literally on their own they don't have that support network anymore , they spend years waiting for specialists appointments in pain, they spend countless hours with paper work, phone class letters of rejection against claims they have been begging for , they have put their body and minds on the line for our country only in the end to have multiple doors closed in their faces , by a group of people who have never served a day in their life and have no knowledge of serving , my son joined when he was 18 he was so proud and committed and now his life is the great unknown his legs are full of scars from multiple operations, I hope as a mother I never failed him , and as his mother I expect the same from our politicians
I think that's a very important sentiment. I have not served this country in the ADF. I cannot imagine the challenges veterans face, what they have gone through, but it is my job, my duty—like it's the duty of every other member of this parliament—to serve these veterans, to fight every day to ensure that we support them, to make sure that we are partners with them in mental health issues, in making sure they get all the support they need. That is the greatest way we can honour their sacrifice and their mates' sacrifice. I commend the bill, as amended, to the House.
Mrs PHILLIPS (Gilmore) (16:43): I want to thank the member for Shortland for that really important contribution. I've been in this chamber for many of the contributions today, and I've got to say it was an absolute honour to be here to listen to the member for Herbert, the member for Braddon, the member for Solomon—everybody. Everybody's contributions were extremely special. What our veterans spoke about was raw; it was real. I really do thank everybody who has contributed to the debate on this really important issue.
I want to start by acknowledging all our Defence Force members and our veterans. Our Defence Force members and our veterans are so important in our community. I also want to thank the many veterans who have contacted me through my office and urged me to support a royal commission, which is something Labor supports.
I am pleased to speak on the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention Bill 2020 and the amendment today because this is a really serious issue in my electorate on the New South Wales South Coast. On the South Coast we have a lot of defence members. We are home to HMAS Albatross and, nearby, HMAS Creswell. In everything we do in our community, we have the Defence Force—the Navy—embedded as part of our community. It's something we are really proud of. On top of that, we have the most wonderful veteran community in terms of our RSLs up and down the South Coast and a lot of different veterans organisations. I want to say thank you to all those organisations that work so hard to support our veterans.
Over the years, I have taken part in many celebrations with our veterans and Defence Force members, and each one of those events makes me proud. People who sign up to the Australian Defence Force do it for the love of their country. They sacrifice time with their families. They sacrifice their health and their lives. They put it all on the line—for us. They have so many amazing and varied skills. They are hardworking people who want to make a real contribution. But then, when they have finished their duty to us, too often the system they meet on the outside lets them down. They struggle to find jobs. They struggle to find support. They simply struggle. They have given us everything but, too often, we let them down when they need us most. It is heartbreaking.
I reiterate that Labor supports a royal commission into veteran suicide. We need to be better at supporting our ADF members as they transition to civilian life. This can be a very challenging time, and I've heard many advocates say there is simply not enough support available during this time. Veterans feel alone and struggle to manage the change in their life that comes with leaving the Defence Force. And it isn't just elderly veterans. Young veterans find it particularly challenging. I thank again the many advocates who have come to see me in relation to this issue, particularly those young veterans themselves.
I find it disappointing that the government has refused to support a royal commission, going against the views of many in the veteran community. What we don't want to see in supporting this bill today is a national commissioner that won't be better than a royal commission as the government has claimed. We need to make sure that any commissioner has the resources and the independence from government that it would need to achieve real outcomes for local veterans. We need to give parents and loved ones an opportunity to be heard, and show them that we are truly listening.
I want to see real change in the way we deal with veterans who are undertaking that transition out of the Defence Force. I want to see real change in how we manage and deal with mental health and suicide in the ADF and after. That's why I have supported the establishment of a veterans wellbeing centre in Nowra. As I said, we have a strong defence presence in my electorate. HMAS Albatross and HMAS Creswell play a pivotal role in our community. The bases and their members are embedded in everything our community does—from celebratory events to commemorative occasions, markets and more. They are steadfast and loyal in support of many local causes—causes like Noah's fundraiser, which is raising funds to help young children with disabilities. Everywhere I go, the Navy and Defence Force members and their families are there.
During the last election campaign, Labor committed to seven veterans wellbeing centres, including one in Nowra, and the government is following through on the Nowra centre. Just this week it was announced that RSL LifeCare will lead and deliver the Nowra veterans wellbeing centre—wonderful news and definitely a positive step forward. The centre will act as a one-stop shop for support services, meaning veterans will not have to spend hours searching for where to get help. It will all be there for them to make that process as easy and smooth as possible.
RSL LifeCare has a long history of working with and supporting veterans. They already run the Jonathan Rogers GC House in Nowra, a community with 68 seniors with a range of care needs. The staff at this centre already do a fantastic job supporting their residents; providing fun activities, social outings, themed days and more, as well as 24-hour nursing care and specialist services. I know they will do a fabulous job at running this centre and I'm very excited to see it finally moving forward.
We need to make sure that the establishment of the wellbeing centre considers the views and experience of the organisations who are already delivering services on the ground. We need to be following a collaborative approach to ensure we get the best outcome for local veterans, and so far we have seen positive progress in this light. RSL New South Wales has been leading that charge and doing a wonderful job, along with some amazing local veterans like Lee Cordner, who oversaw the steering committee. I want to thank all of the local partners, local RSL sub-branch members and service providers for their hard work getting the centre to this point. I am looking forward to seeing this centre finally up and running. I urge the government to move this forward as soon as possible. Local veterans can't afford to wait. The need for support is urgent and critical.
Recently I attended a Nowra RSL Sub-Branch meeting to present some World War II commemorative medallions and certificates to local veterans. I was proud to present these medallions and it was lovely to see so many in the sub-branch there to recognise the amazing contribution these veterans made to our community. While I was there, I heard from local RSL advocates about the massive volume of work they are doing to support our local veterans. These advocates are retired volunteers. They are veterans themselves. They are doing it because they truly care about making a difference in the lives of their fellow servicemen and women. But they are overwhelmed and overworked. I heard firsthand from them about their enormous workload supporting local veterans, linking them with services, being someone who can listen to what they are going through and giving them advice on where to get help. They are relentless in their help in supporting their fellow veterans. It is inspiring work, totally worthy of recognition, but they certainly need more help. What they don't want to see is more work created for local advocates and fewer resources as they get diverted elsewhere. These advocates also need to play a critical role in how these centres will be shaped and they need to form part of that make-up.
I want to take this opportunity to sincerely thank, from the bottom of my heart, all our veteran advocates throughout the South Coast community. Your work is absolutely invaluable. It is seen and it is acknowledged. I know it is making a difference to the lives of so many so thank you.
The veterans wellbeing centres have come about from listening to the concerns of the veterans community. In Nowra that charge was led by the South Coast Veterans Motorcycle Club and the local RSL clubs. Their input and ideas are critical to making sure we get this right, to making sure the centre will do what it is supposed to do, to making sure that support will get to where it's needed, and that's what we need to be doing now as we try to tackle the terrible national tragedy that is our veteran suicide rates. Families want to see a royal commission. They want their voices heard and they want real action now.
I have stood in this place before and called the families of veterans our unsung heroes and that remains true. Organisations like the Shoalhaven Defence Families Association, who I have spoken about in this place many times before, are doing incredible things to support families. It is critical and important work and it is making a significant contribution to our community. It is making a difference in the lives of local veterans' families. Thank you, again, to them for this work.
Families of veterans go through so much. They uproot their lives time and time again to suit the new deployment of their partners. They feel the stress and the worry whenever their loved ones are on duty, never knowing what the next day might bring. And when retirement comes, for whatever reason, they are there to try and help in any way they can to navigate the complex process and emotional roller-coasters that come with it. They know more intimately what works and what doesn't, what is needed and what will help. They have a wealth of knowledge and a huge contribution to make to this discussion. They deserve our support. They deserve our respect. They deserve our faith in them and they deserve our help. Only a royal commission can achieve this. Only a royal commission can give them a full and public deep dive into why these tragic deaths keep happening. This is where we need to start. Too many local families have told me that they feel they are going it alone, that no-one is listening to what they have to say. It is simply heartbreaking.
Today, I want to honour all of our local Defence Force members and veterans and all of their families and friends. I want to honour all of our local RSL sub-branches, advocates and support services. The community has opened up space where government should be, supporting veterans and their families and putting together wonderful programs like Operation Walk to Talk, Defence Surf Therapy and many others and organisations like the Keith Payne VC Veterans Benefit Group and so many more.
There is no doubt that veteran suicide is a crisis in Australia. We need a royal commission now. So why is the government stalling on this? I will always welcome any positive move forward for our veterans, but I also want to make sure we are getting it right. I don't want to let down local families. I don't want to let down local veterans. I want to provide closure, healing and restorative justice to the defence and veteran community, and that starts with a royal commission.
Mr EVANS (Brisbane—Assistant Minister for Waste Reduction and Environmental Management) (16:56): In summing up, I thank all honourable members for their contributions to the debate on the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention Bill 2020 and the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020. The government recognises that the death of any Australian Defence Force member or veteran is tragic for their family and is deeply felt by the entire community. The government is strongly committed to addressing the unacceptably high rates of suicide among ADF members and veterans and to supporting our ADF members and veterans during their service, in transitioning from service and in their lives beyond service.
The bills provide for the establishment of the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention to inquire into and support the prevention of ADF member and veteran deaths by suicide. The national commissioner will have strong inquiry powers which are broadly equivalent to a royal commission. This will enable full inquiries into the circumstances of these tragic deaths, whether past or in the future. Like a royal commission, the national commissioner will be independent from government, being appointed by the Governor-General and having full discretion in the way their inquiries are conducted. Like a royal commission, the national commissioner can make findings and recommendations, including about any policy, legislative or other changes that are needed, and, like a royal commission, the national commissioner will have the power to compel the production of documents and take evidence under oath or affirmation. Like a royal commission, the national commissioner may also summon witnesses and hold public hearings and will have the power to refer potential breaches of law to enforcement bodies.
Unlike a royal commission, the national commissioner will be an enduring institution, with the power to monitor the implementation of recommendations into the future. The national commissioner will provide a report on their findings and recommendations to the parliament each year as well as other reports as they consider necessary. The government will be fully accountable, being required to report to the parliament on actions taken in response to the national commissioner's reports.
Importantly, the national commissioner will also provide an opportunity for families, ADF members and other people affected by ADF and veteran suicide deaths to tell their stories in a safe, supportive and trauma informed environment.
The government is committed to developing the legislation to establish the national commissioner in a consultative manner. A national public and stakeholder consultation process on the bills was conducted following the introduction of the bills on 27 August, until 24 September. Over 90 submissions were provided as part of this process. The valuable feedback that's been received from families, ADF members and veterans, and defence and veterans support organisations and others is being carefully considered and will inform any refinement of the bills during their passage through the parliament.
On 3 September, the bills were referred to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee. The committee will deliver its report by 30 November. The government welcomes the committee's detailed consideration of this bill and looks forward to considering its findings in due course.
I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate on these important bills.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Blair has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Question agreed to.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Third Reading
Mr EVANS (Brisbane—Assistant Minister for Waste Reduction and Environmental Management) (17:03): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr EVANS (Brisbane—Assistant Minister for Waste Reduction and Environmental Management) (17:05): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Education Legislation Amendment (Up-front Payments Tuition Protection) Bill 2020
Higher Education (Up-front Payments Tuition Protection Levy) Bill 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 Australia's higher education system is failing our kids, workers and businesses, due to Coalition Government policies that:
(1) slash billions from university funding;
(2) are bad for our economy and labour market; and
(3) impose massive debts on people seeking a higher education".
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ) (17:07): The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Sydney has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Mr GEORGANAS (Adelaide) (17:07): Deputy Speaker Claydon, I will start by thanking you for relieving me in the chair so that I can make my speech in continuation from yesterday. As I said yesterday, we will not be opposing this bill, the Education Legislation Amendment (Up-front Payments Tuition Protection) Bill 2020, and cognate legislation. We know that the shadow minister for education and training wrote to the Minister for Education asking him to consider exactly these changes. Even though we're supporting this bill, we do it in light of the bill that went through this place a couple of weeks ago that will be detrimental to higher education. For months we've been saying that, through this bill, the government has finally taken steps to do a range of things, but, at the same time, the implementation of the previous bill will be detrimental to higher education.
We know that the government will be making students pay more for their degrees and locking others out. There will be an Americanisation of our higher education system. The government refuses to provide enough extra places to meet an increase in demand. Even when the government is promising new places, they come without the funding to provide them, and there is no guarantee that the numbers will eventuate in practice. Some of the crossbenchers voted for the previous bill because they were promised extra places. But, to have those extra places, you need extra funding. It is impossible to get the extra university places without the funding for them. The effect of the legislation is to increase the student fee burden and to reduce Commonwealth funding of higher education. It just doesn't weigh up.
We know that the government has cut about $1 billion of Commonwealth funding from universities, and, with job prospects so weak right now, the choice for many people will be between waiting on the dole queue and getting an education. What a choice to have to face. Year 11 and year 12 students have persevered through incredible uncertainty this year. We've seen students all around the country in virtual classrooms, not knowing when they're going to go back to their schools, and the uncertainty that surrounds that, and what have we done? We've made it harder for them to get into university. They will have to weigh up the costs—what their parents can afford or what they can afford—to make that choice. What a terrible situation to be in if you have a thirst to learn, if you want to go to university to improve your education and to be able to participate and contribute to this nation. Those students are going to have to weigh up that choice at the age of 17 or 18. Their financial situation will determine whether they attend university. That's what the previous bill has done to the thousands and millions of students who are currently sitting their final-year exams at high school. They will be making that choice, and it's not a good choice. Education, including higher education, should be accessible for all, regardless of wealth, background or family situation. This is another burden on students. They've gone through so much this year, with COVID-19 and not knowing what their future will be, and now they're having to decide whether or not they can afford a higher education.
What's more, the government's university plan won't do what it promises. All sorts of experts have been scathing about how terrible the policy is. For example, the CEO of the Grattan Institute, Danielle Wood, has said: 'I honestly think it's one of the worst-designed policies that I've ever seen. Even if you accept its stated rationale, it doesn't go anywhere near achieving it.' When you look at the detail, you find that, in the academic areas the government wants to encourage, universities will receive less money to teach students. As I said earlier, it just does not add up. Under changes that have gone through this place, universities will receive 32 per cent less to teach medical scientists, 17 per cent less to teach maths students, 16 per cent less to teach engineers, 15 per cent less to teach clinical psychologists, 10 per cent less to teach agricultural students and eight per cent less to teach nurses. You don't have to be a rocket scientist or a genius to guess where this is headed. When you cut money that supports engineering and science courses, you're either going to get worse courses or you're going to get fewer scientists and engineers. Given the environment we're in today, we want to create cutting-edge jobs. We want to be at the cutting edge of technology. To do that, we have to build the foundations. And where are those foundations? They're in our education. They're in the teaching we provide in higher education. You can't talk about high-tech jobs, cutting-edge technology and being a leading nation in this sphere and then not put the money where it has to go so we can get students to study these courses.
I've got to say it's not just the science and engineering courses that will suffer. It's also the humanities, of course, and the arts. There are a whole range of areas where it will be costlier at university now to do those courses, those degrees. There is no evidence that a humanities degree won't get you employment when you finish. In fact, in some of the stats I was looking at, humanities is way up there with engineering and other courses. But, then again, it's not just about landing a job once you finish university. It's about the intellect of the nation. It's about who we are. We're a thinking nation. Every course at a university, whether it be philosophy, the arts, politics or humanities, makes the person studying it a thinker. That's what we need in this nation, thinkers who can do the best that they can for the future of this country.
Another area that's going to be badly damaged by these changes is languages. We already lag behind much of the world for students learning a second language or studying languages at university. We've got one of the lowest rates in the world for languages. I was talking to some academics who teach at Flinders University and Adelaide university, and they both said that languages will be decimated under the government's changes. The changes are going to have a catastrophic impact on language studies. They will also mean that only the well-off kids or other people who can afford it will do those courses and learn a second language. As we said, there'll be cuts to science and technology, but also the humanities. This will be catastrophic for languages. The proposed changes to university fees are going to cripple languages further in Australia. They've been raised by different community groups who consider community languages an important part of linkage to other countries, but it's also an important part for us, because we can utilise these languages and these cultures to be able to further our exports and imports and the business that we do overseas. Languages will be crippled. They've already been cut to the bone in most universities if not eliminated completely.
We need a government that values education, that values learning, that produces Australians that are thinking, whether it be in humanities, engineering, sciences and the cutting edge technologies. We need to improve in this area.
Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Opposition Whip) (17:17): I also would like to make a contribution to this cognate debate on the upfront payments tuition protection levy bills. I should be clear that, ultimately, we will be supporting the passage of these bills, but we need to consider the amendment that has been moved by the member for Sydney. Essentially, the measures contained in the bills are sensible measures. They are sensible measures that go to safeguarding the integrity and reputation of the Australian education system, particularly to protecting vulnerable students. In essence, these bills extend the tuition protection scheme, which, by the way, was an initiative of the Gillard government, to ensure that domestic upfront-fee-paying students are protected in the event that a provider, course or campus is closed.
The member for Sydney, our shadow minister for education, wrote to the minister seeking to do just what's provided for in the bills before us. It is a matter that needs to be developed, but that was some 10 months ago. So it took this government 10 months, travelling at slightly less than warp speed, to bring forward this legislation on something they knew was going to be agreed to and was going to be positive and well received. Labor had voiced its concern with regard to the exclusion of domestic upfront-fee-paying students from the TPS, noting that it would create a complex situation where different students had different rights and were subject to different protections. It may have taken the government 10 months, but we're pleased the government has come around to addressing these deficiencies in the scheme, and we support them in respect of dealing with that.
We welcome this tweaking of the TPS. However, this legislation must be considered in the context of the Liberal government's broader inaction when it comes to education. That actually brings me to the member for Sydney's amendment and to consider, in a broader context, what this government has done, particularly in slicing billions of dollars from university education, which is bad for the economy, bad for our labour market and imposes massive debts on people seeking a higher education. It is retrospective of what this government should be doing with the state of our economy as it is at the moment. We're not about to let the government get away with a relentless attack on the university sector and higher education without making some comments in respect of that.
For months now, we've grappled with the significant impacts of the coronavirus. I think it's fair to say that there's been bipartisan support in that respect. We support the government's effort in doing everything that they can in protecting our communities. However, remember from the time of the initiatives to address the pandemic what's occurred when it comes to issues about the universities sector. We were the ones that requested the government step in and help to support universities in their efforts to save jobs. Since then the simple fact is that more than 12,000 jobs have been lost across the sector, with the prediction that thousands are to go by the end of this year. The Prime Minister's done really nothing to stop these job losses in what is our fourth-biggest export sector. The Prime Minister's shown little interest in protecting the livelihoods of the thousands of university staff losing their jobs or the communities that depend on their work. Rather, the federal government's gone out of its way to ensure that the public university sector was excluded from JobKeeper.
Oddly enough, having said that, that doesn't apply to the private tertiary higher education sector and certainly not to some of the foreign universities operating in this country who were successful in getting JobKeeper to maintain their staff. It was our public institutions—the ones that, by and large, service our community—that lost out. With the jobs that went, we're talking about not just academics, tutors, administrative staff, library staff, caterers, cleaners and security but all the families that depend upon that work. They are trying to make ends meet, clearly, and most of them are also facing pretty trying times. What we see is many of these institutions having to cut the very staff which underpin their academic excellence.
We as a nation are relying on our brilliant universities and their researchers now to help find a vaccine for COVID-19. But while we rely on them to do that we're not actually giving them assistance by guaranteeing their jobs. We are doing the exact opposite. This is hypocrisy in the extreme. Only recently—as a matter of fact, it was only this week; things have progressed, it seems—the government introduced the job-ready graduates bill. Put simply, it was going to make it harder and more expensive for Australians to go to university. Not only did the government introduce the bill; they gagged debate and they rammed it through. It would put a university education beyond the reach of many in this country and certainly beyond the reach of many in my community that I represent in Fowler.
I'm not sure, but I think most here have probably heard me describe in the past how colourful and vibrant my community is. As you're aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, I do have many new arrivals to this country and I do receive probably the majority of refugees coming into this country. Interestingly, a lot of the new Australians and particularly the refugees see education as the ticket to success in a society like Australia. They see it as a pathway from dependency to success. They see it as a pathway for moving away from what they see as disadvantage requiring support to being able to make a success of their lives; hence why many of our migrants and particularly young children from refugee families do very well in our community, particularly using the resources of tertiary education.
What the government has done earlier this week is going to make it very hard for people in my community, for those families. Students will on average pay seven per cent more for their studies. Around 40 per cent will have their fees increased by $14½ thousand a year, almost doubling the costs for many. Students studying law, accounting, administration, economics, commerce and humanities will all pay more for their degrees. We're talking about up to $58,000 degrees. It understandably will be a disincentive for young people, for the predominantly working-class families that I represent in my community. It will make it very hard for younger people to make decisions about getting a university education. And think about this: given the amount of job losses we have—and we know there are more than a million people out of work, and this mob opposite keeps saying they're here to help reskill and retrain people—how is it going to be easier for older people to reskill, to increase their knowledge base and to become job ready? This puts it beyond their capacity to do that, to make a decision, particularly where they're supporting a family. It's indicative of what this government has been doing for some time.
I just find it strange. Not now but when I look around this place at question time, this room is full, and I would think there are probably less than a handful of people in this room that haven't had the benefit of going to university. And yet this is the very place that is now moving to put it beyond the reach of so many other families. Isn't that hypocrisy? We should be making it easier for people to get a university education, because it's not just what it does for them and for their communities; it's what it does for our nation. For every dollar you invest in education, it's an absolute investment in the future prosperity of our country.
You would think that, in the middle of this Morrison recession, you would start thinking about the pathways out of the recession and that one of those would be to actually encourage the use of our academic institutions to plan that way forward. And yet we are doing, as this government has committed to doing, the absolute opposite.
I don't know why we should be all that surprised about it. When you think about it, you see that they have for some time now made it harder not only for students but for the academic institutions themselves. This government has a track record when it comes to university funding. They are the ones that cut $16 billion, effectively, as a result of our international students. We know that there was a $2.2 billion funding cut by the government. Our universities are actually doing it very tough at the moment, and yet the expectations that they will produce the expertise that we want for the future still ride high in the minds of our communities. That's why we've got to hold this government to account and why we can't let the government fill everyday Australians' thinking with the idea that the government really cares about a higher education. Those of us who are here saw what happened under Tony Abbott, under Malcolm Turnbull and now under Prime Minister Morrison. They were relentless in their attacks on universities. They're the ones that did take $2.2 billion from the funding. By the way, they are the same ones who attacked the funding of our TAFE colleges and vocational education. Since the election of a Liberal government in 2013, university students have been under constant attack with cuts. We've seen fee deregulation, or attempts at it, and the uncertainty the government has instilled not only for students but for the university administrators themselves. In a 2017 MYEFO decision, the government cut billions of dollars from universities and recapped undergraduate places. There were also the changes to the Higher Education Loan Program. This was reckless and it was unfair.
Of course, we don't expect those opposite to really understand the impact of these excessive cuts to education. They are the ones that took $3 billion from TAFE. They underpaid the schools system by $17 billion, even though they went to an election saying there would not be $1 of difference between Liberal and Labor. When it comes to making cuts, it seems that the government sees education as a political plaything that they can use and abuse to prop up a budget bottom line. In the middle of a pandemic, we need to be planning our way forward, not looking back. And the way forward is to invest in education and give young people the break they need to do what they can to increase their skills and knowledge so they can play a significant role in the future of this country. I would ask those opposite to consider this, and not simply on the basis of this bill. As I said, ultimately we will support the passage of this bill, but we support protecting education. (Time expired)
Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand) (17:32): I rise to speak on the Education Legislation Amendment (Up-Front Payments Tuition Protection) Bill 2020 and the Higher Education (Up-front Payments Tuition Protection Levy) Bill 2020. As my colleagues have said, Labor will not be opposing the bills before the House. It took a while, a good 10 months, but the government has finally got there. Last year my colleague the member for Sydney and shadow minister for education and training wrote to the education minister asking him to consider the changes that have subsequently appeared in the current legislation. Labor originally voiced our concerns that the exclusion of domestic up-front fee-paying students from the Tuition Protection Scheme would create a complex situation where different students have different rights and protections. So it is good to see that the government has come around to this fact and tightened up the loose ends. It's quite remarkable how tidy the government can be with practical legislation like this that actually addresses a problem but how hasty they can be when it comes to ideological legislation designed to destroy the higher education sector in this country.
Labor welcomes this practical legislation that allows similar arrangements for students and processes for decision-making, student placement and loan recrediting. While reform like this, on the fringes of a sector, is not to be sneezed at, we have to look at this reform in the greater context of the government's failure to address the needs of the higher education system and its persistent cuts and attacks against students, researchers and all workers across the higher education sector. I had hoped to speak last month on the government's Job-ready Graduates Package and associated legislation, but the government gagged debate in the House of Representatives to shuffle these retrograde reforms through. Again, they can be very quick with ideologically based legislation, but they have waited nearly a year to deal with practical matters such as we are dealing with today.
Labor opposed that appalling package. We sought for it to go to a Senate inquiry so the sector that provides our largest services export industry might actually be consulted. Instead, this $37 billion-a-year industry got a six-day farce masking as a consultation. The higher education industry knows that this government ignores the terrible truth: this government does not understand the immense ramifications of its awful legislation.
We've heard recently of the hastily stitched-up deal between the government, the member for Mayo and Centre Alliance to ram those reforms through the parliament. The decision by these members has been widely condemned on all sides and represents another backwards step for the higher education sector. Frankly, such blinkered deals that single out particular unis and particular places to the detriment of others are a detriment to the whole national higher education system and are clearly not in the national interest. In reality it's just the latest in a long line of attacks from the government against universities, their communities, their workers and their students.
Once again Labor is in a position where we have to defend the university sector. We should haven't to defend the higher education sector. Every single student attending campuses in person or online across the country, every researcher and research assistant, every cleaner and every maintenance worker at a uni has now been put in a place where they have to be defended, because it's clear that after more than seven years this government refuses to support the higher education sector and does not care for anyone who works there.
The people of Australia should know exactly what this Liberal-National government thinks of the university sector in this country. They have made $2.2 billion worth of cuts in the last seven years. They deliberately excluded the entire university sector from the JobKeeper scheme, designed to help working people through the economic crisis—the Morrison recession—that we are now living through. We will continue to live through the Morrison recession for some time to come—deliberately. The Liberals and Nationals went out of their way to ensure the 130,000 people employed by universities and the 14,000 people unis employ in the regions are left behind. It was a deliberate move. They did it on purpose. It is cruel.
What exactly is the result of this mean and cruel decision by the Liberal and National government? The Liberals have thing about universities. They think it is only academics and researchers that work there who may not agree with them and students that attend, and so because of this they devalue these very important jobs. But who else works at universities? There are library workers, cleaners, security guards, parking officers—arguably the hardest workers on campus. They put up with a lot. There are catering staff, cooks, food servers, coffee makers, bookshop and other retail workers, bookkeepers, administrative assistants, student support workers, medical workers—nurses, doctors—maintenance workers, carpenters, air conditioner maintenance workers, electricians, tradies. All these workers are rejected, left behind by this Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, education minister, Dan Tehan, and this Liberal-National government during the COVID crisis. Why are these tradies and workers left behind by this government? Simply put it's because they got a job at a university. Tradies work at universities. Having worked at a university for over a decade myself, I would say that tradies are the backbone of the extraordinary workforce that keeps these remarkable institutions going, but this nasty and mean government does not care about them.
In fact, my brother-in-law Matthew King works at the Australian National University, or he used to. With his permission, I will tell you his story today. Matthew worked for 26 years as an electrician and a heating ventilation and air conditioning worker in the university sector. He worked for 17 years at ANU in the research school of biology designing and maintaining electrical and refrigeration equipment for use in research in plant science. Plant science is the very science behind Australia's agriculture industry. That's the kind of work tradies at universities do: valuable trades work supporting Australia's premier research university.
That contribution is now at an end, as Matthew was made redundant by ANU as part of the staff downsizing in response to the COVID-triggered financial crisis, and because, as a tradie at a university this Liberal-National government decided that he and his job as a tradie was not worthy of JobKeeper. Matthew King is nearly 62. Undoubtedly he is unlikely to ever work in his trade again. That is shameful. He's not the only tradie who has lost his job because of this government—3,000 jobs in universities have been lost. Universities Australia predict a further 21,000 job losses over the coming years. These are the workers this Liberal-National government have left behind. They're real people with lives. They're real people with families and mortgages, just like everyone else. But somehow they are worth less because they work at a university. How does it come to this? How does this happen? It happens because of a Liberal-National ideological, pathological, unreasonable objection to the whole university sector.
It's people like Matthew King and his family who pay the price. So I pay tribute to Matthew—a true gentleman and family member, as I mentioned. He's represented workers, like himself at ANU, on the council of the university, and he's part of the National Tertiary Education Union. He has been forced to retire by this government and, of course, I wish him and Julie the very best and thank them for all their support, but it shouldn't have been that way. He should have been able to choose when he retired, rather than being forced to retire as part of the ANU package that was forced upon them by a government that devalues the work of all those in the university sector, including the tradies. They're the very tradies that they trump to be their very people and who they say they protect. They're the tradies they say they relied on to win the election. They're the tradies they quite clearly betray because they work in a certain sector.
It's been clear since this government came to power that they are unable and clearly unwilling to understand the sector's real needs. They refuse to listen. The sector has called for funding reform, but mostly the sector just needs to be properly funded. There are significant flow-on effects from continually defunding the university sector, and that issue speaks to the wider Australian economy and the value of our education sector as both an import and export market for Australia's key trading partners. I recently read a piece in The Australianexplaining the critical need to further diversify our economy out of raw mineral extraction, which is extraordinarily important to the economy. We need to look at other areas of diversification.
We cannot snap our fingers and find replacements for the huge markets we have, but we must make an effort. Instead, we have a government that appears blind to the challenge of diversifying Australia's trading economy. Take, for example, our languishing economic partnership and relationship with India. India's share of Australia's merchandise exports has fallen below two per cent. That's the lowest level in 17 years. How would we improve this? Imagine there was a road map. Well, it turns out there is. In 2018 the former Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Peter Varghese completed an impressive 500-page report that found no single market across the next 20 years offered Australia more opportunities than India. That report offered many opportunities in areas such as agriculture, energy, resources, tourism, health care, financial services, infrastructure, science, sport and, critically, education. The Prime Minister announced in principle support for Varghese's recommendations. Two years later the government has delivered remarkably little and has failed the industry Varghese identified as the cornerstone of the future Indian-Australian economic relationship—higher education. Hawke and Howard, as prime ministers of this country, fought for the development of export industries, such as iron ore and LNG, this government has gone out of its way to cut down the higher education industry that could underpin a game-changing relationship with India. Blocking Australian workers at universities from accessing JobKeeper and failing to help international students trapped in Australia during the pandemic will reverberate for years to come. If we don't fix this now, it's not clear if this government will ever be serious about building stronger economic relationships with India and the nations of South-East Asia, particularly Indonesia and Vietnam.
In every recent discussion about higher education it's clear that students are always the most vulnerable and most impacted by this government. No matter what the issue, they are the last to be consulted and considered. The sector is due to face an overall cut in funding of over almost $1 billion a year, dropping funding per student by nearly six per cent. We're $1 trillion in debt—that's a million million dollars—and you also cut funding to the university sector of $1 billion a year.
Under the reforms of this government, while some students may pay less many will pay more. Crucially, every single student will receive less government funding to aid in their education that will be of benefit to the nation. So this cut to the place of every single student could be added to the legacy of this Liberal government's $2.2 billion cuts already made to university funding on top of the $16 billion of projected revenue drop due to the loss of international students because of COVID restrictions. This is an unacceptable situation. It doesn't bode well for the future of higher education in this country. It doesn't bode well for the future of students that wish to study at universities. It certainly doesn't bode well for the future of research and science in this country. Universities are under significant pressure already from a range of factors and the government now adds to this with their retrograde steps.
The recent packages put forward by the government have some of the largest structural changes in core funding for university research in 20 years, but there is no plan by the government to cover base research costs. It's a difficult situation for unis where, if they're successful in attaining external research grant funding, which the government wants and which we all want, they must cover the financial gap in delivering that research. This gap is widely known and understood as part of the funding system and has been acknowledged for many years as a significant problem, but under measures by this government it is still the case that, the more successful a university is in gaining these, the greater the financial burden is in completing the associated research. One might think there might be less research done if universities are unable to pay for the maintenance that people like Matthew King used to do, in plant science at ANU, to repair all the scientific based fridges and air conditioning systems that keep experiments going, to help an agriculture industry that, quite frankly, couldn't have got going in this country without science, and couldn't have kept going. If we think about the work that was done in Western Australia to keep sheep alive, combatted against the Denmark wasting disease of the thirties, without the work of the University of Western Australia, agriculture in Western Australia might not exist. It's very real. It's a very well problem.
Mr WILKIE (Clark) (17:47): The Education Legislation Amendment (Up-Front Payments Tuition Protection) Bill 2020 is all well and good, but the substantive matter remains that the tertiary sector is genuinely in dire straits, and the government's latest changes are going to make things a whole lot worse. To be fair to the government, the budget did include a billion dollars for research funding. But, to be honest, this is going to be a one-off sugar hit, and it will do little to offset the $7.2 billion in research funding that will be lost as a direct as a result of the much reduced international student income.
The budget failed to address the dramatic effect of the pandemic on universities, which, according to the NTEU's estimates, is causing the loss of 12,000 jobs in the sector and $3 billion in revenue. In that context, it beggars belief that JobSeeker was not extended to the tertiary sector—just as it beggars belief that it wasn't extended to other sectors such as local government. Now the tertiary sector has got to deal with the government's dreadful changes in the Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020, which will decrease funding in real terms to the tertiary sector by another billion dollars a year. I would associate myself with the comment by the member of Brand. One of the reasons I need to address some of these matters this evening is because of the dreadful decision by the federal government in the previous sitting to gag debate on that bill—a bill that was of nation-changing significance. Many of us were queued up to contribute to the debate. It was very, very disappointing that the government that week gagged debate and disallowed so many of us to make a contribution. It is lamentable that Centre Alliance backed those changes, in particular in the Senate, and I commend my Tasmanian colleague Senator Lambie for fighting the good fight as much as she could in the Senate to block those dreadful changes.
Let's not forget that the government's Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill, now act, effectively reduced the overall government contribution to degrees from 58 per cent to 52 per cent, and raised student contributions from 42 per cent to 48 per cent. And who is it going to impact most? We talk about humanities students and so on, but let's drill down a bit. It's going to affect women the most. The fee restructuring will impact women more greatly than men because the fees that will be increased are for courses that are more commonly studied by women. Indeed, on average, women will have their fees increased by nine per cent in comparison to men. Who else will it impact the most? It's going to affect Indigenous Australians. Because of the disciplines that Indigenous Australians currently study and work in, it's estimated that they will, on average, be paying 19 per cent more than non-Indigenous students.
And of course it's going to impact younger people. Perhaps no-one is more negatively affected by the government's so-called reforms than young people. Let's not forget that youth unemployment at the moment is at a 23-year high of 16 per cent. Many young people will be finishing school in a matter of weeks, after they finish their exams. I notice New South Wales students just started their HSC examinations. When the tertiary landscape is so difficult, what hope is there for those who want to study humanities and hone their critical thinking skills and competencies, at a time when this country needs them the most? These so-called reforms will also have a dreadful effect on regional universities and students, and it will be a significant impact. Characteristically, regional universities offer a greater proportion of courses that will have their funding effectively cut under this bill than their metropolitan counterparts.
The government's position is deeply misguided. Education should be celebrated and reinforced and funded properly. We need to understand that knowledge and education have an inherent value both to the people who enjoy it and to the country as a whole. Let's not forget that, the more educated the people in our community are, the more employable they are, the healthier they are and the happier they are. This country cannot rely indefinitely on our fabulous rural sector and our amazing mineral and other resources. We've ridden on the sheep's back, and on the mining sector—the fact that we are the world's No. 1 coal and iron ore exporter, and I think we're No. 1 or No. 2 for LNG. But we can't rely on that forever. We have to realise that our future lies in being a smarter country, so we should be doing everything we can to make this country smarter.
I have long advocated that the first degree for Australian citizens should be free. We should return to what Gough Whitlam's government introduced in the early 1970s. That was a fabulous reform, and the fact that it was wound back was very disappointing. We should be investing in all areas of education. We should properly fund early childhood education. It's not child care. It's early childhood education, and countries that treat it as such and invest in it as such are rewarded. We should fund our primary schools better, we should fund our high schools better, we should fund our colleges better, we should fund our vocational education and training and TAFEs better and we should fund our universities better.
Can we afford it? Of course we can. And it's not a case of 'you're an independent, you're up there on the crossbench, you don't have to worry about the Treasury'. The fact is that we are a fabulously wealthy country. I think we have the 11th biggest economy, measured by GDP. We're the second wealthiest, second only to the Swiss, when it comes to our median wealth per adult. I'll say that again, because I don't know that a lot of people, including in this place, understand that. As measured by median wealth per adult, we are the second-richest people on the planet. How is it that at a time when the government is growing our federal government debt to a trillion-plus dollars, taking debt to that level to get through the pandemic—with my full support, I would add; we need to be spending that sort of money—it is not addressing fundamental issues like properly funding education in this country? I think it is lamentable.
We had a budget the other week. Sure, it was a business budget and, sure, it was fabulous for middle-earners who've got a job to get a tax cut. But what a missed opportunity it was to fix so many of the enduring problems in this country. What a missed opportunity to solve our housing crisis, what a missed opportunity to lift government pensions and payments up to a level that people can live on with dignity, what a missed opportunity for the Treasurer to say, 'Okay, we can't give you an exact figure for unemployment benefits after Christmas, because we don't know what the economy will look like, but we make an in-principle, ironclad promise that unemployment benefits won't fall below the poverty line and certainly won't be reduced from the current JobSeeker rate.' What a missed opportunity it was to fund our public health system to provide universal free health care for every Australian; to restore our public health system to what it once was: the genuine envy of the world. What a missed opportunity it was to properly fund education at every level. In that budget so many opportunities to make this a fairer country were missed. We cannot build our future on jobs and growth and tax cuts for big business. Sure, we need to do those things, but we also need to fund everything else that this country needs, and there is no better time than right now when there is a justifiable preparedness to grow our debt to such high levels.
The bill we are discussing here tonight is all well and good, but really it's just a bit of theatre when you think of the context, the real issue here, and that is the desperate need to properly fund the tertiary sector. It's vitally important to this country. It's vitally important that we understand that education, knowledge and training have an inherent value. Education does make the community more employable; it does make the community healthier and happier. It will make this country more prosperous. Maybe we can go from being the second-wealthiest people on the planet to being the wealthiest people on the planet. We certainly won't ever be the wealthiest people on the planet if we continue to rely on our agricultural production and our mines. It's not a case of chopping it down and digging it up; it's a case of getting everyone into the classroom and making them smarter, and realising the potential that this country genuinely has.
The bill before us tonight does have my support, but I condemn the government's position on tertiary education overall. I've condemned it for a long time and I'll continue to condemn it until the government changes policy and turns this country around.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (17:58): I speak in support of the amendment moved by the member for Sydney in relation to this legislation. This legislation is quite fine in itself. The operations of the Tuition Protection Service are, of course, funded by education providers through a levy. It's interesting to note that from 2012-13 to 2018-19 the Tuition Protection Service responded to 62 closures—62 providers of tertiary assistance that closed in that period. Obviously, the Tuition Protection Service then impacted to the benefit of 9,215 students. So a levy is necessary.
The bill before the chamber, the Education Legislation Amendment (Up-front Payments Tuition Protection) Bill 2020, comes as a result of advocacy by the member for Sydney and with the support of a number of key stakeholders, including the Independent Tertiary Education Council of Australia, Independent Higher Education Australia and the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, who've supported the concept of universal coverage. So the legislation has some key backers as well.
We're pleased the government has listened to our entreaties. It's taken them a long time to do it, but this particular legislation expands Australia's Tuition Protection Service to make sure that domestic higher education students are covered. It makes sure that those people who pay their study costs upfront are covered by the Tuition Protection Service. It makes sure that, if something happens to their provider, new arrangements are set in place and they can complete their study at a similar educational provider. So this legislation has worthy benefits. It is in the best interests of all domestic fee-paying students that we have universal coverage here.
But it is the amendments that I really want to talk about. I sometimes think that, in Australia—unlike in other countries, where the division between the political parties is often on the basis of, say, race, religion or culture—the division between political parties has often been of an industrial nature. Labor has been often seen as the party of the worker, because our background is as the party of the trade union movement, and that's where we come from. Those opposite have had their various iterations, whether as the United Australia Party, back in the days before World War II, or the Nationals party, or the Liberal Party, or the Protectionist Party, or whatever they used to call themselves in the prelude before the Liberals, or even the Liberal National Party of Queensland—they've called themselves many things. We've called ourselves the same thing since about 1892. That division has been on industrial relations.
But when I see the government's attitude to higher education, I start to think that the real division in Australia is not just about industrial relations; it's on attitudes to higher education. It's as if kids from working-class backgrounds—like me, for example, and others on this side of the chamber—are to be denied the avenue for their aspiration to go to university.
I come from a pretty working-class background. My dad was a cleaner in the meatworks and my mum was a shop assistant. Neither of my parents went to high school, nor did their parents go to high school, nor did their parents go to high school. So it was a pretty big thing, going to high school. And the idea of me going to university and doing a law degree and an arts degree at the University of Queensland was a pretty remarkable thing in my family's life. My two younger brothers went on to university. One's a successful physiotherapist with a very big practice west of Brisbane, and the other got a doctorate of education and has been the school principal for many of the biggest high schools in South-East Queensland and is now in head office. But, without a Labor government and the opportunities a Labor government provided, those higher education opportunities wouldn't have been there.
Now, when I read legislation like the previous legislation, the policy of the current government on higher education, with the cuts that they've inflicted, with the idea that somehow higher education is not for people who come from my background, I'm in despair, because that's not the Australia that I believe we should have. The Australia that I believe in is an Australia for all Australians, where there is social justice, equality of opportunity and a fair go for every Australian kid, whether they live in Boonah, Kingaroy, Ipswich, Townsville, Cairns or wherever—it doesn't matter. That's why I reckon that every young person should have the aspiration and, if they've got the skill and talent and ability and they're prepared to work hard, they should have the opportunity to go to a TAFE or a university.
When I look at the current government's policies in this space, I see that what they're doing seems to be motivated by ideology. There's a class aspect in their attitude to higher education, which I simply reject and think is just wrong. I remember the last government, led by John Howard, where Work Choices was their industrial relations obsession, and I referred to industrial relations earlier. What this government did under John Howard was to try to inflict on the higher education sector the idea that, if a university didn't sign up to their workplace agreements—which, in fact, brought in Work Choices—that particular university would have its funding cut. It took the election of a Labor government to overturn that. And I see in the policy of this government the same sort of thinking, the same mentality. Law, the arts, humanities and certain degrees are not valued.
Ministers in this government, including the Prime Minister, are very happy to go to a university research centre—and I commend the fact that in the budget they put a bit more money into funding for research; that's a good thing, but they don't back it up in what they do. They forget that the university sector is one of the biggest sectors and the biggest export industries in the country. It's the fourth-biggest, after gas, coal and iron ore. But in some states it's even more important. For example, I read a report by Deloitte—I think it's Aaron Hill who runs Deloitte in South Australia; I had a meeting with him a couple of years ago—which showed that, in South Australia, the biggest industry after the mining sector was in fact the higher education sector. But that's the case even in my home state and your home state, Deputy Speaker Wallace, of Queensland, where we've got lots of iron ore and gas and coal. We export all of it; the resources sector underpins the Queensland economy. When I look at the Liberals' attitude on this issue, it's almost as if they forget that, in a country of 25.5 million, there are 1.6 million people who attend our universities. Over a million Australians attend higher education at university, and they study all manner of things, from science to physiotherapy to the arts. All forms of education, I think, are beneficial for the individual. You never know what you could do with that degree, and what you learn can be useful for your life skills, your vocational future and your financial security.
But I look at what the government is doing, making students pay much more for their degrees, and I think about how poor we will become as a country and how sad it will be for working-class boys and girls who aspire to better things. Jacking up the prices means locking out students. If my two younger brothers and I had gone to our parents and said we were going to go to university and study the courses we did, at these sorts of costs, I'm not sure how my mum and my dad would have reacted. We were from a working-class background and, with the substance abuse and the gambling and alcohol issues that my father suffered from, we were pretty poor, even by Australian standards. The idea that we could go to university was just amazing.
These things that the government is doing are blocking kids from even thinking about going to university. They're putting barriers in place. We had a review by Bradley some time ago, the Review of Australian higher education, which said that we wanted our universities to achieve the Bradley target of getting kids from lower socioeconomic backgrounds into university. I love it when I go to universities, like the University of Southern Queensland in my electorate, in Ipswich and Springfield—it also has a campus up in Toowoomba—and I see students from poor backgrounds, from tough backgrounds, getting an opportunity to go to university. When I speak to people like the vice-chancellor Geraldine Mackenzie and I see kids from the country areas of my electorate, and yours, Member for Wright, getting an opportunity to go to university, I think: this is a great country. Don't put the barriers in place. Don't jack up the fees. Don't cut the funding. Make it easier to go to university. Don't to what this government is doing. This government is making so many students pay more for their degrees, locking people out altogether and putting financial barriers in place.
About one in three young people are unemployed. We've just had Anti-Poverty Week. I can hardly say we celebrated it, but we talked about it. We talked about it locally, amongst the social welfare groups and organisations in my area. One in three young people are unemployed and locked out, and there are others who are underemployed. I don't want to see the figures that show in my area about 6½ thousand people on what we used to call unemployment benefits left behind. We've got 160,000 Australians expected to lose their jobs between now and Christmas, and areas like mine are pretty hard hit. I've said that, whether it's the Food Barn at Ipswich, Cityhope Church, Tivoli Miracle Centre or the Vedanta Centre at Springfield, they're all explaining to me big increases in activity and people going to their organisations, seeking more food and more assistance with household supplies. I don't want to see that in my community. I don't want to see those young people locked out of their dream to get a good job. And the university sector and tertiary education are really important to getting that good job.
When 40 per cent of the students in university are going to have their fees increased to $14½ thousand a year—double the cost for thousands; that's what the government's doing—it means that people studying humanities, commerce, law and communications will all pay so much more. Cutting $1 billion from the university sector is simply a retrograde step. How can that increase productivity? How can it increase and improve people's financial security? It can't. This is also about 14,000 jobs in the university sector. There are 260,000 people who work in the university sector, and they are not just academics. They are from all different backgrounds: maintenance crew, financial controllers, accountants, clerical workers, cleaners—a whole bunch of different professions and vocations. Fourteen thousand of those 260,000 live in regional communities, and the impact of those cuts—the impact of the loss of jobs in that sector—is immense.
The fact that this government has picked out certain sectors and decided to exclude them from JobKeeper, whether it's the childcare sector, whether it's, in effect, the arts community, whether it's the university sector or whether it's the local government sector, is really quite astounding and astonishing, and it shows what this government really thinks about the value of those sectors. I don't know what happened at university for so many of those people opposite. I really don't know. But somehow they didn't have a very good experience. Maybe they're reliving their glory days. It's like they want freedom at university but not freedom to get to university. It's like they want to put a bar there. When you're there you can have a good time and you can say whatever you feel like—and over there they think that's the case regardless of the impact on people's feelings or whether it's in the best interests of our community. But we're going to put blockages and barriers in the way of getting there. That's what their attitude seems to be. And that is not in the best interests of our country. It's not in the best interests of our economic development and our GDP. It's not pro jobs and it's not pro justice either.
So this government needs to have a good look at itself. If they want to improve the equality of opportunity in this country, if they want to improve also the educational opportunities for our young people, if they want to make sure that we can recover from this global pandemic, they've got to be pro the higher education sector, remove the barriers and get people into university, because we're never going to compete with the world by lowering our wages. We're going to compete with the world by improving our skills, our talents and our productivity, and that's why you should invest in higher education.
Mr HILL (Bruce) (18:13): I agree with him. What he said! That was good. On the Education Legislation Amendment (Up-front Payments Tuition Protection) Bill 2020 and the Higher Education (Up-front Payments Tuition Protection Levy) Bill 2020, Labor will not oppose the bills. In November last year the shadow minister actually wrote to the minister, asking him to consider exactly these changes. We voiced our concerns 10 months ago regarding the exclusion of domestic upfront fee-paying students from the Tuition Protection Service. We said it'd create a complex situation where different students had different rights and protections. Now, it may have taken the minister nearly 10 months—that's actually pretty quick for this mob—but we're pleased that the government has finally legislated to tie up these loose ends and we welcome the bill's practical effect of creating simpler arrangements for students and processes for decision-making, student placement and loan recrediting. When you look at the budget, this is about as visionary as reform gets for this government: cleaning up some processes and simplifying arrangements.
But, more broadly, while we welcome the tweak to the tuition protection scheme, we do have to consider this bill, as the second reading amendment says, in light of the government's attacks on Australia's higher education system. With regard to the government's broader approach to universities, honestly, they deserve a gold medal for policy stupidity when it comes to the mishandling of universities. As the Morrison recession takes hold, the first recession in this country for 30 years, now is the very worst time to do what the government are doing, sitting by and watching the loss of thousands and thousands of jobs. These are existing jobs in the university sector that the government are sitting by and failing to act to save. They're actively making it harder. Neglect, if they just did nothing in that sense, would be a better option. They're also actively making it harder for Australians to improve their skills and boost their education. Could anyone in this House seriously think of a stupider thing?
Youth unemployment has gone through the roof, rising by more than 90,000 people in the last few months alone. It's no surprise, though, that demand for university courses has nearly doubled. If you can't get a job because there are no jobs in a recession, it makes sense to improve your education. That's a sensible, rational, logical, personal choice, and it's the choice that the country should want people—particularly young people and other people who can't find work—to make. Go and improve your skills and improve your education so that when the economy eventually picks up you're in a better position to add value. It's better for the country. What do the Morrison government do in response? They cut. They cut university funding, they jack up prices and they lock out students.
You can't trust the Liberal Party with universities. It's the eighth year of this government. Year after year, we see yet another attack on universities. Compare their treatment of universities with their neglect of aged care. That neglect of aged care was criminal neglect, sitting by and ignoring the advice and their own responsibilities while people died. The Morrison government did nothing but make announcements. For universities themselves, for people wanting to study and for Australia's economy, it would have been better, though, in this case if the government did sit by and do nothing. Instead, they're actually taking deliberate actions that will drive further job losses and make it harder for kids—especially those from poor families, as the previous speaker so rightly spoke about—to go and get an education.
Education is so critical not just for our economy but for aspiration. The government love to talk about aspiration. Last term, of course, by 'aspiration' they meant trying to ram through tens of billions of dollars of company tax cuts. This term, in the first part of the parliament, 'aspiration' meant the priority on tax cuts for the highest income earners. The government's priority for aspiration was to give everyone sitting in this House a $16,000 tax cut in the hope that some of it might just trickle down to everyone else following their failed, discredited, conservative economic theory.
For me, 'aspiration' means, above all else, making sure that every kid, no matter where they're from, can fulfil their potential in life and get an education without being unreasonably burdened by debt or deterred from study. It was part of my family story, seared into me from as young as I can remember. My mum was from a poor family in Footscray on the other side of Melbourne. Her family couldn't afford the uniforms to send her to a school that did matriculation, year 12. So she could never go to university. She actually got a scholarship from, I think, the Baptists, but they found out she'd been baptised as a Methodist and took the scholarship off her. She was the wrong brand of God. That's how it was back then. So she could not go to university.
It was the most important thing I discovered doorknocking. I doorknocked almost 10,000 houses for 18 months before I was elected to this House. My favourite question to ask people at the door was: what's most important to you? It was open ended, not yes or no. As people would know, it should be an open ended question, never yes or no. It got them talking and thinking about what matters. Overwhelmingly, the No. 1 answer was education. It surprised me at first. It didn't matter who I spoke to—young people wanting to go to TAFE or university, older people at that point worried about the Liberal Party's $100,000 degrees policy and cuts to TAFE and parents worried about their kids. But then I joined the dots and realised above all else at that point I had the highest proportion of migrants of any electorate in this parliament. People come to this country with that laser-like focus on education being the key to a pathway for a better life for their kids. It's a priority that my community continues to place on improving their lot in life.
Recessions such as the Morrison recession are the very time, more than any other time, when you'd think you'd want to encourage and incentivise people to improve their skills, rather than having everyone sitting around and applying for jobs over and over again that don't exist. There are not enough jobs. I heard of a part-time casual job at Chadstone Shopping Centre in Melbourne where they got 700 applications in the first couple of days. That's what a recession looks like. Instead of doing that, you want to encourage people to go and get new skills at TAFE and university. They should be making it easier, but the government's whole agenda continues to be to make it harder.
Everything that's wrong with the government can be seen from their mishandling of universities—the criminal neglect and their failure to save 12,000 or more jobs. We've been urging the government in recent months to finally step in and help universities save these jobs. Since then, more than 12,000 have been lost across the country, and thousands more jobs are predicted to go by the end of the year. Of course, those job losses don't include the thousands more casuals who have just been let go. They don't show up in the figures. We'll never know how many of them there are. I've spoken to people in that situation. As the previous speaker said, the Prime Minister's done absolutely nothing to support or save jobs in our fourth-largest export sector. You can't imagine the government treating any of our other top 20 export sectors—let alone one in the top four, worth $40 billion to the country—in this way. The Prime Minister actively told students to bugger off and go home. What do you think that did to people and our reputation globally?
The government's failure to act to save university jobs, though, exposes the lie at the heart of this government's budget—that it's all about jobs. The Prime Minister—their chief marketing guy over there—has shown no interest in the thousands of university staff losing their livelihoods or the communities that depend on those jobs. The Morrison recession, frankly, will be deeper and longer and harder and harsher and darker for thousands of Australians because of the government's missed opportunities and their failure to act. But they've actively gone out of their way. Universities are in a special category for this government. They're a target. They're something to be targeted. The government have actively gone out of their way to exclude public universities from JobKeeper. Private universities can get JobKeeper. But, for public universities—where the vast majority of Australian kids go—the government changed the rules three times to make sure that none of them could ever qualify for JobKeeper. Academics, tutors, administrative staff, library staff, catering staff, ground staff, cleaners, security—they all have families; they're all trying to make ends meet. But the government thinks anyone who works at a university is a lesser kind of worker than people who work elsewhere. It's disgraceful.
The government's relying on our brilliant universities and researchers to find a vaccine for COVID-19, but those researchers cannot rely on the Prime Minister to save their jobs. The government is relying on them to help drive our recovery. We know that we'll need an extra 3.8 million university qualifications by 2025. But, when it comes to higher ed, the government's priority is always to cut and to make it harder to go to university. The Prime Minister, of course, loves announcements, doesn't he? He loves announcements. He's never happier than when he's at a launch—the marketing guy. But then, of course, usually nothing happens. And the longer he's around, you realise that he starts announcing the same stuff, because stuff actually doesn't happen. We've seen this in education. It's always about the photo op, never about the follow-up. We saw it in the bushfires. After his little Hawaii break, he came back and said he did some stuff. There are still people living in tents. There are still funds with billions of dollars that they haven't spent a dollar from. But he had the marketing opportunity; he had the photo op. Nothing much happens. We saw it in education. They announced in the budget something like 12,000 new places: 'We're going to fix the problem. We're going to have 12,000 new places. How good's that?' Over the last year, they cut thousands of places. It's more spin and marketing. TAFE might be an option, you'd think, in education. They've announced more money for TAFE, but that doesn't address the fact that they cut $3 billion from TAFE. And, on apprenticeships, we've seen what I term a 'blind panic' in the last few months, with the government running towards announcing new apprenticeships. None of that makes up for the fact that there are 140,000 fewer apprentices in this country than there were in 2013, when this government got elected. Two years ago, the Prime Minister was out there. He announced that we were going to have 300,000 extra apprentices. Well, they're still down on that number today. It's just continuous announcements, but nothing actually lands.
The government, though, doesn't like to talk about universities. It's no wonder. Last sitting week, they gagged us from speaking on the last university bill. On Monday, when it came back from the Senate, they gagged us from speaking on the bill. In fact, the Prime Minister's voted more times in this parliament to gag members of the opposition from speaking than he's voted on his own legislation. But the whole agenda is to make it harder for people to go to universities. As Senator Jacqui Lambie said—and she nailed it on this one: 'The government's legislation, their approach, hurts poor kids, telling them, no matter how talented they are, no matter how determined, they should dream a little cheaper.'
It's as though the government's trying to pretend that the recession isn't real, that the Morrison recession isn't actually happening. 'La, la, la. Make it go away. We'll just make some more announcements. We'll rename some things. We'll change Newstart to JobSeeker. That'll help. Then we'll make up something called JobMaker. Then we'll call training stuff JobTrainer. Then we'll have JobKeeper.' They could well call their university policy 'JobCutter' or 'JobKiller' if they were being honest, because that's what it does. Every member of the government's cabinet went to university, but they don't think that our kids deserve the same chance, that Australian kids deserve the same chance.
I will give the government a little tick for this bill in that they actually got support for it, which is an achievement. They actually got some stakeholders in the real world and in here to support a higher education bill. Unlike their last bill—look at the stakeholder response to that. Literally no-one supported it. They couldn't get anyone at the Senate inquiry who said it was a good idea. Expert after expert, university after university lined up to tell them what a profoundly dumb idea and bad, flawed piece of legislation it was. There were, of course, a few universities they bought off with a few pieces of silver at the end, but fundamentally the sector didn't support it.
They won over Senator Hanson by legislating to let university staff say more racist stuff, as part of this bizarre culture war that they're running on campuses to distract from the fact that they actually don't have an education agenda—protection of racist stuff that universities themselves said they didn't actually need and would create a whole bunch of other complications.
They said they wanted students to study job-ready degrees, but the economist responsible for designing the HECS system, Professor Bruce Chapman, said, 'Evidence showed that the changes in course costs were unlikely to change student demand. Instead—who knew, brilliant advice—students make study choices based on interests and their earning potential.' People choose what they want to study.
Even Julie Bishop, the ANU Chancellor and the former Liberal education minister—yes, the former Liberal education minister, the former deputy leader of the party, that loyal deputy to so many leaders over so many years that they had—said:
My concern is that under these new arrangements, there is a greater incentive for universities to take in a higher number of law, commerce and humanities students than there is to take in students in engineering and maths. That appears to be contrary to the government's policy intentions.
That's almost an achievement. In areas where the government wants greater enrolment they're now paying universities less per student. And in areas where the government wants to discourage enrolment—because apparently you shouldn't study history or humanities or anything anymore—they're paying universities more. It is a gold medal achievement in awful legislation.
The original architect said it wouldn't work. A former Liberal education minister said it wouldn't work. The overwhelming majority of the university sector said it wouldn't work. But the government was dead set on it because it helps them cut access to universities.
What the government should be doing in a recession, when thousands of jobs are being lost, is investing in education. In plain English: if you don't have a job you go and study. Study is better than applying for jobs that don't exist. Education is still the best way to skill up Australian workers, to prepare our workforce and lay the foundations for economic recovery. When the choice is between joining the growing dole queue and facing the cuts that're looming—coming down the pipeline at millions of Australians who are going to be pushed into abject poverty under this government, being forced to live again, or try to live again, on $40 a day—surely it's a better choice to enable, to incentivise, to encourage, to let more students go to university. The government should be making it easier to go to university, not harder. They should be acting to save tens of thousands of jobs, not watching them disappear.
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (18:28): Mr Deputy Speaker, as you now well know, Labor will not oppose these bills. As you've heard a number of times, in November last year the shadow minister for education and training wrote to the minister asking him to consider exactly these changes. We've voiced our concerns that exclusion of domestic up-front fee-paying students from the tuition protection scheme would create a complex situation where different students had different rights and protections. It may have taken 10 months, but at last we're there. And we're pleased that the government has come around to legislation to tie up these loose ends.
We welcome the practical effect of the legislation that creates simpler arrangements for students and creates processes for decision-making, student placement and loan re-crediting. More broadly, while we welcome the tuition protection scheme, we do consider this in the light of the government's recent attacks on the Australian higher education system.
I now want to refer again to the amendment moved by the member for Sydney, reminding us what we want to do as a result of this amendment. She said:
… whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that Australia's higher education system is failing our kids, workers and businesses, due to Coalition Government policies that:
(1) slash billions from university funding;
(2) are bad for our economy and labour market; and
(3) impose massive debts on people seeking a higher education".
Last week we had the hideous sight of the government gagging a debate that was around universities and the passage through this chamber. It had the result of imposing huge increased costs on students attending universities, who will now pay more for their degrees. Thousands, literally thousands, will pay more than double. These bills, which were passed last week, will cut billions from the sector while doing absolutely nothing to help young people get into high-priority courses and jobs. As we've heard, every member of the cabinet opposite and most members of this parliament have had the privilege—the absolute privilege—of having a higher education. Not all have. I'm not sure how many haven't, but I dare to say most have—by far the majority have.
I recall when I was at university, I was lucky enough to be at university at a time when tertiary education became free. That was the second year after I started university. I was a beneficiary of the Whitlam innovations, which opened up access to university for so many Australians who would otherwise have not achieved a university outcome.
I contrast that with what we're seeing here. I was brought up here in Narrabundah, just down the road. It was a very working class suburb. I think it's right to say that I was probably the only kid in the street to attend university. There were a couple of blokes over in the back street, and we used to come together to go to university—but there were very few.
Sadly, what we're going to see as a result of this legislation is the aspirations for so many young Australians trampled by this legislation. Others, in this debate, have detailed the abhorrent situation which now exists. They've detailed the costs which have been imposed upon students. It's $14½ thousand for an arts degree per year. I might ask: what does that mean?—through you, Deputy Speaker Wallace, to someone who might be able to explain it to me. Say I intend to attend the University of Melbourne, for example, where the model of that university requires university entrants to do a general degree before a professional degree, such as an arts degree or general science degree. These aspirants to a career, if they are doing their first year of an arts degree next year, will now be required to pay 113 per cent more than if they were attending that university this year. They'll be required to front up with $14½ thousand, and, if they don't have a state sponsored place, that money has got to come from somewhere. Then, on the assumption that they do well and they want to go on to do medicine, they'll pay less for their medical degree per year than they paid for their arts degree when they first enrolled in university. More than 40 per cent of students will have their fees increased, and 67 per cent of that 40 per cent will be required to pay $14½ thousand a year.
Let me ask you something, Madam Deputy Speaker Wicks. If you come from a rural community such as from my electorate of Lingiari—but I could be talking about the whole of the Northern Territory, except Darwin—how will these cuts impact you? I'll just make this observation for a start. At the moment in the Northern Territory the proportion of people aged 25 to 35 with a bachelor's degree or higher is only 15.4 per cent of people who live in regional parts of the Northern Territory and 27.3 per cent in the Darwin area, compared to an Australian total of 35 per cent. So, if you live in a regional area of the Northern Territory, a small town, you are less than half as likely as the average Australian to get a university degree.
Now, how does that gel with these funding proposals? Let's say you've got to travel from Tennant Creek to Adelaide, Melbourne or Darwin to attend university and you don't have rich parents and you don't have a scholarship. If you do a general arts degree and you successfully do it in four years—because it's an honours degree—you will need to have in your back pocket, or you will need a way of getting, $58,000. Madam Deputy Speaker Wicks, that's not a prospect that would attract your support. We're talking about people coming from remote places, rural communities, to attend universities to do the degree that they desire, and maybe they want to be a historian. Maybe they live in Katherine and they don't want to be studying agriculture, as the member at the table talked about; they want to study literature. They've got the prospect of huge costs when they attend university.
Let's talk about regional universities. Smaller universities, like Charles Darwin University, have lost staff. The university has announced that 100 jobs and 20 courses are going, mostly in the TAFE sector. These course and job cuts are a result of a direct lack of funding for regional universities—628 students at 28 apprentices will be affected directly. These educational spaces at Charles Darwin University play an important role in individual communities, and we should not be restricting university opportunities for higher education students—or, in the case of TAFE students, apprentices—who want to learn.
And they shouldn't have to travel. As a result of these changes, for some courses, apprentices will have to travel interstate to get the qualifications they require out of their apprenticeship. Many young people who live in regional areas, and this is possibly reflected in the data I've just given you, are keen to stay near home and family or are unable to afford to move away to study, and they benefit greatly from regional TAFEs. But these are underfunded. They provide employment for locals and inject money into the local economy, but the government has made it really hard—a lot harder—for regional universities, like Charles Darwin University, to be able to provide either the vocational courses through TAFE or the higher education opportunities for Territory students. They've lost academics, tutors, admin staff, library staff, catering staff, ground staff and cleaners.
The then acting education minister for the Northern Territory, Eva Lawler, said that university cuts were forcing universities into submission. She said:
The federal government's cuts to university funding have hit regional universities such as CDU hard.
I cannot imagine why anyone in the government would think cutting investment in universities is a good idea, why increasing the cost of university places is a good idea, or even wanting to do as they've done: emphasise the importance of STEM projects, while at the same time universities receive 30 per cent less to teach medical scientists, 17 per cent less to teach maths student and 16 per cent less to teach engineers. How does this gel? You've jacked up the prices for humanities and arts students—the people who want to do literature or communications. You've said you want to get STEM students through the university, but you've cut expenditure. You've cut your investment in those very courses. The absurdity of that proposition is plain for everyone. The approach of this government to universities is disgraceful and it is inhibiting and limiting the opportunities for every Australian.
Mrs PHILLIPS (Gilmore) (18:43): I rise today to support the Education Legislation Amendment (Up-front Payments Tuition Protection) Bill 2020 and the Higher Education (Up-front Payments Tuition Protection Levy) Bill 2020. In doing so, I stand up and support people in my electorate who want to go to their local satellite university campuses: in Nowra, the Shoalhaven campus; and also at Bateman's Bay. These are vital satellite campuses on our New South Wales South Coast. Of course we are talking about students, but we also need to acknowledge the entire university community that is so important to our local regional country communities. I am talking, obviously, about our students, our academics, our tutors, our administrative staff, our library staff, our hospitality staff, our ground staff and our security staff. You can see that there are so many people involved that are so important to our wider community.
In November last year the shadow minister for education and training wrote to the minister asking him to consider exactly these changes. Of course, Labor had voiced our concerns that the exclusion of domestic up-front fee paying students from the Tuition Protection Scheme would create a complex situation where different students have different rights and protections. It may have taken nearly 10 months, but I'm certainly pleased that the government has come around to legislating to tie up these loose ends. I certainly welcome the practical effect of the legislation to create simpler arrangements for students and processes for decision-making, student placement and loan recrediting.
While I welcome this tweak to the Tuition Protection Scheme we must consider this in the light of the Morrison government's attacks on Australia's higher education system. Many of these attacks will really hurt people in my electorate. It will also hurt the satellite campuses and the communities that the satellite campuses are part of. In my electorate, we will see the fees for arts courses more than double. Arts courses are very popular in my country satellite campuses. For our popular commerce courses, fees will go up by nearly one-third. And psychology degrees will cost $3,000 to $4,000 more for a three- to four-year degree. I'll talk more about that in a moment in the context of the bushfires and the many natural disasters that have hit my electorate.
If we look at the seat of Gilmore on the New South Wales South Coast, we have been severely impacted by, drought and then by the summer bushfires that went for many months. Amongst that, we also had three disaster-declared floods. That is massive. We went from drought to bushfires to disaster-declared floods, and then of course we had coronavirus on top of that. All of these events have had a massive impact on people in my electorate. While people are talking about coronavirus—and we absolutely have to—we've got thousands of people still going through bushfire recovery. These are the people that go to our local satellite university campuses. They are families that are impacted. It is a really big thing in my electorate.
As I said before, we've got the Shoalhaven campus and the Batemans Bay campus. The bushfires had a massive impact on those campuses. I probably don't need to explain that to everyone; we saw it on the national and international news. Bushfires completely surrounded Batemans Bay. It was an immensely scary time for people there, and I know that the staff at the Batemans Bay campus of the University of Wollongong did an absolutely amazing job of helping their students. Many of the staff there were themselves impacted by the bushfires, but what they did to help students and to help people get through was simply amazing. They took in and fed community members. They ensured that people had a place to rest and sleep. They coordinated logistics with staff and students. We've also got to remember that these were fires that went back to November of last year, where students were impacted. Staff were working around the clock trying to help students through that terrible time.
I want to thank the campus manager at Batemans Bay, Jamie, and Nicola, the learning development lecturer and admin. They were both recently recognised in the annual Vice-Chancellor's Awards at the University of Wollongong—and quite rightly so, given the support they gave to students, staff and people in the community. I also want to thank Professor Alison Jones, the University of Wollongong's Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Health and Communities). Professor Alison Jones organised for groceries to be delivered to the Batemans Bay campus in the days after the fires, when staff were struggling to feed all the people they had taken in. They gave things like toiletries, groceries and batteries to students and to people in the community who either couldn't get home or had lost absolutely everything. I think it brings home how important our satellite campuses are in country areas not only for our students—to help them get ahead, to get a higher education—but also for our local community.
People in my area have gone through so many tough times. I can't emphasise that enough. It's been absolutely horrific. We need a higher education system that makes it easier for students to go to university, not more difficult, which this government is doing. We've had the cruellest year, particularly for our year 12 students that are sitting their HSC exams this week. It has just been absolutely horrific for them. I really want to wish them well. I particularly want to thank our teachers and school staff, who also interact with our university and TAFE system and are a solid part of our community.
In recent months I met with a number of students in my electorate and, with the Minister for Education, visited a fire impacted school. They were lucky that the whole school didn't burn down, but they were very, very impacted. Many of those senior students told me how the bushfires impacted them and how it impacted their families. Some of them lost their family homes. But what stuck in my mind was when students told me that they were really worried about their parents. They were worried about their parents because they'd lost their businesses during the bushfires. So this is really had an impact on our students. I guess my point is: Why would we want to make it harder for our students in country areas to go to university? Why would we want to do that? It just does not make sense. We should be making it easier for our young people and mature age people to go to university. Our young people and mature age workers will feel the brunt of the government's changes, and it's just not right.
I am very sad to say that, tragically in my electorate recently, we have lost many young lives to suicide. It's absolutely tragic and harrowing. But my community is banding together, determined to do absolutely everything possible to address this. It's not isolated to one particular area, but it does emphasise the quite complex mental health issues surrounding natural disasters. It highlights the issue of natural disasters in our country areas, but it also emphasises that we need to support our young people and our mature age people so they do have avenues to go to university. My concern with the changes that the government has implemented is that it will make it harder for people. It is not right to be making it harder for people to go to university.
If you look at my area, we have traditionally high youth unemployment and we have one of the lowest workforce participation rates in Australia. My electorate has quite a low income levels, of around $500 a week. That's quite low. So, just like the member for Lingiari was saying, young kids and mature age workers wanting to retrain need a local university campus so that they can retrain. It is absolutely vital for them. They can't hop on a bus. They can't hop on a train. There is no public transport for them. If they don't have a car and if they are on $40 a day, how do they do that? How do they travel an hour or two hours to get to the next campus, in Wollongong? We should be encouraging and helping more people, not fewer, to go to TAFE and university. If we want to help our young people and our mature age people, it is absolutely critical that we give them every opportunity we can to go to TAFE or to go to university.
In my electorate, we have a high Indigenous population. And I am really proud to say that our university campuses have wonderful programs and we have quite a high take-up of arts courses by Indigenous students. I think that is absolutely wonderful. My fear here is that these changes will hurt our Indigenous student population in particular, as well as women who are retraining. They are really going to hurt people. From our local university and TAFE campuses we've heard wonderful success stories of mature age students who have done arts courses and gone on to do other things as well, and who have got jobs. How can we say that we don't value that? We shouldn't be putting fees up like this; we should be encouraging more people to do arts courses to gain employment, create businesses and create employment. The reality is that higher fees for our arts and humanities subjects will unfairly disadvantage people, particularly women and our First Nations people.
Deputy Speaker, we're meant to be closing the gap, but this government's approach is just making it that much harder for people. It's really sad. It is absolutely not right. In Gilmore our young people are just scraping through to get to university. They've gone through the bushfires and they're going through coronavirus. Many have lost their part-time jobs. Many have lost their homes. Many are still living in still temporary accommodation while doing their HSC. This government is making it harder for them to go to university. That's not right; that's wrong. Arts course fees will more than double and commerce course fees will be hiked by a third. Psychology courses will be $3,000 to $4,000 dearer at a time when we need more people working in health. With what our whole country has gone through with coronavirus and the bushfires, we need more workers in psychology to help people through the recovery.
Both Shoalhaven and Batemans Bay campuses have been heavily impacted by the bushfires, but they are pivotal for local spending and local jobs. I see the staff who work in those satellite campuses everywhere in my community. They're volunteers with the local RFS; they have kids at the local school. We have to support our arts students, our humanities students. We have to support our local satellite campuses. The changes that the government has implemented will mean less funding for our satellite campuses. That is not what we need. We need more funding and more support for our satellite campuses. We've already seen the government exclude universities from JobKeeper. We've already heard the government say, 'We've got a hiring credit incentive but we're going to exclude people over the age of 35.' In my community the number of age pensioners is one of the highest in Australia. We have a high take-up of courses by mature age students. We should not be hurting those people.
Deputy Speaker, I was a TAFE teacher and a university tutor for a long time before I came to this place. I'm proud of that. But what I've seen happen to TAFE and university is very, very sad. We need to make sure that our TAFE and university sectors are funded properly. We need to make sure that there are pathways for our young people and our older people go through from school to TAFE and university at any stage of life, for whatever reason. We need to make sure that if people need to retrain they can do that. We need to make sure that our unis are funded properly—and that fees aren't hiked, as the government is doing—so we can encourage more people to go to university so that they can get ahead in life.
Mr DICK (Oxley) (18:58): I rise to speak on the Education Legislation Amendment (Up-front Payments Tuition Protection) Bill 2020. I'm pleased to follow the member for Gilmore. I commend her for her lifelong commitment to higher and vocational education, as I do many members on this side of the chamber. I acknowledge the strong commitment of the member for Kingston, the member for Moreton and the member for Makin not only to early education but to education throughout life.
Labor support the changes in the bill tonight, which, as we've heard from previous speakers, are as a result of the diligence and hard work of the member for Sydney and shadow minister for education in writing to the minister last year to ask for fairness and for the rights of our students to be protected in regard to university fees. Sadly, as we've heard in tonight's debate, it has taken around 10 months to legislate on what are really loose ends for our university students.
Australian universities have suffered an absolutely horrific year at the hands of this government. I want to talk about that a little tonight, and I'm delighted that the member for Sydney has moved a second reading amendment to this legislation as it enables me to put on the record very clearly the impacts that this government has had on the higher education system and the university sector, and how those are impacting our economy and the labour market. Obviously, the end result is not only an economic question for our nation; there's an economic question as to the massive debts on people seeking a higher education.
Not one speaker from the government, nor, indeed, the minister, has outlined why these changes are necessary or required. This government has some kind of ideological disposition against the university sector; I know, from listening to the debates right across the country. We're seeing government member after government member obsessed about what's happening not only with the content at universities but what's being taught at universities and what's allowed on university campuses. For a government and a party that alleges that they are interested in free speech, they've a funny way of demonstrating it when it comes to what goes on at universities in this country. You only need to pick up a paper or turn on the television and you'll see one government backbencher from the extreme right wing of the Liberal Party talking about their obsession with what's being taught at university and the sorts of people that are going to university.
Honestly, in my community, in my electorate, in the south-west of Brisbane and Ipswich, people are worried about education. They're worried about whether they can afford the cost of education: will their children be able to afford an education?
As we've seen time and time again, we're seeing the government standing sort of idly in front of this pandemic, and as a result of this pandemic, while one of the industries which is most critical to our economy has seen literally thousands of workers lose their jobs, regional campuses close, whole university departments shut down and funding dwindle down to nothing. There's no other industry of this size that has been treated with the absolute neglect and, I believe, contempt that the university sector has, and no other industry that employs 260,000 Australians has been thrown under a bus in the way this sector has by the Morrison government.
Australian universities are world-class institutions that represent our fourth-largest export industry, placing Australia and studying in our universities on the international stage and setting a standard for higher education. Yet the Prime Minister and members of the government seem to have no interest in preventing the job cuts and the harm to the community and the ability to deliver quality higher education that these will bring.
The impact of this on regional universities is going to be absolutely devastating. Those universities support around 14,000 jobs in regional Australia. Regional universities educate around 115,000 students each year, and that's around nine per cent of enrolments at Australian public universities. If those numbers don't speak for themselves, this means hundreds of jobs, and areas of Australia that have already suffered due to resource management and lack of tourism are going to suffer even more.
I've had countless conversations and street corner meetings with community groups, churches, welfare organisations and international students—which I'll touch on a little bit in my remarks tonight regarding the second reading amendment—about these issues. Time and time again, our not-for-profit groups and churches are filling the gaps that the government has allowed people to slip through. They help our stranded international students who are stuck in Australia with no jobs and no way to get home.
This is an important sector in our economy in Queensland. There are students who saw Australia with purpose and future, who wanted a better life and education for themselves, whose parents in some cases saved for years to be able to help send them here, only to be stuck with a government that doesn't want to acknowledge or support them—basically a government that's happy to leave them behind. In 2019 there were 120,000 international students in Brisbane. Most of our universities are now seeing between 30 per cent and 40 per cent of their student base consist of full-fee-paying international students. International students in 2019-20 contributed $32 billion to the Australian economy. I've stood in this House and spoken about this before, and I'll say it again: why does this government want to lose them? I know from talking to brilliant organisations like Riverlife Church, who have filled the gap, who have been advocating and working hard, as the member for Moreton knows through our strong partnerships that he and I have with the communities from the subcontinent, from our ethnic and migrant communities, that these students have been abandoned by the government.
Now, I could understand if this were an ideological thing, but this should be key economics 101. The more support that we can give these students, the greater our economic survival and rebuilding of our economy, particularly in the southern suburbs of Brisbane. As I said, they also contribute over $2.1 billion and 14,000 full-time jobs to the national economy. So, if the minister is listening—and his office, I'm sure, is tuned in to this—and the Prime Minister can do something, we are re-issuing the call to arms to help rebuild through our international students and to support those students that are here.
The government's just passed its job-ready graduates legislation, and this cuts $1 billion a year from our universities, as has been outlined tonight, making it even more expensive for people to get an education at a time where one in three young people are looking for a job or more hours for work. Prime Minister Scott Morrison's cuts will mean 10,000 fewer fully funded university places next year, according to analysis from the ANU from one of Australia's leading higher education experts. Then there's double the number of year 12s who want to go to university next year, and the minister has said that from next year:
Students will have a choice.
Their degree will be cheaper if they choose to study in areas where there is expected growth in job opportunities.
This is advocating for freedom of education only if you study maths or science, not the humanities or half the degrees that most people making up the 46th Parliament have obtained. It's good enough for the members of parliament, it's good enough for cabinet but it's not good enough for the kids in my electorate.
This reform is a complete mess. What it's going to mean for our economy is that, in five to 10 years time, when all the graduates and all those looking for work are skewed to one set of industries, they can't get work, because it's too competitive. Better yet, they can't even get to university, because it's expensive.
I congratulate the university leaders who are standing firm against the Prime Minister and his plan to make it harder and more expensive for Australians to go to university. I acknowledge the University of Southern Queensland campus located in Springfield, just over the border in the member for Blair's electorate. He spoke passionately tonight about the regional universities, particularly in Queensland. And this is not an argument about the large sandstone universities and some ideological issue; this is a practical economic outcome for places like the University of Southern Queensland and the regional impacts that this has in places like Toowoomba. We have a by-election coming up in the seat of Groom, and this is a perfect example where the government can actually deliver for the community.
I know some university leaders have allowed themselves to be bullied by the government into accepting cuts and fee hikes, and young people and university staff have every right to feel betrayed. Particularly for the year 12 students that are finishing this year, it's been a horrific year, and these changes have just made it worse. You wouldn't find many school principals who'd support government cuts to their school budgets or support policies that disadvantage their kids, so why should families with students graduating be in fear? In the face of a tax from the Liberal government, we are asking the university sector to stand strong for our young people and their parents. Parents know that getting a great education is a ticket to a great job and a lifetime of opportunity for their kids.
Labor believe education and jobs go hand in hand and, by locking young Australians out of university, the Prime Minister is locking them out of jobs. We want every Australian to get a great education no matter where they live and to have the training they need to get a job, to get ahead and to stay ahead. That's obviously whether it's at university or TAFE. I've said this before in this House: every member of the Prime Minister's cabinet has benefited from Australia's world-class university system. In my opinion, they now want to pull up the ladder when young Australians need to access training and education the most. Many of these cabinet members wouldn't have paid a cent for their degrees. On average, under this legislation, 40 per cent of students will have their fees increased to $14,500 per year. Students should have the choice to study whatever they wish and not be penalised down the track when they have to repay that debt.
With job prospects so weak right now, the choice for many people will be between waiting in the Centrelink queue and getting an education. Year 12 students, as I've said, have persevered through incredible uncertainty this year, and I pay tribute to those students, many on their last day of school this week, particularly in my electorate, where I've already attended some graduation ceremonies and award nights—mind you, virtually. It is a credit to those amazing teachers. I'm very proud, in my own family, that my sister, Susan, is an educator with around 30 years experience. She teaches in the southern suburbs of Brisbane in the mighty Moreton electorate. There is no place she would rather be than with her year 4 class, transforming lives.
I understand the power of education and the transformation that it has made through my family. My parents were unable to go to university. My mother was lucky to finish form 6, as it was, in Brisbane in 1947. There were three options, she always said—nurse, teacher or governess. They were the three occupations. There was a girl who graduated in her form 6 class who went on to become the first woman to graduate from the University of Queensland with a Bachelor of Commerce.
When you put that in perspective with what we're dealing with today Australia has come a long way for the access, particularly for women, to higher education. These changes will have a direct impact on, particularly, women and workforce participation. Forty per cent of students will have their fees increased, as I said. The vast bulk—67 per cent—will be to around $14,500. Around 10 per cent will see their fees more than double, and more than 20 per cent will see their fees go up by nearly one-third. Around 10 per cent will see their fees go up by around 16.8 per cent.
We are simply asking the government to do the right thing by our kids. No Australian should miss out on the job they want and the education they need. For months, Labor has been urging the federal government to act, to help universities to save jobs and, for months, the Prime Minister has failed to do so. So, once again, I'm using my time in this parliament to speak out on behalf of those parents who want a decent education for their kids and on behalf of those people who work in and around the university sector. In my electorate, that means kids trying to get into university in Brisbane or trying to get into the University of Southern Queensland in the Springfield area. Those universities do amazing work. But they not being supported by this government. They are not being invested in by this government. Labor will always stand up for higher education in this country and, tonight, I'm calling on the federal government to do the same.
Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (19:14): The Education Legislation Amendment (Up-front Payments Tuition Protection) Bill 2020 before us tonight is largely uncontroversial and Labor will be supporting it. So my remarks tonight will be largely directed towards the second reading amendment, which goes to the job-ready graduates bill. That bill passed the parliament with the government using the guillotine twice. I was on the speaking list when it first came before the House and was unceremoniously cut off. Again, when it came back for debate in the House, I was on the list but was unable to have an opportunity to speak. Having spent six years working at the Australian National University—finishing up as a professor there—there were contributions I wanted to make on the job-ready graduates bill but the government wasn't willing to hear them.
The fact is at a time when Australia is facing its first recession in a generation the smart play would be to encourage more young Australians to go to university. In the early 1990s when the recession hit many young people extended their time at school. The year 12 completion rate soared, as people recognised if you don't have a chance to be earning then you should be learning. We should be sending a message to those year 12s sitting their exams today—and I reach out to them, brave students one and all who've suffered through the annus horribilis that has been 2020. We should be saying to those young men and women: if you've got the smarts to go to university there'll be a place there waiting for you. We should do that because attending university boosts the productivity of graduates.
My own research suggests that every year of university boosts earnings by something in the order of 10 per cent, suggesting that the returns to a university degree over three years, a bachelor's degree, are at least 30 per cent. We should be doing it because attending university boosts the productivity of co-workers. You're not just more productive, the people working alongside you are more productive. There are other spillover benefits: university graduates are less likely to commit crime, less likely to be on welfare, more likely to live longer. The benefits of university even extend to civic engagement, with university attendees being more likely to play an active role in their communities and in the democratic process. Yet that's not what we're seeing from the government. Despite the fact that every single member of the Morrison government's cabinet went to university, they're making it harder for young Australians to do the same. They're giving the opposite advice to disadvantaged young Australians than they'd give to their own kids. To disadvantaged young Australians they're saying: 'You'll be right. Don't bother going to uni.' Then they scurry on home and tell their own kids: 'Study hard. Go to university if you can.' It's that hypocrisy that is at the very heart of what the government is doing.
There is no evidence that people studying humanities have worse outcomes. People with humanities degrees have the same employment rates as science or maths graduates. To the extent that the government is relying on modelling, it's short-term modelling based on the Graduate Destination Survey, which is a snapshot of labour market outcomes at the time of graduation.
Research by Harvard's David Deming suggests that if you look over a career you see a very different picture. Students who are trained for narrow skills do well in the immediate years, in their 20s, but tend to have worse outcomes in their 40s, 50s and 60s when the labour market has shifted and their skills have become redundant. Those who adopt broader skills early on are able to adapt as the labour market changes. It's a point that Joshua Gans and I made in 'Innovation + Equality', talking about Australia having a future that is more Star Trek than Terminator.
It is vital that we ensure that young Australians can study the course that most suits them. As education expert Andrew Norton has said:
Students should have the choice to study whatever they wish, and not be penalised down the track when they have to repay the debt.
We know though, that as a result of the government's job-ready graduates program, that 40 per cent of students will have their fees increased to $14,500 a year; that students will pay, on average, seven per cent more for their degree; that people studying humanities, commerce and communications will pay more for their degree than doctors and dentists. And we know that the bill will cut a billion dollars from universities.
At a time when we're seeing the government having changed the rules three times to exclude public universities from JobKeeper, universities have shed some 11,000 staff, with Universities Australia forecasting 21,000 job losses in coming years. That's just university staff, but there'll be flow-on impacts on tutors, administrative staff, library staff, catering staff, ground staff, cleaners and security. At the very time in which we're relying on our brilliant academics for solutions to deal with the economic crisis, we're making it harder for people to study economics. At a time when we're relying on brilliant university researchers to come up with a cure for COVID, we're cutting funding to universities. This is simply madness.
When Labor were in office, we boosted investment in universities from $8 billion in 2007 to $14 billion in 2013. We expanded places, putting in place demand-driven funding following the Bradley review, which ensured that we were no longer operating a system of command and control from the Molonglo but were allowing universities to respond to student demand. We saw an extra 220,000 Australians get the opportunity of a university education. And, in particular, we saw increased enrolment among the most disadvantaged. Financially disadvantaged student enrolments went up 66 per cent. Indigenous undergraduate enrolments increased 105 per cent. Enrolments of undergraduates with a disability grew 123 per cent. Enrolments of students from regional and remote areas increased 50 per cent. By the time Labor left office, a quarter of the students at Australian universities were there as a result of us opening up university places.
Today, the government claims that 39,000 places will be added over three years. This is woefully inadequate to meet the demand from the children of the early 2000s baby boom—'one for dad, one for mum, one for the country'—who are now reaching university age. The university sector, as I've said, faces a funding cut of around a billion dollars a year. Average funding per student to universities will drop by 5.8 per cent. That fee will drop by 16 per cent for engineering, by 15 per cent for clinical psychology, by eight per cent for nursing and by six per cent for education. That's on top of the $16 billion projected revenue drop due to the loss of international students. The impact of these changes will be tough on women. Average female student contributions will increase 10 per cent. Average Indigenous student contributions will increase 15 per cent. The highest fee-paying courses will have twice the share of First Nations students.
It isn't just Labor that's been critical of these changes. Bronwyn Evans, the CEO of Engineers Australia, says:
An increase in university fees risks increasing structural inequality for women and people from low socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds who choose to study humanities, law and other courses that will now leave them in even more debt.
Dan Woodman, the president of the Council for the Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, says:
Some of the fastest growing job areas for university graduates are new, many of which require exactly the skills and experiences that the study of HASS subjects can provide. Content Specialists, Customer Officers, Data Scientists, and Sustainability Analysts are in high demand. These jobs did not exist five years ago, and a strong humanities or social science degree provides a foundation for working in these and the new, related fields that will inevitably emerge in the coming years.
The Languages & Cultures Network for Australian Universities says: 'The proposal will actually involve higher costs for language students than first appears. We consider the proposal is inherently flawed, does not have the capacity to meet its stated aims and does not openly state its major objective, which is to reduce university funding.' Mark Warburton, the higher education expert, says:
… my analysis shows the growth in student places … will not meet any additional demand from the COVID-19-induced economic slowdown or future growth in the university-age cohort.
Peter Hurley from the Mitchell Institute at Victoria University points out that humanities graduates are employed at a rate of 91.1 per cent—that is above science and maths. Julie Bishop, the chancellor of the ANU and former Liberal Minister for Education, Science and Training, says:
My concern is that under these new arrangements, there is a greater incentive for universities to take in a higher number of law, commerce and humanities students than there is to take in students in engineering and maths. That appears to be contrary to the government's policy intentions.
Robert French, the chancellor of the University of Western Australia, says:
Humanities is the vehicle through which we understand our society, our history, our culture.
The changes that are being put in place will have a long-term adverse impact on Australians. Many Australians who are facing the prospect of university cutbacks will no longer have the opportunity to study. That will cost them and it will mean that Australians end up paying unemployment benefits rather than assisting somebody to take on a Commonwealth supported place. This can't be good for them. This can't be good for Australia's society.
I want to conclude by talking about the impact on universities in the ACT. The University of Canberra will be hit by a funding cut of $15 million between 2018 and 2021. The Australian National University will lose $14 million. The Australian Catholic University, which has a campus in Canberra, will be hit by a funding cut of $35 million. Australia's universities in total will lose $1.2 billion.
It's not as though Canberra's universities haven't tried to tighten their belts. Vice-Chancellor Brian Schmidt is among those who've taken pay cuts. ANU's top leaders have taken pay cuts which have saved some $397,000. ANU staff have deferred their pay rise, saving $13.5 million and up to 90 positions. ANU staff have made donations to the ANU Staff Urgent Relief Fund, which has provided support totalling $116,000 to 68 staff. But ANU is nonetheless having to lay people off, because its foreign student numbers have fallen markedly. They're already below 2017 levels and they're expected to fall to 70 per cent of 2019 levels in 2021. Characteristically a diplomat, Brian Schmidt has said of the government's support package that it is 'not one I would have designed', although he goes on to say 'it's not pathologically bad either'. If the best you can get from a diplomatic university leader is that your package is not pathologically bad, then I think you need to go back to the drawing board.
The fact is that at the very time we should be expanding universities this government is cutting them. This is a government that has effectively removed the demand-driven funding system. No longer do we have a system in which people who have the smarts for university can take up a place at a university that's ready to train them. Instead, we've gone back to the command-and-control system that pre-dated the reforms of the Rudd and Gillard governments. Those reforms were vital in opening up the university sector. They didn't just create more places; they ensured that universities and students were able to focus on the courses in high demand. This reflects the fact that those seeking a place at university are looking ahead to the labour market. We know, for example, that when the dotcom crash in the early 2000s came there was an immediate drop in the demand for computer science courses. My own research shows that in the teaching profession, if you look at demand for studying teacher education, as soon as salaries are changed in a state or territory you see an immediate demand response from students. Students are thinking about their future, they're acting rationally and they're moving into the courses that they know will be best for them. That's why a demand-driven system works so effectively to ensure that students study the courses that are best for them and best for our economy.
But the coalition, the so-called party of markets, has gone back to command and control. The coalition, whose cabinet is stuffed with university graduates, many of them with multiple degrees, have decided to pull up the ladder of opportunity, to take away the chance for young Australians to get the degrees that they themselves have benefited from. We know that university study is beneficial for the individual and is beneficial for Australia as a whole. Yet the changes that the government is making are eroding Australia's long-term future. What we need is investments that ensure that more Australians can study at university, that we can continue the inexorable rise of the education of Australians.
We know that we can't predict the jobs of the future. Occupational forecasting is one of those sectors that make astrology look respectable. So we don't want to be narrowly forcing people into particular occupations. But what we do know is that the labour market of the future will demand high levels of skills, and that's why we need to be opening up universities and that's why the government's changes in the university sector are so short sighted, damaging and bad for Australia's future.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Wicks ) (19:30): It being 7.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
National Integrity Commission
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong) (19:30): 'Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come.' It was Victor Hugo who said those words a long time ago. But, when I think of the debate about a national integrity commission, they ring true now: 'Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come.' I think, in order to restore the faith of Australians in their representatives and our system of democracy, it's time for a national integrity commission. It's time for some courage in this parliament. It's time for some truth in this parliament. It's time for a national integrity commission, more than ever.
I'm proud of the fact that I was the first leader of the Liberal or the Labor or the National parties to publicly endorse a national integrity commission, in January 2018. It was time then. It was proposed 996 days ago that it was time for an independent and well-resourced integrity commission, secure from government interference, with a broad jurisdiction—effectively, a standing royal commission with all of the investigative powers that implies.
At that point, we suggested one commissioner and two deputies, appointed in a bipartisan process by a majority from both sides of the House. The commissioners would be appointed for one fixed five-year term. We suggested 996 days ago it should have the ability to make findings of fact, not law, and, where the findings of fact were appropriate, the matter should then be referred to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. We said 996 days ago it should report annually to the parliament, overseen by a joint standing committee. It should have the discretion to hold public hearings. It was time, 996 days ago, to have a national integrity commission. It is well past time now.
To be fair, Mr Malcolm Turnbull in June 2018 said he was putting a plan to his cabinet—in June 2018. Indeed, his replacement, Mr Morrison, said in December 2018 that he was going to announce the plan for a Commonwealth integrity commission. But nothing has happened. There's a go-slow. If workers on any site in Australia used the go-slow tactics employed by the industrial workforce of the coalition government, they would be taking illegal industrial action by procrastinating!
This government has many excuses for why, in the last 996 days, it hasn't actually got around to a national integrity commission. There is the 'yeah-nah' school—the yes-no school. Yes, it's a good idea, but, no, now is not the right time. Yes, it's a good idea, but, no, we don't want it to be like New South Wales. Yes, it's a good idea, but, no, we don't like the fact that Labor said it. Yes, it is a good idea, but, no, there's something else on at the moment. They've simply been too busy, they say. I think that, after robodebt, sports rorts and the leaping land deals in Leppington, the excuses have run out.
I was actually disappointed and embarrassed for the government when they said that because of the bushfires they couldn't do the national integrity commission. I think that insults everyone who went through the bushfires. They now say that, because of COVID-19, they haven't been able to turn their minds to a national integrity commission. Every day, Australians have been putting up with this virus, but they've still been going to work, they've still been educating their kids, they've still been living full lives and they've still been coping. But apparently the pandemic has infected this government to the point that they cannot act on a national integrity commission. It's embarrassing. Australians want better. The coalition needs to get with the program. They need to be better than the bare minimum of Australian expectations and the tyranny of the low-risk government. Let's have a national integrity commission now. It is 1,000 days too late already.
National Security: Office of the National Security Advocate
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (19:35): It's an honour to serve as a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The committee is very well led by the member for Canning. The PJCIS plays an important role in providing the parliament with a forum for the scrutiny of national security legislation. At the heart of the work of the committee is the need to balance liberty and security. How do you balance the rights of Australians—be they persons of interest, technology companies, internet users, the media, or ordinary citizens—with a need to protect our country? While protecting freedom is fundamental to democracy, we would be foolish to ignore the very real threats to the safety of Australia.
In performing its scrutiny work, the PJCIS regularly takes evidence from the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor. These agencies perform oversight of the activities and legislation governing the national intelligence community. I pay tribute to the work those agencies do in maintaining public confidence in our national security arrangements.
The committee is also assisted in its work by submissions made by civil society organisations like the Law Council of Australia, academic commentators, technology advocates and other agencies like the Human Rights Commission. Many of those civil society organisations make submissions to the committee on the basis of their interest and/or expertise in the subject matter. For some of the committee's inquiries, there will be several days of hearings, with advocates pressing the committee to water down elements of the legislation and put in place greater protections, especially for those accused of wrongdoing. This contribution is important and often assists the work of the committee. While there are many organisations and agencies arguing for these protections, it's often difficult to find organisations and individuals who are prepared to argue for the greater protection of the public.
From time to time, the committee benefits from evidence submitted to it by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. They're able to provide a broad insight into Australia's security challenges, but they're not really equipped to help the committee test claims, particularly around technical legislation.
In addition, the committee also takes evidence in public and private from security agencies like ASIO and the Australian Federal Police and central departments like Home Affairs and the Attorney-General's Department. Those agencies may be constrained by what they can say in public. They may also be constrained in answering questions that go to operational matters or are about the advice that they've provided to government, or because decisions they are being asked about relate to decisions of elected ministers, not public servants. The nature of their relationship with government and the fact that they're security agencies rather than advocacy groups limits the approach they can take.
Ultimately, there is no agency whose role it is to advocate for security and to respond to and help the committee test the issues raised by those arguing for greater protections. There's a real risk that arguments made by organisations pursuing a civil liberties agenda are not properly tested, and that makes the committee's task more difficult. Ultimately, if the committee is not able to adequately weigh claim and counter-claim, our national security may be weakened. Underpinning our parliamentary democracy is an idea that truth will be discovered by testing competing arguments, but it's hard to do that where opportunities to properly test those arguments are not readily available. It's hard to think of a committee with a more important function in our parliament than the PJCIS, but it's also hard to think of a committee where the evidence it hears from non-government bodies is almost always one-sided, particularly when many of those organisations receive government funding.
Tonight, I want to float an idea which will help the committee—and, through it, the parliament—to more carefully consider legislation and balance liberty and security. I would like to propose that the government establish a new body, the office of the national security advocate. The national security advocate would be part of government rather than an independent agency. The national security advocate would comprise two principal officers: a senior lawyer who is experienced in appearing for government in national security matters, and a person from the national intelligence community with deep operational expertise. Its principal function would be to advocate for security laws, in accordance with our national interest and our traditions as a parliamentary democracy with the law of rule. The national security advocate would be able to play a more robust role in helping the committee—and, through it, the Australian people—to understand the government's legislation and the need for relevant security laws. It would provide the committee with evidence and examples to help the committee test propositions put to it by civil society and integrity agencies.
The national security advocate's experience would help the committee better understand the practical and operational effects of alternative submissions without compromising the Commonwealth's legal provision or revealing sensitive operational matters. The national security advocate could also potentially assist the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor with its inquiries. I believe the national security advocate could help assist the parliament to better strike the balance between liberty and security, which is at the very heart of the role we perform.
Child Care
Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (19:40): Forty-seven years ago a little girl went along to preschool. She used to cry and say to her mother: 'Mum, why do you send me there? You don't work. Can't I just stay at home with you?' And her mother said, 'Because it's good for you.' That little girl was me. As the months and years went by—a couple of years at preschool—I learned to love preschool.
Just a couple of months ago I went back to that same preschool: Kurri Kurri and District Pre-School Kindergarten. It was such an incredible experience to be there and see the children and the teachers. I was instantly taken back to those days. I thought about the cohort of kids that I went through with and how most of us have turned 50 and where our lives have headed.
We call it child care, but really it's early education. It's where, for those who are fortunate enough in Australia, our education, in a formal way, begins. It is vital to our national prosperity. Across my electorate of Paterson, early educators work every day. They work tirelessly, as they have through this pandemic, ensuring that parents could work, be it at home or at their place of work.
Access to this early education/child care ensured many families could work during the pandemic with minimal disruption. That is why Labor has put forward the idea that child care is critical to our national prosperity. We are at a juncture in Australia. We have choices to make now to get out of this terrible Morrison recession we have found ourselves in. Really, it has been a situation that no-one saw coming, but we can see our way clear if we make really smart choices moving forward.
Early education and child care is such a smart choice, even for people who don't have children. I just want to speak about that briefly, because I know there'll be many who'll say: 'Well, I don't need child care. My kids are old enough now' or 'I've never had children.' Child care—early education—is good for all of us, because it releases those people who may have been at home caring for children into the workforce. That creates jobs and prosperity across the community. This is not just for people who have children and who need child care. It is for all of us. It is a massive economic lever.
Kate Carnell, small business people, large businesses—they've all recognised the power that this move will have to ensure our country can be more prosperous. That's why Anthony Albanese, in his budget reply, promised that under a future Labor government we will deliver more affordable child care. We understand the cap holds people back. Parents understand this. I couldn't tell you how many times over the years not just as a local member but as a parent I've heard mostly women, to be fair, say, 'It's actually not worth me going back to work full time, because child care is so expensive.' We need to remove this hurdle.
In five or 10 years, when we finally get this done, we will look back on this and say, 'Why didn't we do this earlier?' This is really very, very important not just for our young developing children but for our economy and for our nation as a whole. It means jobs. It means more parents are able to rejoin the workforce. Australia, as a nation, will be able to get a head.
I just want to go back to my preschool and thank the wonderful director, Nicci McDowell, because she said this to me: 'Early education and child care need policymakers and the broader community to grasp the benefits of early learning for children, families and the wider community. We need to address the unequal access to early learning, we need to build the early learning workforce and we need to ensure the delivery of high-quality early learning and care, regardless of the service type or location.' Nicci, you've summed it up. You get it. Labor gets it, and we'll make it happen, as a government.
Premier of Victoria
Ms LIU (Chisholm) (19:45): The Premier of Victoria, Daniel Andrews, has been having a bad few weeks, and his stress is starting to show. Two weeks ago, after our Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, suggested that it was time for Victoria to open up and allow businesses room to breathe, following Sydney's prudent and successful example, Daniel Andrews said the Prime Minister was just playing politics. Last week, when our federal health minister, Greg Hunt, celebrated the great news that Victorian cases were now low enough to allow for some hospitality reopenings and family reunions, Daniel Andrews claimed, again, that the Liberal Party was playing politics and that they weren't for Victorians. It was only a few days back that our federal Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, asked Daniel Andrews to consider the struggling businesses in Victoria and lend a helping hand by allowing them to reopen in a COVID-safe manner. Instead, Daniel Andrews threw it back into the Treasurer's face, declaring that he was playing politics, and accused the federal Treasurer, a proud Victorian member, of not being for Victoria. This is despite the fact that it is the Treasurer's innovative policies, like JobKeeper, that are the only thing keeping Victoria's sagging economy and deprived workforce above water during this crisis. Talk about ingratitude! And what did the Premier call the federal Treasurer of this great country in this time of crisis? A Liberal Party hack. I think you will find that small businesses would tend to disagree with the Victorian Premier. It is they who are struggling under the weight of Daniel Andrews's decisions and it is the support from the Treasurer of Australia that is keeping their businesses afloat.
What else has Daniel Andrews done for Victoria? He has refused the offer of federal assistance and the use of the Australian Defence Force to safely manage hotel quarantine. His government played fast and loose with the procurement process in hiring private security guards instead. His government failed to make sure that private security guards had been properly trained for the job. And the result? Over 800 people died, roughly 10 times the rest of Australia combined. We've also seen crippled businesses, mass unemployment and crushing mental health problems for Victorians, locked up and without hope.
The inquiry into Victoria's hotel quarantine program was given expert testimony that nearly all of Victoria's COVID cases could be linked back to returned travellers. Indeed, Professor Ben Howden, a director at the Doherty Institute, stated that genomic sequencing data demonstrated that more than 99 per cent of Victorian cases at the end of July could be traced back to three transmission networks. It doesn't matter though, because Daniel Andrews has a new, centrally-planned road map and he's sticking to it, yet he refuses to release the advice that is supposed to inform this road map. I don't know where Minister Pakula's plan to see up to 500 people meet at the races this weekend fell into the road map. However, there is no doubt it would have been as successful as Daniel Andrews's hotel quarantine. Victorians can rest assured, though, because the Labor Party were quick to celebrate a great milestone in their administration when Daniel Andrews gave his 100th press conference in this time of crisis. But 100 press conferences is not an achievement; that is not a KPI. When we review the real key performance indicators, we must conclude that Daniel Andrews has failed Victoria.
Kingsford Smith Electorate: Water Pollution
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (19:50): In 2020, raw sewage should not be pumped into one of Sydney's major waterways. But that is exactly what is occurring at Botany Bay during heavy rain, and it happened as recently as a month ago. Sydney Water has been regularly discharging hundreds of millions of litres of raw sewage into Sydney Airport Wetlands, which then flows into Botany Bay via the Mill Stream. The discharges usually occur during heavy rain, and can see hundreds of millions of litres of raw sewage sent into the wetlands. Sydney Water is seeking a renewal of this authorisation because any discharges in wet weather are likely to exceed the acceptable limits for water pollution and result in objectionable odours. Quite simply, it stinks!
The impact is prohibited under the airport's environment protection regulations—not to mention the health risks and the inconvenience it may cause for local residents and people who swim, fish and walk along Foreshore Beach. Sydney Water is seeking the approval to 31 March 2021. On behalf of our community, I strongly object to Sydney Water being granted approval to discharge sewage into the Mill Stream and Botany Bay. I've written to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport to urge his department to reject Sydney Water's application and quickly develop a workable alternative to sewage spewing into Botany Bay.
Raw sewage should not be pumped into one of Sydney's most significant waterways and surrounding wetlands, particularly when Sydney's largest and most efficient sewage treatment plant is literally two kilometres away in Malabar. The Botany Wetlands are listed as significant on the Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia. This should be an important community asset, yet the wetlands are being used as a sewage wasteland. The Mill Stream is literally a stone's throw from residents who live in Bay Street Botany and Botany Public School. Sewage can be trapped under sand along the stream and emit obnoxious odours that penetrate into the nearby Botany area for several days.
These important wetlands are also home to many bird and marine species and significant flora. The Mill Stream plays an important role in the annual migration of the longfin eel from, believe it or not, Centennial Park in Sydney to New Caledonia to breed. These eels travel 2,000 kilometres to return to their place of birth, including swimming through the Mill Stream.
The Mill Stream flows directly into Botany Bay just near Foreshore Beach, where people swim, fish and walk their dogs. I don't believe they appreciate sanitary products, syringes, toilet paper and human waste floating by when they are out for a swim or a walk along the beach. Foreshore Beach continues to be graded as 'very poor' by the state government's annual Beachwatch, and Bayside Council has identified Mill Stream and Botany Wetlands as important community assets with significant potential to meet increasing community recreational needs. But continued sewage overflows will significantly risk the utility of these assets.
The focus should be on improving this vital part of Sydney, not making a bad problem even worse. In 2017, researchers from UNSW found that the Mill Pond had extremely high levels of PFOS compound—a toxin used heavily in firefighting foams, and part of the broader group of PFAS chemicals. PFOS levels in the water were six times the safe drinking average. The researchers say this reflects a legacy of poor regulation of industrial chemicals and ageing stormwater systems in the area.
Although Sydney Water is generally acting within their authority in discharging the waste, they have been prosecuted and convicted for offences against the New South Wales environment regulations for three offences relating to sewage overflow from the outlet at Mill Stream during maintenance work in May and June 2017. The first release involved 334 million litres of sewage and the second release involved 173 million litres. Sydney Water pleaded guilty to the charges and admitted that they had stuffed up. In the Land and Environment Court decision in 2019, the court noted that the sewage discharging from the Mill Stream into Botany Bay created a potential risk to health to anyone exposed to the water at the nearby Foreshore Beach. There's also a risk to human health for the people who eat fish caught in Botany Bay after one of these sewage discharge events.
It's simply not acceptable for Sydney Water to risk human health and the surrounding environment by continuing to regularly discharge sewage into the Mill Stream and Botany Bay. It doesn't pass the sniff test! The New South Wales government and Sydney Water management need to wake up to this fact and upgrade the sewerage infrastructure to ensure sewage flows to Malabar treatment plant and not into public waterways, risking the health of people who use the bay and the beach for recreation. I call on the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development—the Deputy Prime Minister—to reject Sydney Water's application to keep polluting Sydney airport and Botany Bay wetlands.
Sleep
Dr MARTIN (Reid) (19:55): Alongside diet and exercise, sleep is one of the most important pillars of good mental and physical health, yet with our busy lifestyles we often sacrifice a good night's sleep in order to squeeze in more hours during the day. Sleep is restorative. It's our body's way to rest and repair. Having a good night's sleep is important for brain function, muscle repair and metabolism.
In order to maintain good mental and physical health, adults should, on average, sleep seven to nine hours per night, whereas young children, three to five years of age, at that critical stage of their development, should, on average, sleep 11 to 13 hours a night. According to Deloitte Access Economics and the Sleep Foundation, almost 40 per cent of Australians suffer from insufficient sleep. Lack of sleep leads to an increased risk of a number of medical conditions, including heart disease, diabetes, obesity, stroke, depression and anxiety, and Alzheimer's disease. It plays a major role in productivity loss across the Australian workforce and, tragically, is one of the leading causes of road fatalities. It was also estimated that from 2016 to 2017 insufficient sleep cost Australia a total of $66.3 billion. The toll on our individual health and Australia's economy suggests we need to be taking our sleepless nights much more seriously.
I recently met with Michelle Chadwick, the chairperson of Sleep Disorders Australia, a not-for-profit organisation that offers support, assistance and information to people affected by sleep disorders. Michelle stressed that better education around sleep health and hygiene is essential in mitigating many of the conditions caused by insufficient sleep. In my clinical work as a psychologist, I would often ask patients to keep a sleep diary to record the hours of sleep they had and their sleep habits and behaviours. A common problem for people who reported poor sleep habits was the impact of digital devices. They reported how tech impacted on their ability to switch off and rest. Insufficient sleep often maintains psychological symptoms, and I saw firsthand how addressing sleep difficulties resulted in symptom reduction for mental health conditions such as anxiety and depression.
Good sleep hygiene is so important to maintaining good physical and mental health. Investing in sleep health is a cost-effective approach to preventing common mental and physical health conditions, and it will boost productivity in the workforce. Last year, the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport tabled a report on sleep health awareness in Australia, and I commend the member for North Sydney for leading the inquiry. One of the committee's recommendations was that the Australian government, in partnership with the states and territories and key stakeholder groups, work to develop a national sleep awareness campaign. A national sleep awareness campaign would help provide practical information about how to improve sleep. It would help individuals identify the symptoms, causes and health impacts of sleep disorders. It would also help individuals seek help, including psychological help, and medical support. We've seen how successful similar health campaigns have been for smoking, driving tired or drink driving, and we know that education campaigns work. If individuals have greater awareness and education and better understand the risks of insufficient sleep, we will prevent a number of much more serious issues and we will see better outcomes for the health, safety and productivity of Australians.
House adjourned at 20:00
NOTICES
Mr Morrison to move:
That this House commemorate the anniversary of the national apology to the survivors and victims of institutional child sexual abuse.
Mr Robert to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to social security, family assistance, paid parental leave, child support and veterans' entitlements, and for related purposes. (Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Coronavirus and Other Measures) Bill 2020)
Mr Thompson to move:
That this House:
(1) notes that Wednesday, 11 November 2020 marks Remembrance Day, formerly known as Armistice Day, when the guns fell silent during the First World War;
(2) recognises:
(a) that since the First World War, almost two million men and women have served in our defence forces; and
(b) the more than 102,000 defence personnel who have tragically died during, or as a result of, warlike service, non-warlike service and certain peacetime operations; and
(3) acknowledges the service and sacrifice of all those who served in our defence force and the families that supported them by encouraging all Australians to observe one minute's silence at 11 am on 11 November 2020.
Mr Young to move:
That this House:
(1) notes:
(a) the enormous success the scouting and guiding movement has had around the world in promoting personal development programs for children and young adults from 5 to 25 years old; and
(b) that the world scouting movement was founded by Lord Baden-Powell in 1907;
(2) recognises that scouting is one of the most popular programs worldwide for personal development with over 500 million people going through the scouts and guides;
(3) further notes that in 2007 the scouting movement celebrated its 100th anniversary since its founding; and
(4) congratulates Scouts Australia, Girl Guides Australia and the World Organization of the Scout Movement for continuing to provide an outlet for children to channel their desire for adventure, education and fun, and for providing ongoing assistance around our communities.
Mr Connelly to move:
That this House:
(1) notes the Returned and Services League of Australia (RSL) was founded in 1916 to ensure a unified approach to address the lack of organised repatriation facilities and medical services available to those returning from the Great War;
(2) recognises there are RSL branches and sub-branches in every state and territory, and most local communities have a RSL club;
(3) further notes the motto of the RSL is 'The Price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance';
(4) acknowledges that RSL clubs help veterans and communities right around Australia in many and varied ways; and
(5) congratulates the many hard-working volunteers and community-minded citizens who help make the RSL the success that it is.
Ms Bell to move:
That this House notes that:
(1) 25 August 2020 marked three years since over 700,000 Rohingya, including more than 400,000 children, fled from targeted violence in Myanmar's Rakhine State, to Bangladesh;
(2) the camps in Bangladesh now host over 850,000 refugees in crowded conditions which is also impacting the lives of over 400,000 local Bangladeshis;
(3) an estimated 600,000 Rohingya remain in Rakhine State;
(4) since 2017, the Australian Government has provided over $260 million in lifesaving humanitarian assistance for displaced and conflict-affected communities in Bangladesh and Myanmar, working through UN agencies, international and national NGOs such as BRAC, Save the Children, CARE, World Vision, Plan International and Oxfam and their local partners to deliver food, shelter, water and sanitation, health and education services, and targeted support for women and girls to help combat risks including gender-based violence and trafficking;
(5) annual monsoons and cyclones have brought additional risks, and the COVID-19 virus has now arrived, with 88 confirmed cases to date in the Cox's Bazar camps and over 80 active cases in Rakhine State; and
(6) Australia remains committed to supporting Myanmar to create conditions on the ground conducive to voluntary, safe, dignified and sustainable returns for all displaced peoples.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Liew O'Brien) took the chair at 9:45.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Western Australia: Government
Mr GORMAN (Perth) (09:45): Australians have been reminded in 2020 that it does matter who you vote for. In 2017, when Western Australia elected Mark McGowan, Roger Cook and the state Labor team, we didn't know what was going to be thrown at them, but we are so lucky that we elected them and not the risky and dangerous alternative proposed by Liza Harvey. Their leadership has kept Western Australia safe and strong. On the other side, the risky and radical ideas of Liza Harvey and her team extend to a state Liberal Party conference that debates secession, wanting to tear Western Australia away from the rest of the Commonwealth, and they never support West Australians. In fact, the only people they ever do support seem to be Queenslanders—and two specific Queenslanders. They support Clive Palmer and they support Senator Hansen.
There is one thing that unites the Liberal Party here in Canberra with the Liberal Party in Western Australia: they always make university and TAFE more expensive for young Western Australians. Liza Harvey increased TAFE fees by 510 per cent, making it unaffordable for young Western Australians to go to TAFE. Here, the Liberals in Canberra, and indeed those from Western Australia, made university degrees 113 per cent more expensive starting in 2021. As I say, it does matter who you vote for.
Over the last four months, 75,000 jobs have returned in Western Australia—the equal lowest unemployment of any of the states, at 6.7 per cent. I think everyone in this chamber would be excited and pleased to know that the West Australian economy grew 1.1 per cent in 2019-20 and is on track again to grow in 2020-21. That is in part because of the strong focus on jobs of the Western Australian government.
Simon Millman, the member for Mount Lawley, has been focused on reducing TAFE fees and investing in TAFE—a $1.8 million investment in Mount Lawley TAFE. John Carey, the state member for Perth, is chairing the Perth cultural centre task force. On this side of the House, we know that cultural industries and the creative industries are an important job creator. Dave Kelly, the member for Bassendean, in winding back the privatisation that happened under the Barnett government, brought 250 Water Corporation jobs back into public hands. Lisa Baker, the member for Baylands, is running the very important community consultations on the new Bayswater station—making sure that we can connect Bayswater and the Perth CBD to Ellenbrook and the airport line. Amber-Jade Sanderson, the member for Morley, has been working on the Morley and Noranda METRONET—a project once opposed by the Liberal Party, but now they are now happy to come to the photo opportunities. They are happy to be there because it means 3,000 jobs and it is going to connect our suburbs. It's the biggest project since the Mandurah line.
Canning Electorate: Double Reds Resilience Award
Mr HASTIE (Canning) (09:48): I would like to update the House on a new initiative I have introduced for schools in Canning—the Double Reds Resilience Award. The award takes its name from the double red diamond insignia of the 2nd Independent Company, who fought in the face of overwhelming odds in the Second World War. The award recognises students who have displayed a high degree of character and resilience during the school year in the face of adversity.
The Independent Companies were Australia's first commandos. In 1942, the 270 men of the 2/2—as the 2nd Independent Company was known—fought a significant guerrilla campaign in East Timor for almost a year against numerically superior Japanese forces. While not a main theatre of the Pacific war, the 2/2's campaign throughout 1942 made an important contribution to the final allied victory. With the aid of the East Timorese, their staunch resistance under incredibly difficult conditions, diverted thousands of Japanese troops that would have otherwise been sent to battlefields like Kokoda and Guadalcanal. Over 80 per cent of the 2/2's original soldiers were from Western Australia.
The Double Reds Resilience Award is designed to honour the legacy of the 2/2 and share their noble story with young Australians. The award recognises the effort of a student who has displayed a high degree of character and resilience in the face of adversity or hardship through the school year. This week the first awards will be presented to students in Canning. Unfortunately, we're all here so I won't be able to award them myself, but I do want to pass on my congratulations. First, congratulations to Micaela Paterson, a grade 12 student from Byford Secondary College who received the award last night. Micaela has displayed a high degree of support and care for her family whilst working hard at her academic studies. She hasn't allowed hardship or adversity to define her, even under the most difficult circumstances. Second, congratulations to Dylan Harris, a grade 12 student from Mandurah Baptist College. Dylan will receive the award tonight for his perseverance and tenacity over the past two years, despite dealing with significant health challenges. His efforts have enabled him to attain an early offer of entry into university in his chosen field. Finally, I'm very proud to say that the award has received the endorsement of the 2/2 Commando Association of Australia. I'm confident that the next generation of Australians can continue their legacy of toughness resilience in the face of adversity.
Eden-Monaro Electorate: Australian Bushfires
Ms McBAIN (Eden-Monaro) (09:50): Eden-Monaro is determined to put the challenges of 2020 behind it. The year has certainly taken its toll. The scars are deep, but bigger than that is the spirit with which communities are rising to make the most of the opportunities that come from adversity. We are a glass half full community. But the hits just keep coming from the Liberal-National governments. Late yesterday my office received news that the New South Wales government had rejected a funding application from the Batlow community. Back in January, the Dunns Road fire came into town. Locals were told the town was undefendable and they were left to fend for themselves. And it seems they've been left to fend for themselves again by the New South Wales state government. Far from giving up, the Batlow fruit growing community applied to the New South Wales government's Bushfire Industry Recovery Package, investment ear marked to grow and develop the Batlow economy and community to light the spark on Batlow's renewal. One local industry leader who wrote to me yesterday said: 'For Batlow not to receive any portion of the sector development funding is absurd. To not receive any assistance is to intentionally disregard what has happened. To have so many dignitaries use Batlow to show their empathetic concerns and be used to promote their own position after the fires and then to ignore Batlow when it counts is shameful.' There for the photo-op but not for the follow-up.
When I visited Batlow Apples in May and again in August, the impact was clear. You can see it in the landscape and you can see it on the face of growers. Batlow fruit growers lost around 30,000 trees, a 30 per cent hit to production—not to mention the netting, infrastructure and machinery that was also lost. As a Batlow local told me yesterday, to be left out completely when so many promises were made is another hefty kick to the economic wellbeing and future of Batlow. I trust that the New South Wales state government haven't closed the door on Batlow, that they will look for ways to work with growers, business and community groups to do the right thing. Indeed, I know from previous Batlow community forums that the community is coming together, from community groups to residents and farmers, to local business. They're talking about their renewal and looking for opportunities and positive outcomes for their town following on from this disaster. I will continue to work with the Batlow community to make sure they get their fair share, and, as the community would say, 'Do it for Batlow.'
headspace Day
Ms HAMMOND (Curtin) (09:53): Over the last couple of weeks, the 100 plus headspace centres across the country have been celebrating headspace Day. Since 2006, headspace has provided more than 3.6 million services and supported more than 626,000 Australians between the ages of 12 and 25. Everyone in this place knows the vital work headspace does. It provides holistic support for young people that includes clinical mental health professionals, judgement-free physical and sexual health advice from onsite GPs, alcohol and drug counsellors who can provide advice on available treatments, and work and study assistance from counsellors who can assist with managing the workloads of studying and job seeking. I want to acknowledge and thank the teams at headspace Fremantle and Osborne Park for the help and support they provide each year to the hundreds of young people from the Curtin community.
We all know that 2020 has been an incredibly challenging year for our young people. A recent report by headspace, from August this year, which surveyed young people who were accessing their services between 25 May and 5 June, revealed that 74 per cent of participants had experienced a deterioration in their mental health since the outbreak of COVID-19.
For the past 14 years funding and support for headspace has been bipartisan, and rightly so. That is because we all understand that the mental health of Australians, especially young Australians, is a national priority. In recognition of this, the government is continuing to dramatically expand the headspace network and improve the capacity of headspace services. Over the next four years from 2020-21 the government is investing $630 million in the national headspace network. This includes $534 million for the establishment of new services and ongoing services delivery at existing sites and a further $96 million to address demand and reduce wait times to access headspace services.
But we all know supporting the mental health of our young people doesn't stop at headspace. We all have a role to play in this. That's why I was really pleased to join students at Nedlands Primary School last week for their inaugural Wellness Week. This coincided with Mental Health Week in WA. Students at Nedlands Primary were encouraged throughout Wellness Week to participate in activities which focused on their mental and physical health. It was wonderful to talk to the year 4 and year 6 student leaders who had taken a central role in planning the activities alongside the school's chaplain, Philly Lumby. The students at one point asked me about stress, and I admitted to them I was feeling a bit stressed at that time because I had something to do the next day that I hadn't prepared for. The kids taught me the five-finger breathing technique, which really worked. To the year 4 kids particularly, I say: thank you very much.
To any young person struggling at the moment and feeling flat, stressed, sad or lacking energy: I would urge you to seek help. By finding the right support and strategies, things can get better.
Pensions and Benefits
Youth Homelessness
Mr WILKIE (Clark) (09:56): I recently met with six young unemployed Tasmanians who have prepared a report that should be essential reading for every state and federal politician. To that end I promised these talented young women and men that I would hand-deliver a copy of their report to the federal Treasurer, and I will also ask to table a copy at the end of this statement. Thereal youth survival report 2020 was prepared as part of Colony 47's Backswing project and shows how Tasmania's housing crisis impacts young people's lives, mental health and chances of landing a job. It brings home clearly the unsurprising need for much increased investment in social housing and for unemployment benefits to be raised permanently to above the poverty line so as to provide a genuine living income.
The report makes shocking reading. For instance, many young Tasmanians recount being homeless, breaking the law to get a place to sleep, feeling their lives were threatened due to homelessness and not being able to afford rent. They skip meals, couch surf and can't afford to see a doctor. They are genuinely in financial stress, and, of course, their mental health suffers. They write: 'I have panic attacks over money daily. I can't afford therapy or to see a doctor', and: 'Youth accommodation services are rife with young people who fall into the missing middle of mental health care. Why are we not doing more to support them?', and, 'I was made homeless at 16 when my family kicked me out, and I ended up couch surfing for a few months while I was trying to complete my year 11 exams.'
Income is obviously central to this situation. It's clear that unemployment benefits must not fall below their current level, which includes the $250 coronavirus supplement. It certainly mustn't return to Newstart's $40 a day, because when the rate of employment support is that low you're creating a hard barrier to employment and sentencing young people to a lifetime of poverty. Frankly, we are setting these young people up to fail when they can't even afford the bus fare to get to a job interview.
The federal budget, I think, was a missed opportunity to address these fundamental challenges. It simply beggars belief that Australia is headed for a $1 trillion debt, yet we have still not addressed two major causes of poverty—that is, the severe shortage of affordable and often supported accommodation and the woefully inadequate government pensions and payments, in particular for the unemployed.
The young homeless and broke men and women of this country genuinely deserve a break. Until politicians do give them that break, we let them down terribly. I seek leave to table their report.
Leave granted.
Hughes Electorate: Roads
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (09:59): I would again like to raise the issue of Heathcote Road in my electorate. This is one of the major southern roads in Sydney. It runs from Moorebank—close to the electorate of the member for Werriwa—all the way down to Heathcote. This road was originally built back in 1943, during the war.
Ms Stanley: Stop announcing it and start building it!
Mr CRAIG KELLY: Correct. It's good to hear. I encourage the member for Werriwa to support me in my calls in my speech. There is some good news on what we've actually got done. We've got $94 million which will duplicate the road from Moorebank. We'll have it duplicated, with the upgrade, all the way through to Voyager Point. This is very well needed and overdue, and it should be got on with and completed immediately.
The other issue that I have some concern about—it's part good news and part bad news—is what's being done currently at the bridge at the southern end, over Woronora River. It's great that there's upgrade work being done there by the New South Wales roads and maritime authority, but it's going to be closed down for six months. That's okay if they're going to do the upgrade, but what we're currently getting is that the bridge is going to be widened from 6.72 metres to 9.4 metres, so we're simply getting an increase in width of 2.7 metres. If we're going to close it down for that period of time, let's do it properly. That bridge must have some type of concrete barrier in the middle of the road to divide the traffic. The danger to motorists when they cross that bridge is if a truck or a car strays across to the other side of the road and runs into them. The fact that you will have a little bit more space, another metre, is not going to make any difference if that happens. But a dividing concrete barrier between traffic heading north and traffic heading south will make all the difference. So I call on our roads and maritime authority in New South Wales to please have a rethink about this. We're talking about a bridge that was originally built in 1943, during the war. It is now the major route between the South Coast and the western suburbs of Sydney. It is simply unsatisfactory the way it currently is. Eventually, and as soon as possible, we need multimillion-dollar investments to upgrade the entire road. It's good to see we're getting something done, but we need more on that bridge down there at Heathcote, across the Woronora River. It must have a dividing concrete barrier in the middle to separate the traffic.
Corio Electorate: Viva Energy Geelong Refinery
Mr MARLES (Corio—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (10:02): The Viva refinery in Corio forms part of my earliest memories. I grew up nearby it and I can remember driving back to Geelong and seeing what was then the red-and-white smokestack of the Shell refinery. When you saw it, you knew at that moment that you were home. I remember genuinely thinking, as a child, at night-time when I saw the thousands of lights which illuminated the refinery, that it was some fairy kingdom. This is an institution which is very much a part of Geelong's culture. It's been there since 1954. But, in a contemporary sense, the refinery is very central to our local, state and national economies. It supplies half the liquid fuels of Victoria. It's one of the three remaining refineries on the east coast—the largest—and one of four in Australia when we consider the BP refinery in Kwinana in WA. It contributes hundreds of millions of dollars to the local economy and employs 700 people at the site at Corio.
It also is really central to the petrochemical industry in Victoria, an industry that is critical for the nation. LyondellBasell, a plastics manufacturer, has a site at the Corio refinery, and Qenos, another plastics manufacturer in the west of Melbourne, is also very central to that industry. Both of those companies are very dependent on the supply of product from the Viva refinery in Corio and the Mobil refinery in Altona. LyondellBasell makes a lot of the plastics for food packaging. Qenos makes harder plastics for items such as garbage bins, pipes and water tanks. But they're also really important companies in terms of giving the country a national capacity in relation to the circular economy, the recycling of plastic. Were those companies to go, our ability to deal with waste plastic in this country would be significantly limited. Those companies, along with the four refineries in this countries, including the Ampol refinery in Brisbane, form something of an ecosystem. And that is the point. If we lose any one of them, we potentially lose all of them.
The coronavirus crisis has given us a real sense of what it is to have sovereign industrial capability in this country. It is hard to think of a capability that goes more to our sovereignty than the ability to refine fuel. Indeed, it goes right to the heart of our national security. We must have the capacity to refine fuel in this country in order to fuel our economy, so it's really important that this government makes sure that this is an industry that survives. We know that we are much the poorer for the loss of the car industry because of this government. The Morrison government must stand with refineries. Labor does. We need to see that the Liberals do as well.
Allen, Mrs Genevieve
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (10:05): Today I rise to acknowledge a wonderfully generous individual who has been a truly invaluable active member of our northern beaches community for countless years. Genevieve Allen is the daughter of Berenice and John Perriman of Woollahra, New South Wales. After her father had returned to London, Genevieve's supportive mother raised and educated her with singular dedication. Inspired by the fortitude of her mother, Genevieve embarked on a nursing career in 1955, attending the Preliminary Training School at Royal North Shore Hospital.
She met John Allen in her last year at the school and they married in 1960. Genevieve remained in the medical field, however, working alongside her husband at his optometry practice. She describes her husband as a bit of an entrepreneur. He expanded his practice across the inner western suburbs. John believed that wives should be involved in business if so inclined. She fondly recalled, 'He even had me delivering sunglasses when I was pregnant.'
After Genevieve and John had welcomed a daughter and a son into the world, John added a photographic lab to their portfolio and encouraged Genevieve to travel to Melbourne to learn the process in order to run the business. She proved so successful as a businesswoman that they opened a second franchise. Eventually they sold their business and reinvested in the aged-care sector, purchasing three nursing homes. After their children had married and left home, they decided to sell their business to travel before retiring to Whale Beach in 1979.
Keen to contribute to her community, Genevieve joined the Palm Beach Liberal Party, as did John. After a few years she successfully ran for branch president, marking the start of a 19-year tenure as president in the branch. Genevieve only recently retired as a member of the branch executive. Genevieve worked tirelessly to organise many fundraisers for worthy causes. She was also elected President of the Pittwater SEC, a position she held for two years. Genevieve Allen also remained active in the democratic process, organising staff at polling booths during many state and federal elections.
I'm delighted to note that Genevieve and John recently celebrated their 60th anniversary. No couple is more deserving. Everyone who knows Genevieve would agree when I say that she is a strong, kind-hearted and compassionate member of our beautiful northern beaches community. I'd like to thank her for her generous spirit and her extraordinary commitment and contribution to the Mackellar electorate and our party.
China
Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (10:08): Billy Sing, Victor Chang, Terence Tao, Alec Fong Lim, Bing Lee, Melissa Wu, Kylie Kwong and Jenny Kee are just some of the thousands of Chinese Australians who've given so much to this country. Yet last week we saw a spectacle which should never have appeared in this place. Prior to a parliamentary committee hearing Yun Jiang, one of the witnesses, put forward a written statement in which she talked about the toxic environment faced by Chinese Australians who engage in public debates. 'Some Chinese Australians are choosing to remain silent,' she said, 'because they don't want their loyalties to be questioned in the public arena.' She wrote:
It is not fair their loyalty be questioned for having a certain political view. And it is not fair to force them to take positions of political action, such as critiquing Beijing, when similar requests are not made to other Australians.
That made it all the more extraordinary that when Yun Jiang and other Chinese Australian witnesses gave evidence they were asked by Senator Eric Abetz to 'unconditionally condemn the Chinese Communist Party dictatorship'. Senator Abetz did not subject other witnesses to that question, just the Chinese Australian witnesses. Yun Jiang doesn't need to be asked questions of this kind by Senator Abetz. She's spoken extensively on China's human rights record. She wrote at one point that 'China is one of the top violators of human rights in the world.' A question of this kind is simply McCarthyist. It is as improper as it would be to suggest that Senator Abetz is not a loyal Australian because he was born in Germany. It is the kind of question that Senator Abetz would never expect a journalist would ask the Prime Minister in public. It is not the sort of question he would ask our top diplomatic officials in Senate estimates. Osmond Chiu similarly was giving evidence to the committee about the underrepresentation of multicultural communities in Australian politics, pointing out that our parliament is less representative of diversity than Canada's, Britain's or New Zealand's. Yet he was subject to the same inquisition by Senator Abetz.
Let's be clear: there's plenty to be concerned about in our relationship with China—the expulsion of the last two Australian journalists in China, Bill Birtles and Mike Smith, the fact that government ministers can't get their counterparts on the phone, the human rights abuses in Xinjiang and the crackdown in Hong Kong, and the Pew surveys that show that attitudes towards China are hardening across the world. But, as Allan Behm has pointed out, the 'overinvestment in emotion usually masks an underinvestment in thinking'. There's a reason it's called diplomacy. Fear, division and anger are poor substitutes for courage, justice and wisdom.
Brisbane Electorate: COVID-19
Budget
Mr EVANS (Brisbane—Assistant Minister for Waste Reduction and Environmental Management) (10:11): 2020 has been an incredibly challenging year for so many Brisbane residents, families and businesses. Many Brisbane businesses have shut their doors, many locals have lost their jobs or saw their hours reduced to zero, old Australians have been kept apart from their loved ones, while young Australians, so many of whom flock to Brisbane to live, study, work and play, have had their lives and plans put on hold. In responding to the challenges of 2020, the Morrison government has implemented an economic recovery plan containing the most significant financial support measures in our nation's history—measures that are delivering vital support around Brisbane. Under our plan, over 7,500 age pensioners and carers in the Brisbane electorate have received support payments, while nearly 10,000 other Brisbane residents have received JobSeeker, with the coronavirus supplement. Some 11,600 Brisbane businesses and their employees have been supported by JobKeeper this year, and around 11,200 accessed the cash flow boost.
Thanks in part to the federal government's economic policies and support since the onset of the pandemic, the Australian economy is now fighting back. The federal budget brought down this month moves Australia to the next important phase of our economic recovery, with $98 billion in targeted investments to rebuild our economy as quickly as possible and as sustainably as possible.
This federal budget was the first ever to focus on recycling and to link recycling to Australia's future potential when it comes to manufacturing and remanufacturing. It was fantastic to have the Prime Minister in Brisbane last week after the budget. Along with my colleague the member for Bonner, we visited the Gibson Island recycling plant to witness the potential for recycling, resource recovery and remanufacturing around Australia. The federal budget included $190 million in co-investments in the Recycling Modernisation Fund, which is helping to turbocharge the building of new recycling infrastructure and facilities that we need right around our country. Our plan will see over 10 million tonnes of materials kept out of landfill—recovered, sorted and processed into resource streams that can be used again in the manufacturing chains and in the next generation of products. This will support the creation of over 10,000 new jobs around Australia. This is about creating jobs and about creating value and prosperity, which Australia so critically needs at this juncture. It's about Australia becoming more self-reliant and more self-sufficient, whilst we simultaneously drive better outcomes for our environment, keeping waste out of landfill and out of our rivers and oceans. All Australians can be excited about the role of recycling as we rebuild our economy.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Gillespie ): In accordance with standing order 193, the time for constituency statements has concluded.
BILLS
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2020-2021
Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2020-2021
Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2020-2021
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 the 2020–21 budget:
(1)will deliver a decade of deficits and accrue one trillion dollars of debt;
(2)spends $98 billion on unemployment, but keeps unemployment too high for too long;
(3)continues to leave too many Australians behind without support;
(4)fails to address key policy areas such as childcare, aged care and social housing;
(5)prioritises the funnelling of billions of taxpayers' dollars into funds for the Coalition Government to rort and pork barrel at the expense of hard-working Australians; and
(6)fails to outline a vision for the country"—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Llew O'Brien ) (10:14): Before the debate is resumed on this bill, I remind the Federation Chamber that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this bill and the two related appropriation bills. The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Whitlam has moved as an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat) (10:15): It is terrific to be able to continue the contribution that I was making last night on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2020-2021 and related bills. I was saying that, despite the fact that Victoria is really only still slowly emerging from lockdown, much of the support is being withdrawn far too quickly, not just from Victoria but also from some of those sectors we know are going to take quite some time to recover, such as aviation and tourism. At the same time the government has been reducing JobKeeper and changing eligibility requirements, the Prime Minister's budget is also cutting the coronavirus supplement received by almost 25,000 in my own community. This will cut about $7.36 million per fortnight out of the local Ballarat economy. That's money that will not be available in our local economy.
We know that people who are on unemployment benefits and on those supplements are spending pretty much every dollar that they earn. So, let alone the impact that it has on individuals and the families that are supported by them, that withdrawal of $7.36 million a fortnight, while we are still recovering, has a huge impact. Based on average weekly earnings, it's equivalent to around 2,822 local jobs that could be had in our community if that money was still flowing. Our economy is still reeling. We need more money circulating in the local economy, not less. People receiving this supplement, as I said, are the very same people we know are likely to spend every single dollar that they receive. They are exactly the people that the budget should be supporting—those who need help most—but, again, they are the people the government has decided to leave behind.
At the same time, my community of Ballarat is once again missing out on infrastructure commitments through the budget—no Western Ring Road, no improvements to the Western Highway or the Midland Highway and no capital infrastructure works beyond the top-ups being given to every local council around the country. It is lovely to hear members opposite talk about the many projects that are being funded in their constituencies, but there is a stark contrast when you hear from people from this side of the chamber. When we have had a crisis that has affected every community, not just those held by Liberal and National seats, I really do caution the government about its business-as-usual approach when it comes to these regional buckets of funding. You can't treat regional communities differently just because of their political stripes.
We have seen lots of funds directed to set up further regional funding rounds in the budget—big buckets of money, controlled largely by the Deputy Prime Minister in their allocation—and we hope that we might be able to apply for some of these in the future. But, frankly, given the government's record of pork-barrelling, I am not holding my breath. The Deputy Prime Minister isn't even trying to hide that. On ABC Ballarat, the Deputy Prime Minister was asked, straight after the budget, why my own community of Ballarat missed out in the budget. The answer of the Deputy Prime Minister was, 'Maybe you need to look at your federal member.' That was the statement he made on our local radio station the day after the budget about why there wasn't money for Ballarat—that it is somehow my fault and the fault of the people of Ballarat because they vote for a Labor MP! He is not even trying to hide it. It is hugely problematic for those of us who represent millions of Australians that they are being sent the message very clearly, 'You might be suffering from COVID but don't look to us for any assistance.'
We all know that the Morrison government continually use infrastructure and regional development funding to electoral advantage. That is what they have been doing. The Deputy Prime Minister's comments on ABC Ballarat clearly show he is not even trying to hide it. He has just acknowledged that that is the case. Ahead of the last election, four regional Labor seats in Newcastle and the Hunter shared in just over $200,000 through the Community Development Grants Program—the program that the government largely uses to funnel its election commitments through, but it has been using it a bit more generously—I will be polite about it—a bit more unusually in recent days, with two of them receiving absolutely nothing and two neighbouring Nationals seats receiving $20 million each.
In the lead-up to the last election the Morrison government's signature Urban Congestion Fund funnelled 133 of 160 Urban Congestion Fund projects into Liberal and targeted seats. Recently 10 regions, mostly held by the coalition, were chosen because they were regions whose economies had experienced the brunt of natural events such as bushfire, COVID-19 and drought. But there was no funding for the New South Wales South Coast and no funding for the Blue Mountains, obviously held by Labor Party members. That's no way to deliver funding to the nation, particularly when we have had a crisis such as this.
The government likes to make big noises about its infrastructure commitments. They like the headlines that they generate, but again their delivery falls well short of expectations. Australians now know that with this long list of infrastructure projects hearing it is one thing, but they know that many of them will not be delivered for decades in some instances. They know this because they have seen an average infrastructure spend of $1.2 billion every single year, now up to $6.8 billion across the budgets of this government.
I will take just one project as an example of what is actually happening with the infrastructure budget, underspent each year by $1.2 billion—it was actually $1.7 billion last year. In this month's budget, again with much fanfare, the government announced that the Bolivia Hill upgrade of the New England Highway was being given additional funding. That sounds great, and the local community goes 'Thanks, we're getting more money for the highway.' The only problem is that that project, alongside a number of other projects that the government is counting, was actually funded by the now Leader of the Opposition back in 2012. The reason the project needs more money and the infrastructure budget has been boosted is the poor delivery and cost overruns, because the project hasn't actually been delivered. That's a cost blow-out; that's not stimulus. It's because the government has done such a poor job of delivery that it has had to put more money into this project.
Again we saw this underdelivery in the 2018 budget commitment, $806 million promised across financial years but promised last financial year through the Urban Congestion Fund. They got $142 million out the door. In New South Wales there was $200 million promised, and $4 million actually got out the door. These are small projects. These are roundabouts and pedestrian crossings and traffic lights. They are important to local communities, but we're not talking about big infrastructure planning required here. This is what has been happening. We all know what means: more empty announcements from the government, which cares more about the headline than it does about actually doing the work to deliver these projects.
Of course, after the week so far it is impossible to speak of the Morrison government's infrastructure program without mentioning the Leppington Triangle airport rort. This is a really serious scandal. The government, frankly, has not taken it seriously enough. We had the Deputy Prime Minister, again even yesterday, doubling down on this and saying that it's a bargain and a good investment. You would think, now that the AFP are scoping an investigation, that he would be a bit more cautious about what he says about this. We have a Deputy Prime Minister responsible for two of the largest infrastructure projects in a long time, the Western Sydney airport and the Inland Rail, and he thinks that spending $30 million on a piece of land worth $3 million—a tenth of the valuation—is a bargain and good value for taxpayers. This is a minister who is responsible for billions of dollars of infrastructure funding—Western Sydney airport and Inland Rail and countless others—hundreds of millions of dollars of infrastructure funding. If he thinks that is okay and is good value, what else is he ticking off that his department is doing? How can we trust any announcement by the government when you have a Deputy Prime Minister who thinks it is a bargain?
We have a Prime Minister who has initially brushed this off: 'It's a process issue in the department and it's all about process'—again not taking it seriously. Evidence at Senate estimates clearly shows that you have to be careful about the Morrison government's infrastructure promises. The department of infrastructure had actually factored in an order of $30 million for the purchase of this land even before the dodgy valuations were done or any acquisition process had commenced. I'm not sure what kind of acquisition process begins with the final price and works backwards from there; it's not one that I have ever seen or recognise. The government's response to the scandal to allow the department of infrastructure to hold more investigations into themselves, despite a previous interdepartmental investigation clearing any wrongdoing and the department failing to comply fully with the ANAO's initial inquiries around its financial statements, I think was worthy of further answers. That the AFP have now launched an investigation highlights just how flawed this is.
When it comes to infrastructure and their promises in the budget, it is impossible to believe what the government is saying. They could rebuild trust by stepping up and legislating a national integrity commission and ensuring that this deal is investigated properly and independently and that it does not happen again. We've again seen in this budget cuts to the Australian National Audit Office, the very body that has uncovered this scandal. This would not be in the public domain if someone in the ANAO had not questioned the financial statements of the department and then, when the department didn't provide them with accurate information, undertaken a performance audit. What has the government got to hide?
This stuff is incredibly important in the governance of this nation. It's symptomatic of a government that continually lets the Australian people down, none more so frankly than what's been happening in the aviation sector. We have seen this industry literally brought to its knees, whether it's the airports or whether it's the airlines and the multiple supports that are factored in around those. This is an industry that employs around 200,000 people overall. We've seen the government abandon dnata workers. We've seen the government say that a market solution to Virgin is the best thing since sliced bread. Well, we're about to see what that market is about to deliver, and we think it is going to be a reduced budget airline with less jobs and less routes, and every one of the lost jobs is on this government because it took the decision that it was not going to intervene in this. It wasn't going to intervene before the company went into administration and wasn't going to intervene or do anything to actually support Australian jobs by making sure the millions of dollars going to this company had some guarantee around work. We're seeing what's happening with Qantas and the outsourcing there as well. Again, this points very clearly to the failure of the government to actually have a national aviation plan that is in the national interests of this country, and it is absolutely disgraceful. (Time expired)
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Chief Government Whip) (10:27): What an interesting year 2020 has been. When we came back from the Christmas holidays of 2019, we could hardly have imagined, in the depths and midst of the bushfire crisis at the start of the year, that at the end of 2020 we would be dealing with a global health crisis precipitated by the coronavirus. Many in my electorate over this last nine months or so have found their lives changed irrevocably, and we've all had to recalibrate what we do, why we do it and how we do it. Many have lost their jobs or had their hours cut, families have struggled to make ends meet and many of our small and family businesses have also been affected, particularly those in the retail, hospitality and tourism sectors.
The importance of this budget can't be understated in view of what has happened this year. What this budget was all about was providing hope to Australians that there is opportunity in the future. The Treasurer said in his budget speech that there are early signs that the Australian economy is fighting back. Businesses are reopening their doors and people are getting back to work. Of the 1.3 million people who lost their jobs or were stood down early in the crisis, more than 760,000 are now back working. And I've seen that in my electorate. Of the people whose businesses have reopened and, surprisingly, even the people that have taken a chance and started a new business during this crisis are doing well and prospering. But they are doing well and prospering because of the sense of confidence that the supports that this government has provided over the last nine months have worked. They are supporting people through difficult times. It is this light at the end of the tunnel that we seek to provide and Australians can be confident the Morrison government is there to support them and their families on the road to recovery. What is important is that often we can talk about things such as support and help and assistance, but what's more important in times of crisis is that it's actually delivered. That's what this government has done. It has delivered the supports necessary for individuals and families, for businesses and the broader community, to get through this crisis and be in reasonable shape to recover and rebuild our economy as we come out of this crisis and the COVID-19 impacts wane over time.
This budget lays out our plans for that economic recovery, and fundamental to these plans is jobs. Our plans are about creating the opportunity for our businesses and individuals to build new businesses and create jobs to employ people, because we know that economic activity that employs people is what creates our economic wealth. It's about getting Australians back to work and, importantly, securing the future for thousands of young Australians, who also have been particularly hard hit by the pandemic. Our plans put everyday Australians front and centre of the recovery, not government, because on this side of the chamber we recognise that it's everyday Australians, through their hard work, ingenuity, grit and determination, who will carry this nation forward into the future. It's not about the government constantly being involved in that. It's about letting Australians get on with what they do best. Government is not the solution; our Australians are.
There are Australians like Terry Gulliver, who owns and operates Gullivers Coomera on the northern Gold Coast. Terry founded the small family owned business way back in 1998 and has since grown the business to one of the Gold Coast's largest swim schools, delivering 65,000 lessons a year and a sports based outside school hours care program. Gullivers Coomera was the pilot used in 2003 to launch the federal government's outside school hours care program, which is now active right across the country. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, Gullivers Coomera employed a total of 53 staff. When the pandemic hit, Terry faced the prospect of having to close his business and stand staff down. Fortunately, the Morrison government's JobKeeper program meant Terry could retain 46 of his 53 staff and eventually even hire four more workers during this period. He also took advantage of our expanded instant asset write-off by purchasing two new state-of-the-art water purification systems at a cost of $60,000. Importantly, these were manufactured by a local business down the road at Nerang, Brauer Industries. This is a story of growth, following one of the most difficult periods in our nation's history. Importantly, it's not unique. I'm sure many members in this place would tell similar stories of recovery and growth happening across communities around the country and, importantly, in my electorate of Forde.
The Morrison government's 2020-21 budget is one designed and focused on jobs. It is designed to build on the measures that have saved jobs and create even more jobs in order to drive the economic recovery in the electorate of Forde and across the nation. Measures such as providing a temporary tax incentive will allow around 18,000 businesses in Forde to write off the full value of any eligible asset they purchase, building on the government's successful instant asset write-off measure announced earlier this year. This measure will allow thousands of businesses in Forde like Gullivers Coomera to invest in and grow their businesses. Terry has already told me that, as a result of these tax incentives, he will purchase for his business new pool covers, a coffee machine, a new air-conditioning system and a new bus to improve his services to the community and grow his business. This represents investments of over $130,000 for this year alone, in the middle of a pandemic.
Why is this important? Well, I think we can use this one example, of Gullivers Coomera, to explain why when we break down the impacts of this business investment in the local community. As I mentioned earlier, Terry's $60,000 water purification system meant work for local Nerang based manufacturers Brauer Industries. When I was at Gullivers recently, I was speaking to the technicians from Brauer who installed the system. They were saying over 90 per cent of the components of the system were sourced from local supply chains in Australia, so there were jobs created through the installation. There were also jobs created through the installation and maintenance of the pool covers. The installation of new air conditioning means work for our local installers and electricians. And the new bus will need to be maintained and serviced, which means more jobs for local mechanics and service centres. In just this one example we can see how the government, acting as a catalyst for recovery, is enabling business to invest and grow while creating dozens of jobs in the process.
It is not just business benefitting from the budget. There are also hardworking Australians who will benefit from the tax relief delivered by bringing forward stage 2 of our legislated personal income tax plan by two years, and extending the low- and middle-income tax offset for an additional year. This measure alone means some 79,200 taxpayers in Forde will benefit from tax relief of up to $2,745 this year to support their spending on their lifestyles, and to help them get through this difficult period. Treasury estimates the personal income tax relief from this budget will create an additional 50,000 jobs by the end of 2021-22. These jobs will come from locals spending in their community on the things they want and need, because this government has ensured that more of what they earn stays in their pockets. They get to make the decision on how they spend it.
In addition, some 17,186 aged pensioners and 2,686 carers in Forde have already received economic support payments of $750 in April and July, and will receive a further $250 in payments in December and in March next year. This will support senior Australians and those on income support in a particularly difficult time, and further support our economic recovery. Senior Australians like Diane and Gordon Bradbury, who live at Palm Lake Resort at Waterford, used the initial economic support payments on some unforeseen medical expenses, repairs to the car and to help the family. They told me the additional payments announced in the budget were a welcome boost to their household, allowing them to bring forward plans on purchasing some new furniture. Stories like Diane and Gordon's are not unique across the electorate of Forde, and thousands of residents are benefitting from the Morrison government's strong economic management, which has put us in a position of strength to respond to this crisis with targeted economic support while keeping Australians safe. That's what this is all about. It's about giving Australians the support they need to face the challenges ahead.
This year has been tough for all of us, especially for young Australians, whether it's somebody who has just started at university or a new job, or decided to start a family or get into their first home. I know the past few months have been challenging for young people in Forde. We know now that many of the jobs lost at the beginning of the pandemic were held by young people, and that young Australians also face the greatest risk of long-term unemployment as a result of the recession. This budget seeks to prevent that from happening. The budget seeks to secure the future of young Australians by giving our kids a solid foundation to achieve their hopes and dreams. It secures their future by investing in skills and training, delivering incentives for employers to hire young people, helping Australians getting into their first home, cutting waste and superannuation and, where necessary—and importantly, as we know across this place—providing mental health support to young people who are struggling. Equally, it also guarantees the essential services many of our young people rely on, whether its education or health.
Locally, we've seen the impact of our positive plan for the economic recovery on our young people. Our plan has given businesses in the electorate of Forde the confidence they need to invest, grow and, importantly, hire young people, businesses like Holmwood Highgate at Loganholme, a local family owned business involved in advanced manufacturing. I had the great privilege of visiting Holmwood Highgate recently with the Prime Minister when he was in Queensland. We spoke to the owner, Wade Mellish. When I asked Wade what the budget meant for him and his business, he said, 'The budget has been a good stimulus to our business. What we can now do is go out and happily invest and be a successful business going forward because we have the confidence to invest in new technologies, put on apprentices and keep employing Australians to make good Australian products.' In fact, thanks to measures such as the JobMaker Hiring Credit and the Boosting Apprenticeships Commencements program, business owners across Forde, like Wade, can move forward having the confidence and the incentives to give young Australians a job. That's what this is all about: giving our kids the skills and opportunities they need for a successful life.
This budget also delivers on the infrastructure our communities need to get residents home sooner and safer, while creating much needed construction jobs to drive economic activity. Locally, the Morrison government is delivering $38 million in road safety upgrades and shovel-ready projects in Forde, with work starting this financial year. We're also getting on with fixing the M1 and upgrading the Mount Lindesay Highway, with a $37.5 million investment to upgrade the Mount Lindesay Highway at Park Ridge, duplicating the highway from Stoney Camp Road to Chambers Flat Road, creating a safer road to ensure commuters, tradies and transport companies can get home sooner and safer. Some of the road safety improvements include Beaudesert Beenleigh Road, Beenleigh Redland Bay Road and exits at exits 41, 45 and 49 on the M1. We are doing all this without raising taxes, because our strong economic management over the past six years has put us in a position of strength to respond to the challenges.
I commend this bill in its original form to the House.
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (10:42): I want to take this opportunity from the outset to thank the people of Greenway for getting through and continuing to get through what has obviously been a very trying time not only for Australia but for the world in both an economic and a health sense—and also an emotional sense. Certainly, there is, I believe, a great risk of complacency possibly being our biggest enemy at the moment. I said a couple of months ago that as I walked through the main street of Blacktown it was hard to find someone who didn't have a mask on, but then a couple of weeks later that all appeared to change. So I think we all need to ensure that we are maintaining social distancing, that we are not going to work when we're sick, that we are not sending our kids to school when they have symptoms. Another thing not a lot of people realise is that Western Sydney is a big place, as my friend the member for Werriwa will attest. Whilst there have been some outbreaks in various parts of Western Sydney—and we have had those at some shopping centres in my electorate and just adjoining my electorate—the reality is that right across Sydney there is a great risk. It doesn't matter where you live, whether it's Western Sydney or south-west Sydney. It depends upon all of us doing the right thing and ensuring that we don't become complacent.
The other thing that I wanted to note was that, more than ever, myself personally, my family and many people I engage with are very conscious of supporting local small businesses in any way they can. Be it through who you purchase from for home improvements and for your gardening, for example—I think we've all taken up, and are probably still at the tail end of, some special projects we thought sounded like a great idea a couple of months ago—more than ever, it's important to remain conscious of supporting local small businesses.
At the great risk of excluding the myriad small businesses and, in particular, restaurants and cafes that I frequent in my local area, I want to mention a couple. There's Sam's Gourmet Cafe in Riverstone, who, the last time I went there, were not able to accommodate sit-down customers, but are still serving the community and keeping everyone going; Limestone Cafe in Schofields; Young Lions Cafe in Blacktown; Borrowed Table in Kellyville Ridge; and Oregano & Oil in Blacktown. Walking through the main street of Blacktown, there has been, I believe, a sense of vibrancy. People are getting out and about, but we need to make sure that we do that in a very sensible way.
My electorate has a very large number of people of faith—and many different faiths, at that. This has been a very trying time for people of faith who are used to gathering in large congregations for events as well as regular weekly services. Last week I was so pleased to be able to join with some of my local community for a socially distanced and COVID-safe dinner. I've spoken in this place about the big functions that they have and how disappointing it was for them and also for me not to be able to attend one of their main gatherings this year. It was a delight to be able to have the opportunity to engage with them again as well as the Ahmadiyya Muslims at Marsden Park—a large number of whom live in my electorate—and to listen to how they've been coping and continuing that outreach with their various communities. I also had the opportunity not too long ago to catch up with Pastor Mark Tough, of St Clements Anglican Church in Lalor Park. As he was showing me through their church, he pointed out that it has been a difficult time for them but they have done what they needed to do.
On a personal note, I have spoken in this place a few times about my dad, who is a devout Catholic—a beautiful man of 88 years old who lives alone and independently. He made the decision very early on—it was a very difficult decision for him—to stop going to mass at St Bernadette's in Lalor Park. With the COVID restrictions, that was probably the best for him. As I continued to check up on him, he said to me, 'It's great; I go to mass every day'. I said, 'Dad, what are you talking about?' He goes to a virtual mass every day. He goes through the Catholic resources. It's always a delight, Dad, when you let me know which church you've popped up in. He contacted me a little while ago and he said, 'I just heard the best homily,' and he went through the homily and how great it was. I said, 'Who was it, Dad?' He said, 'It was a cathedral in Darwin.' So, of course, I contacted the member for Solomon and said, 'Look, my dad is a fan of your church,' and it just so happens that the member for Solomon is in the choir there. I take my hat off to those people of faith in my community who kept their faith strong—and whose faith has become stronger as a result of the pandemic.
I also want to send out some special well wishes to all those young people who have commenced or about to commence their HSC exams. We expect so much of our young people. I think two things in particular have come through in this pandemic. The first is how adaptable young people are. By and large, as I have engaged in various online forums, in particular, with young people, I have noted their sense of adaptability but also their sense of optimism. Whilst I don't want to undermine the fact that mental health is very important and needs the best support it can get, I think we sometimes underestimate young people a bit too much. They really are adaptable. They really are doing their best. I personally believe that much of this generation is going to come through stronger than mine came through. But, of course, there are many people who are going to need assistance, and I think it goes without saying we all support any measures that can be provided in a variety of formats, be they through health professionals or counsellors or giving parents the tools they need in order to support their children.
The second point related to that is: having gone through that period of virtual learning with my own eight-year-old, and having my three-year-old continue to go to preschool every day, especially during the height of the pandemic, I want to thank all those educators right around our community, and certainly around Australia, who have done such an outstanding job. The school pick-up and drop-off is a nightmare at the best of times when you have large housing developments, as I know the member for Werriwa has in her area. It's bad enough without a pandemic—the traffic problems and so forth. I take my hat off to all those local schools in Greenway who have adapted as best they can to do this for the safety of their children, their staff and their local communities. Thank you for that.
I want to make some mention of what is one of the centrepieces of Labor's budget reply—that is, child care. Greenway is a relatively young electorate. It is among the 25 youngest electorates by median age in the country. I have some 9½ thousand children under the age of five in my community, many of whom's families choose to utilise local childcare services so that their parents can work. As a consumer of child care myself, I can say how much I have valued that. I think we have all met those constituents. Invariably, it is the mother of the family unit who will say: 'I work three days a week. I would work four, and I'd love to work five, but any more than three and I actually start to lose money.' That simply does not make sense. It does not make sense from an equity perspective and it does not make sense from an economic perspective.
I think it's so important to make child care more affordable. The announcement that Labor has made, making child care more affordable for 97 per cent of families in the childcare system, is so vital. This will cut costs by between $600 and $2,900 a year, with no family being worse off. We would scrap the $10,560 childcare subsidy cap, which, as I said, often sees parents losing money from an extra day's work. I recently had the great pleasure of welcoming the Labor leader and the member for Kingston to Kids Early Learning in Lalor Park, which is operated by Blacktown City Council. What a fantastic job our local council childcare operators do. They were excluded from wage subsidy assistance. I take my hat off to Blacktown council and the other local councils in my area—but Blacktown in particular, who went to such extraordinary lengths to not lay anyone off and to keep their workforce gainfully employed.
In the short time I have remaining, I want to acknowledge the passing and legacy of one of Blacktown's great servicers: Dr Russ Dickens OAM, who was a councillor on the Blacktown City Council. He really did live and breathe Blacktown City. The fact that our community is the business hub it is today and a fantastic place to live, work and raise a family in is in no small part due to his 36-year public service contribution. Russ was first elected to Blacktown City Council as an independent councillor in September 1980 and served until 2016. He was mayor in 1987 and deputy mayor from 2012 to 2014. Russ was a Blacktown stalwart. He was a local veterinarian—probably, I would say, the best known vet in Blacktown. He cared for thousands of local pets. He was the person, including the entire period he was serving as a councillor, who would be at the Blacktown Pet Fest checking people's pets free of charge. You would go and visit him, and his place in Seven Hills—which I think everyone knew so well—would be a Noah's Ark. Russ's legacy extends far beyond Blacktown city. He was actually one of the first vets to study disease in koalas and provide clinical management advice. He was a founding member of the Australian Koala Foundation, a non-profit, non-government organisation dedicated to addressing the causes of population decline in koalas. I had the great privilege of serving alongside Russ on Blacktown City Council from 2004. In that time he was always a tenacious advocate. He was a strong believer in the ability to make immense and lasting changes in local government. He was also fiercely independent. He would vote the way the merits of the argument were going. He made conscious decisions, in many cases, to support either the incumbents or the opposition on council at the time, and there was absolutely no doubt about this man's integrity. I had tremendous respect for him. He was a very gently spoken, strong-willed man who always had Blacktown as his first priority but also the welfare of animals, which was his lifelong passion. I extend my deepest condolences to Lorina and their children, Sue, Helen, Jenny and Rowan. Vale, Dr Russ Dickens OAM.
Mr CONNELLY (Stirling) (10:56): Today I rise to speak about the importance of critical minerals, particularly in Australia and into our future. Global supply chains have been rocked by COVID-19. While Australia has done comparatively well, we have not been immune, and supplies of many important goods have been strained. For some goods, this has been reasonably quick and easy to solve. For example, when we needed more face masks, resources were diverted towards domestic manufacture, and we were quickly able to solve those related problems. For other goods, however, shifting to domestic supply is much harder. We currently import 90 per cent of medicines, and the manufacturing of complex molecules that are safe for humans can't simply be easily switched on and off. We need to assess our broader supply chain risks and opportunities. Sadly, the 21st century has already seen several incidents of trade being used as a diplomatic weapon. The pandemic has compounded geopolitical relationships that were already under pressure, and the risk of trade restrictions being used as a foreign policy tool has substantially increased. Diversifying our export commodities and markets is therefore essential. We need to grapple with an uneasy realisation that, along with cost, supply risks and national resilience are extremely important considerations. Australia can and must adapt to this new reality and be prepared for future shocks. We can and must become more resilient.
The Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade has opened an inquiry into the strategic implications of COVID-19. The terms of reference for this inquiry include the identification of practical measures for an effective national resilience framework that will underpin Australia's economic and strategic objectives. I wish to speak about one of these measures: the full realisation of Australia's critical minerals potential. This has rightly been recognised as one of six key national priorities in the modern manufacturing strategy announced in the 2021 federal budget. I know that this is welcomed by Australian critical minerals companies such as Northern Minerals, in my home state of Western Australia. Critical minerals are those that are essential to the economy or national security of a country and have supply chains that are prone to disruption. Supply risk factors include production being concentrated in one or only a few countries, which are able to manipulate prices and export quantities; a lack of suitable substitutes; and a high risk of supply disruptions due to civil unrest, environmental factors such as floods, or political interference.
Those risk factors mean that critical minerals markets are almost always highly volatile. Almost all modern technology contains at least one component that requires a critical mineral. Consider our beloved smartphones. The touch screens are made of a film that contains indium. The microphones have neodymium magnets. Praseodymium, terbium, yttrium and gadolinium are used to make the vibrant colours in the displays. They're hard to pronounce, but all of those critical minerals are extremely important. Our National Broadband Network wouldn't work without the germanium that is added to the core of fibre-optic cables.
As the world looks to renewable energy, it's important to note that critical minerals are vital components of those technologies as well. Magnets made of neodymium, dysprosium, samarium and praseodymium are needed in wind turbines. Dysprosium stays magnetic at high temperatures, so it is used in electric cars to increase their efficiency, as well as their range. Vehicle manufacturers are concerned about the supplies of cobalt and lithium, which are important components of batteries. The list is endless. Basically, if something is new and innovative, more efficient and better for the environment, then it contains critical minerals. Although critical minerals are essential to modern technology, the amounts required are often minuscule. An electric car, for example, contains about 100 grams of dysprosium. The critical minerals trade is small compared to the trade in bulk commodities, like iron ore and coal.
Production concentration can make critical minerals a useful political weapon. An exporting country can restrict or halt supplies at little cost to its own economy. This will inflict significant damage to large value-adding manufacturing industries in importing countries. Japanese manufacturing is heavily reliant on rare-earth minerals, almost all of which are mined and processed in China. In 2010, during a dispute over the sovereignty of the Senkaku Islands, Beijing halted exports of rare earths to Japan. That sent a clear message to Japan and also to the rest of the world: 'Your economies need rare earths and only we produce them.' In the aftermath, the US took an assessment of its own economy and the findings were stark. If China or Russia were to stop exporting critical minerals for a protracted period, that would cause a significant economic shock to both the US and its allies.
The consequences are not just economic. There are critical minerals in a wide range of modern weaponry, including missiles and radar and targeting systems. As the world transitions to a low-carbon future, our current fleet of petrol and diesel vehicles will be replaced with electric or hydrogen models in the next 50 years. Whichever countries manufacture the billions of replacement vehicles will capture a significant slice of future economic growth. This leads us back to the 100 grams of dysprosium that I mentioned are in every electric car. Almost all dysprosium is currently produced in China. That will undoubtedly result in that country capturing a bigger share of electric vehicle manufacturing and/or gaining leverage over other nations that rely on dysprosium as a critical input to their own production. Australia has recently begun to produce rare earths on a modest scale and we have the capacity to produce a great deal more. This will reduce our economic reliance on our exports of raw materials, particularly iron ore and coal, and boost domestic manufacturing.
Countries right around the world are waking up to the importance of critical minerals to their economic wellbeing. The US is import-reliant on 31 critical minerals and, in 2017, President Trump signed an executive order implementing a critical minerals strategy for the US. The EU's critical raw minerals list defines 27 critical minerals, India considers itself reliant on 12 and Japan on 31. Australia also has a critical minerals strategy that was developed in 2019. While the major economies of the world are scrambling to secure their supplies, our strategy aims to position Australia as a reliable supplier. Around the world, there's a growing realisation that Australia has something that the rest of the world needs. We recently signed a memorandum of understanding with India, agreeing to work together to increase trade investment and R&D in the critical minerals sector. At the same time, Australia is working actively with the US towards a joint action plan, and this joint action plan will improve the resilience and the diversity of global critical minerals supply chains.
Realising this immense potential isn't as simple as commissioning another mine though, so the government is right to fund research and development of innovative ways to reduce costs, such as new drilling techniques or the use of big data to better target prospective deposits. In the near term, we also need to position ourselves as a preferred supplier for high-end manufacturers. In the medium to long term, our aim should be to shift value-adding manufacturing onshore. Most value is added after the mining and processing stages, and too much of that occurs outside of Australia. The Modern Manufacturing Strategy will assist in shifting value-adding activities onshore. Once produced, active trade diplomacy is also needed to develop our export potential. Investors need to be encouraged to take advantage of the opportunities Australia has to offer. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's efforts in this area are beginning to bear fruit. The Critical Minerals Facilitation Office has been set up for that purpose, and Austrade and the export credit agency also assist with investment into Australia.
Our mines will always need skilled geologists, engineers, explosive experts and competent operators, so it's also vitally important that we turn our attention to developing and maintaining an appropriate skills base here in Australia. A vibrant and adaptable education centre is going to play an essential role. If we are to progress to manufacturing in Australia, our university, TAFE and apprenticeship programs must be able to meet those needs and build our processing and manufacturing know-how.
We also need to think beyond just the minerals sector. We are an extremely large country and, whilst our wide open spaces are undoubtedly a blessing, remoteness does increase the costs of doing business. Australia's Critical Minerals Strategy rightly recognises that broader infrastructure investment is required to better connect remote Australia to roads, rail and ports. This will reduce the cost of doing business and increase the viability of projects in remote areas. Processing, refining and manufacturing are all energy intensive activities, so reliable and affordable energy will improve Australia's competitiveness in these areas and help us to capture more of the downstream value chain.
The blow delivered by COVID-19 has been substantial and has laid bare shortcomings in our supply chains. It is absolutely essential that Australia meets this changed world, as it is, with the confidence to make our own changes to secure our own better future in which we can continue to prosper. Clearly, as outlined today, critical minerals are going to play an important role in securing Australia's future—for the value that's added in mining these critical minerals, which are plentiful in Australia; for the value which will be added by processing more onshore; and for the value that will be added as we seek to export more processed critical minerals to the rest of the world. We must be able to withstand future shocks. We must be able to sustain critical goods and services during disruptions in an economically changed world. Although this will undoubtedly be a challenge, Australia has every reason to be rightly optimistic. We can produce critical minerals to meet our own future needs as well as the rest of the world's, and that will further enhance our enormous comparative advantage which we enjoy in mining and processing here in Australia.
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (11:10): I rarely do this in debates on the appropriation bills, but I want to extend my compliments to the previous speaker, the member for Stirling. It is good to hear MPs, members of parliament, who actually think about these issues. He's not used to people giving him compliments, so he's walking out. I'm actually giving you a compliment on your speech.
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr HUSIC: It is good to be able to hear a contribution without the usual blah, blah, blah that we get. You're someone who has obviously dedicated some time to the thinking and the application of that, and I commend you on your speech. That is what we should be using them for. It is important that we think beyond the talking points on these things.
I know that these budgets are marketing exercises, but this budget was marketing on steroids. It was fully pumped up. When I look at the budget and the contributions that members of parliament give during the budget session, particularly on the appropriations, which is what we are talking about now, you can either talk about the budget at the national level or at the specific local level. There are a whole range of ways that you can slice and dice these things. From my perspective, I will be talking about a national issue that has a critical impact on my area—and I suspect on my colleagues' electorates too—and that is infrastructure.
I come from a part of Western Sydney, north-west Sydney, which the member for Bennelong would be broadly familiar with. We have 200,000 people moving into our part of the world. If you're going to move so many people in, you've got to make sure that the infrastructure is there to move them around. I've got a lot of regard for the member for Bennelong's commitment to a massive, truly nation-building project, which is high-speed rail. I think it will have a big impact in the longer term if we get it right.
We talk about decentralisation. Today is six years to the day that Labor icon Gough Whitlam passed away, back in 2014. He was big on decentralisation and did a lot to encourage it. We owe it to people that have gone before us, who thought about this, to progress it.
One of the things that I'm proud to stand with a coalition member, the member for Bennelong, on is high-speed rail. I think it would genuinely change the way the nation goes—twinned with high-speed broadband. It would mean that people could work remotely and, if they needed to travel, they could live remotely and move quickly. If we were able to get this connected between Brisbane and Melbourne, it would transform the place. That would be infrastructure investment that would make a difference. It would create a lot of jobs, change the way we live and change the dynamic of the way the nation operates. In time, if you had the vision, you could see it connect up other parts of the country as well. It would be a leading thing to do. It would be good to do.
In my part of the world, governments love to announce new homes being built, but they never like to pay for them. By that I mean putting the infrastructure in place so that people aren't crammed in like sardines on the main roads or on public transport. In my part of the world, I'm looking at 200,000 people moving in. We've already got roads that are choked after they were built up just a few years ago. Richmond Road out near Marsden Park has dual lanes either side. That was increased from a single lane either side a few years ago. It's already choked. People can't move.
Recently on TV, on Channel Nine, a resident talked about how his neighbour had moved into the new estate in Elara, Marsden Park and then moved back to Wentworthville. He had his dream home, but he moved his family out because it took him 25 minutes to get from where he lived in the estate to the main road, because the main road was already choked and that created a backlog all the way through. This is what people are putting up with.
I've spoken about that. I've also spoken about other bottlenecks in our area that I was really hoping we'd get some money in this budget to fix. I wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister about Francis Road and Railway Street and the Davis overpass upgrade in the Rooty Hill and Mount Druitt area. This road connects to the Mount Druitt Hospital. Every day you see traffic lined up. It's another road in my area that's choked. I wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister. He took his sweet time to respond. He sent me a typical response—blah, blah, blah. The letter said: 'The Australian government remains committed to delivering a $100 billion 10-year infrastructure pipeline'—blah, blah, blah—'laying the foundations for a financial bridge'—blah—'to meet the challenges of a fast-growing population'—blah, blah, blah—'to support jobs and the economy to stem the economic impact of COVID-19.' All the little catchphrases and fancy phrases are in there. There's $100 billion over 10 years.
Last year there was an underspend of the infrastructure budget under this Deputy Prime Minister and infrastructure minister. There was $1.7 billion they didn't spend in the last financial year. How could that escape any normal person? They would all say that, with all the stuff that's going on in this country, how can you underspend by $1.7 billion? If you go back over the course of this government, you'll see that they're underspending $1 billion a year. They talk about $100 billion over 10 years as a financial bridge, but there are all these holes in the bridge that we just passed and that was just laid out. They are underspending all the time.
There are all these people who are frustrated. They don't see the infrastructure working. I don't see the Metro North West, which stops at Tallawong, getting connected to St Mary's. One of the busiest transport connections from Penrith to the city—the T1 line—even according to the New South Wales government's own statistics, is late three out of five days. It's crowded and it's late. We haven't had a plan to decongest that rail line since Kristina Keneally was the Premier. There has been no plan. Minister Andrew Constance can't fit a ferry under a bridge or put new trains on tracks—they don't fit properly and have to be refitted. The can't-do minister, Andrew Constance, teamed up with the no-clue infrastructure minister, Michael McCormack. We are depending on them to generate jobs through infrastructure at a time when COVID is having an impact, and they can't do that right.
The infrastructure minister was asked recently about people in the north-west feeling like the airport is sucking up all the infrastructure dollars. He was asked what he is doing for them there. His answer to those infrastructure problems in north-west Sydney was, 'We're putting all this money into the second airport.' That second airport will not help at all the people on clogged roads or on late trains. They are now connecting another rail line to St Mary's from the airport. It isn't going to open for six years. Meanwhile, you have 200,000 people moving into north-west Sydney, the trains being late and the roads being clogged. They're not getting the support that they need. You need to decongest the rail line, connect the Metro North West—and I commend the New South Wales Liberal government for building this; I had my doubts about it, but it is a good rail system—and build the M9, which is the next motorway parallel to the M7. There is nothing about that in the budget.
When I asked Michael McCormack, the infrastructure minister, to fund Francis Road, which connects to the Mount Druitt Hospital and has ambulances on it attending to emergencies, he said, 'No, I can't.' He said, 'Should the New South Wales government prioritise the project you've mentioned, the Australian government would be prepared to consider a request for funding.' That's what he said. What happens when citizens ask for infrastructure funding to be delivered? They don't get heard. Who gets heard? The cronies get heard, like Daryl Maguire, who doesn't even represent Western Sydney—he's from Wagga Wagga. He was getting meetings with key officials in the New South Wales government, as revealed by ICAC, plus the New South Wales Premier, and getting the ear of those people for infrastructure projects and decisions around the second airport, in an area that he does not represent. He is not an MP for that area. He gets their ear, but the ordinary citizen gets ignored. It's wrong, wrong, wrong that cronies get prioritised above citizens in this case, when they're stuck in traffic and stuck on late trains. It's wrong. That's the reason, more than anything else, that I think the Premier should go out of New South Wales, in terms of allowing that to happen, turning a blind eye, allowing this to happen under the Premier's watch, with this 'can't do' minister in Andrew Constance, who couldn't fit a ferry under a bridge. They had all that stuff happen.
Then, when you look at the budget papers—this is Budget Paper No. 2—and you turn to infrastructure in New South Wales, let me read these projects. There is $600 million for the New England Highway, a coalition seat; another $600 million for the Newell Highway, a coalition seat; $490 million for the Coffs Harbour bypass, a coalition seat; $360 million for Newcastle, because you have to have some Labor in there to make it look slightly legitimate; $150 million for grade separating roads in places—I'm sure the bulk of that will go to coalition seats; $120 million for the Prospect Highway—in part that covers a Labor seat; $94 million for Heathcote Road upgrade, a coalition seat; $63 million for Dunheved Road, a marginal Liberal seat; $60 million here the M1 North Smart Motorway, largely through Liberal seats to the Warringah freeway; $46 million for Mulgoa Road upgrade, a Liberal seat.
That is coalition infrastructure spending right there. But if you're in a Labor seat and you have high growth, you get nothing—nothing at all. It's not about the needs of the citizen; it's about the needs of the politician. That's the way it's working with infrastructure. It is plain wrong. People should be getting the support that will make their lives easier.
It's not just about clearing people off clogged roads or late trains. The infrastructure projects themselves deliver jobs while the build is on, but in my part of the world, if for example you see the M7 and M9 built, you open up economic lands between those two motorways. The movement of people in between there as well means it is not just about residents; it is businesses. We transform that part of the world, as we see right now with the Sydney Business Park in Marsden Park, which is creating 60,000 direct and indirect jobs. Everyone talks about the second airport as having an impact on my area. Garbage. Having the second airport creates as much economic activity for me here as saying that Sydney Airport creates all this economic activity in Hornsby. I am sure it delivers economic activity close to where the airport is, but it doesn't uniformly deliver it. But if you get the infrastructure moving in my part of the world, there are business and industrial parks that open up that create a diversity of business opportunities in the area. New jobs get generated. This whole idea is that if you want to see locals working close by, not having to travel long distances—the 30-minute city, as it has been called—you see that actually happen.
The other thing is that by having the broader infrastructure improvements in terms of rail, stopping those late trains, seeing faster movement of people, in big cities you can have the 30-minute city, but the big productivity benefit is that you are always going to be moving people from the west to the east in a city like Sydney. You are going to need to get them into the Sydney CBD—that's a reality. So get them moving faster. Clear up the western expressway, that T1 line. Decongest that rail line. Get people moving in. Have alternative ways of moving people around by connecting up the Sydney Metro to St Marys railway station so you have the metro and the T1 connected. That's the longer-term stuff. By the way, connecting the metro up to St Marys is not in the Chifley electorate. That is in the Lindsay electorate. It's a Liberal electorate. Again, picking up on what the member for Bennelong has said about his vision, he's not arguing for high-speed rail for his electorate, he's arguing it for the nation. I'm arguing it for the city of Sydney, so we are on a unity ticket there my friend. That's the way it should work. There will be some people who'll say, 'All those projects that you read out that were in coalition seats, well the coalition won government.' It was very close, and not all projects can be in coalition seats; infrastructure dollars should be for the benefit of a broader number of Australians. That's why this budget should be condemned, because it is for pork barrels rather than people.
Mr PEARCE (Braddon) (11:25): It gives me pleasure to speak to Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2020-2021 this morning. This year's federal budget represents the next phase of the Morrison government's economic recovery plan. There's no doubt that the COVID-19 pandemic has been catastrophic. The statistics are sobering, and, on the ground in my region, the impact on businesses and on Tasmanian families right across the north-west, the west coast and King Island has often been heartbreaking.
When the crisis first hit this year, it was the responsibility of the federal government to provide support to all Australians in this time of need and in this time of crisis. They expect it and they deserve it. The Morrison government has been there for all Australians, and the programs needed to cushion the blow have been put into place. The response to the COVID pandemic has been swift and effective, and centred on a comprehensive, targeted strategy. Whether it's JobKeeper, JobSeeker, the $750 cash payment to the householder or cashflow boosts, the government provided the lifeline that many businesses and individuals needed to keep them afloat when the pandemic first struck.
These programs and these measures have done their job in Tasmania. To that end, the NAB business survey for September 2020 confirmed that Tasmania is once again bucking the national trend when it comes to businesses confidence about their futures. They understand that the government has their back. Tasmania continues to be ranked first in the nation for business conditions, more than 20 points higher than the national average. It's great news for the north-west, the west coast and King Island, and it puts us in a strong position as we recover from the impacts of COVID-19 and we rebuild our community and our economy. The survey also indicated that Tasmania was one of two states that have seen positive business confidence. The Deloitte Access Economics business outlook report for the September 2020 quarter also confirms the government's strategies are working on the ground in states like the great state of Tasmania. The report indicated that, despite the pandemic, Tasmania's economy is forecast to grow strongly. Importantly, Tasmanians are starting to spend again, to the point that retail trade has bounced back to above pre-COVID levels.
On the jobs front, nearly 16,000 jobs have now returned since the state reached the height of the pandemic impacts in May. These statistics are testimony to the important partnership between the Morrison government and the Tasmanian Liberal government, led by Peter Gutwein. But, of course, there is much more to be done, and we can't rest on our laurels. Business still needs us, and Tasmanians still need us. It's time to move to the next phase. It's time to shift the focus, to move from crisis management to recovery; to supercharge job creation, to stimulate the economy and to drive investment; and to provide direct assistance to families, to encourage them to continue to spend in our circular economy.
It's important to understand that government's role is not to drive our economy. It doesn't do that. That is not its job. It's businesses role to drive our economy, and we understand full well that businesses, particularly small businesses, are the engine room of our economy. They will be responsible for leading us out of this dark place. Businesses have always driven our economy, and it will be businesses that will lead us out of this pandemic. The government's role is to provide the opportunities for businesses to get back on their feet, to streamline process and to support them, to give them the tools that they need to go about their business. That's the focus of this budget. That's where the focus lies: getting businesses back up and going again, getting employees back into jobs and getting businesses spending and investing in our local communities.
Quite rightly, the 2020 budget's priority areas are job creation and business support and skills development. This is an investment in our future that will ensure, as our region rebuilds from this pandemic, we are best placed to maximise the benefits of emerging opportunities. The budget does not just focus on getting us back to where we were before COVID-19 but it's targeted at ensuring that our region is able to take advantage of all opportunities that lie ahead of us. It prioritises the opportunities available and ensures that everyone—whether you are young or old, whether you live in the city or the bush—can make the most of these opportunities and to be the best that they can be.
This budget, more than any budget before, recognises the vital contribution of our regional communities—like ours, like the one I'm proud of and I represent today—and the part that we play in our nation's prosperity. We are the food bowl of the nation when it comes to dairy, beef and minerals. We are a leader in advanced manufacturing and defence manufacturing, and we're home to one of Australia's great regional universities. During the initial outbreak of the pandemic, it was these industries that did the heavy lifting. It was these industries that were the first to start the recovery, and they underpinned our initial economic response to the pandemic. I want to thank every last one of them. Every last small business in Tasmania that did the hard yards, that kept people on, that kept them employed, that took that extra step and made those employees part of their business family, I thank you all for that. This budget focuses on what needs to be done to take our region to the next level.
I now want to take a little time to talk about the JobMaker Hiring Credit, which I think is a wonderful and very worthwhile initiative. The JobMaker Hiring Credit is a game changer in my region. It's already working. Businesses right across the region are looking to employ new staff because of this important initiative. I was contacted by Catalyst Business Improvement last week. They're a great small business in Devonport on the north-west coast. They told me that the program is a winner and that they were looking at putting three or four new staff on because of that JobMaker Hiring Credit. 'Great policy at work,' they said. It's working on the ground. I have no doubt that the JobMaker Hiring Credit will make a huge difference right across our region, giving businesses, small, medium and large, the extra motivation to employ young people and to grow their business to the level that they should be at. This will improve the economic, health and social outcomes for the region and will reduce the scarring from long-term unemployment, and we know where that leads us.
The JobTrainer and new apprenticeship program is, again, a wonderful and very worthwhile strategy in our budget. It strengthens the skills and training system and is a priority for this government, a priority that is reflected in the budget. The $1 billion JobTrainer program will provide up to an additional 347,700 training places right across the country from school leavers up to people that are entering tertiary and vocational job institutions. School leavers and jobseekers, right across the north-west, the west coast and King Island in my electorate, will benefit from this increased access to low-face-to-face free training under this significant investment. Over $21 million will be injected into Tasmanian's vocational education system. And $10.52 million from the Australian government, matched dollar for dollar by the Tasmanian Liberal government, will increase this important role in our VET system. The JobTrainer Fund represents substantial and significant investment in Tasmania's training system and continues to be government's commitment as we ensure that the state's VET system delivers quality training for learners and is representative of the needs of people living in the region.
Complementing this program is the new apprenticeship and trainee wage subsidy program, and, importantly, the budget has extended the subsidies that include businesses of all sizes, in all industries and in all locations—that's important for my region. Employers will be able to receive subsidies for up to 50 per cent of the wages for a newly commencing apprentice or trainee to the value of $7,000 per quarter. That makes a real difference on the ground to a business. I know this program is fit for purpose and is exactly what our region needs.
I want to talk about our tax relief and support payments. The best way to stimulate an economy and economic activity isn't to tax people; it's about getting businesses back spending money again. The 2020 budget provides an additional $17.8 billion in personal income tax relief to support the economic recovery. Around 36½ thousand taxpayers across the north-west, the west coast and King Island will benefit from tax relief of up to $2,745 per year. The timing of this couldn't have been better for the region. We're moving into the vital Christmas spending period, and it's important for families to have a few dollars to spare. This Christmas will not look like any other, but this measure will ensure that thousands of hardworking people in Tasmania will have a little bit extra money in their pocket when it's important. This means that those businesses who are relying on Christmas spending will get that extra boost that they need, right when they need it.
Also supported in the region are lower-income people and pension recipients. Around 16,740 recipients across the region will benefit from two separate payments of $250, the first being delivered prior to Christmas. That'll make a real difference. Our tax relief is also targeted at business, supporting economic activity. The extension of the government's successful instant asset write-off will allow over 99 per cent of all businesses to deduct the full cost of eligible depreciable assets of any value in the year that they are installed—a game changer for business. I don't have to go too far across my electorate to see people who are taking that measure up. Truck drivers, farmers, family people, printers, accountants, you name it—they've all told me how great the measure is and how much of a difference it's making to them to get them back on their feet. I don't have to go too far to find business owners taking this measure up either. Businesses in the transport industry, agriculture, printers, accountants, our forestry industry, our thriving fishing industry—they're all taking this up and it's all helping to get businesses more confident and spending money again.
Agriculture is a key part of my region's prosperity, and this budget will inject an additional $2 billion into projects through the National Water Infrastructure Development Fund. This announcement will go further to strengthen the industry. Irrigation water is liquid gold, and it's important to my farmers. In the partnership between the state government and the federal government, our pipeline to prosperity is a statewide irrigation plan that's expected to provide almost 78,000 megalitres of water and create 2½ thousand full-time jobs. It will trigger an additional $150 million of on-farm private investment and inject an estimated $114 million into this sector just this year. It's incredible.
I also welcome the inclusion of Project Marinus as one of the three key project areas of the federal government's injection of funds. We share in the $250 million to accelerate this major transmission project across Australia, continuing to deliver more affordable, more reliable electricity, underwriting dispatchable energy and shoring up the energy that renewables are making in our energy system. The Marinus Link represents, once again, a generational opportunity for the region. It means that we are able to deliver the valuable hydroelectricity capability that we have in the state to the mainland in their time of need, to shore up the national electricity grid's requirement for dispatchable energy and provide my state with a revenue source as we go forward—not just for today, not just for tomorrow, but for many years to come. The project will deliver many jobs and is a key driver for training opportunities, particularly across the north-west. We've invested $7.1 billion into our economy and creating thousands of jobs in our region.
I have great faith in our region's local councils and I talk to them on a regular basis. Across my region, there are eight great councils, which are elected by the people for the people, and they continue to do a great job through this pandemic. It's our local councils who best understand how to spend that money and what their communities really need. That's why I welcome the budget's announcement that there will be an additional $1 billion for local governments through the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program. It's a great program, and they really appreciate it. This builds on an initial $500 million announced in May this year, and this funding will facilitate grassroots, community-led recovery plans right across our eight local government areas. It empowers local government in our region and, again, it gives them confidence. The 2020 budget provides our region with a range of programs and opportunities that support them through the pandemic. I know that they all appreciate the work that not only the state government but also the federal government have done and will continue to do, and that they will stand by them. They know they have their back and that they will be back in business and jobs.
Ms MURPHY (Dunkley) (11:40): As we know, in 2020, Australians are living through a global pandemic. They're also living through the reality of the worst national account figures since the 1930s. As it is across the country, people in my community of Dunkley are feeling the economic impacts—there is no doubt—and also the mental health and other impacts of the restrictions that we are living through in order to save lives and suppress the virus. There is no doubt that reviving economic growth and creating jobs are critical challenges facing Australia's leaders and will be for many years to come. As we imagine a post-COVID or COVID-normal Australia, whatever they may be, we also need to ask ourselves: are the traditional measures of national income, such as GDP, sufficient indicators of our progress? I don't believe that they are. As economist Simon Kuznets said:
The welfare of a nation can scarcely be inferred from a measure of national income.
In a speech to the University of Kansas back in 1938, Senator Robert Kennedy noted:
The gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.
So, while economic prosperity, fairly shared, must play a central role in our national agenda, in order for Australia and Australians to truly thrive, that economic prosperity should be embedded in a larger story of wellbeing—a story of people and of communities; a story of the places that we live in and that we love.
Reflecting on the way in which my constituents in Dunkley have responded to the challenges of 2020 and the issues that they have asked me, as their federal member, to champion in this place, they describe to me social connectedness, opportunities to participate in community, equitable access to physical and mental health support, employment and education, and the preservation of our local environment as part of our national and global environment. There is no doubt that people in my community care about economic growth, but they care about a lot more as well. In July this year—which simultaneously seems like not a long time ago and approximately 20 years ago—more than 70 locals responded to an open invitation that I put out on Facebook to attend a virtual charities and community groups forum. At the start of this forum, there was some discussion about the dearth of government funding and support for individual and group projects—at all levels of government, it must be said—but very quickly the participants themselves drove the conversation towards how they could work together to deliver programs and resources for those in our community who find themselves isolated or disadvantaged. Rather than pushing their own barrels, our charities in Frankston, Carrum Downs, Langwarrin, Mount Eliza, and all of the suburbs in Dunkley, and the community groups, sporting groups and arts societies that were there all wanted to explore with each other what they could do together, because they knew that together they could achieve what none of them could ever hope to do alone.
So, as I speak today on this appropriations bill, on the budget that the government has handed down in this historic year, the message I want to bring foremost to the debate from my community is that we genuinely are all in this together and now is not the time in our nation's journey for piecemeal, short-sighted or divisive leadership. Now is the time to do what we need to do to get through the crisis we're facing but to also step back for a moment and reflect—because not only can we grow wealthy again; we can also grow wise and well by working together towards the future we want.
In that spirit, I want to put forward a number of suggestions that I would ask the government to look at and consider as they move forward over the next 12 months. Some of them we know the government won't accept, but I will continue to put them, and others I put forward as ideas that I think are worthy of consideration. So, rather than taking this opportunity to attack the government, I want to take this opportunity to say, 'Here are some things that, on behalf of my community, I would like you to consider.'
Having had a forum with childcare workers in Victoria, I would like the government to consider restoring JobKeeper to Victorian childcare workers and to help that very female dominated industry, the workers and the people who run the centres to continue to function. I would like the government to look at what is happening to Victorian businesses, in particular, and keep JobKeeper at its initial level through the second wave and as we come out of it. We know that, in the same two weeks that the level of JobKeeper was cut, there were 110,000 jobs lost across Australia in every state and territory, not just in Victoria—but we are doing it hard in Victoria, because we have had a second wave that we have had to deal with.
I would like the government to do more than lean into the idea that Newstart can't go back to $40 a day as at December, and actually commit to a long-term increase to unemployment benefits that is above the poverty line—not just because so many more people will be relying on unemployment benefits, sadly, over the next 12 months but also because it's the right thing to do. It's the right thing to do to help people to be able to function as they're looking for work and to help people to be able to look after their families as they're looking for work.
I would like the government to look at travel agents and the travel industry. Travel agents in my community participated in a Zoom forum with me last week. It's not their fault that international borders have been closed—as they had to be closed. It's not their fault that the COVID virus appears to be raging around most of the rest of the world who haven't had the same success as Victoria in suppressing a second wave. It's not their fault that they not only are devastated now but also can't see where their income will come in the next 12 months. They need some targeted assistance, because they tell me that the measures in the budget aren't going to assist them.
I would like the government to look at how to provide more support for not only the workers over the age of 35 who were unemployed before the pandemic but also, particularly, the almost one million workers over the age of 45 who have lost their jobs during the pandemic to help them get back into work. The Restart program, though well intentioned, isn't working and hasn't been working to help older workers find long-term, secure work. There is more and more evidence coming out that shows that, if you are over the age of 50 and you lose your job, it is almost impossible to find another job. That is wrong for people but it is also wrong for our economy that people who are sometimes in the prime of their working life are on the scrap heap. So I would like the government to work more towards doing that.
I'd like the government to build on the things that it started to do recently to help bring home more Australians who have found themselves stranded overseas because of border closures. I would like the government to look at some of the policies that Anthony Albanese announced in his budget reply speech, including, importantly, rewiring the electricity grid, so that we can genuinely become a renewable superpower and so that our electricity grid can be the NBN of energy and be fit for purpose for this century and as we go forward.
It would be remiss of me not to ask the government, on behalf of the many constituents who have contacted me about their or their parents' experiences in aged care, before the pandemic and now, to look at investing more money into that system. I'd also ask them to do more than just invest more money and really look at how we can fix that broken system. It's a system that has been undermined for many years, but the government have the opportunity now to do something about it, and I respectfully request that they do more about it. There are 100,000 people waiting for home-care packages. Keeping people at home for as long as possible is absolutely in their and their family's best interests.
Affordable child care is an economic stimulus investment. It's about productivity. It's about more women being able to be in the workforce. It's also about something that I don't think has been spoken about much yet in the national conversation. I can anecdotally point to my friends and say affordable child care and allowing women to go back to work more days a week is about helping women's career progress. Often women's careers are stunted for a period of time when they have young children, because their colleagues are working full time and they're not able to. It's also a very good measure to stimulate our economy. It's about disposable income—and the Grattan Institute has put out a report that I think is very important to look at.
People are now talking about our arts and culture industry and the over $100 billion that it contributes to the economy every year. This is now an opportunity, because it has been hit so badly by the pandemic, to look at developing an arts and culture strategy and policy for this country, not just for now but for the future. It's an opportunity for the Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts to grab this opportunity, develop a new form of Paul Keating's Creative Nation and really support Australian voices, faces and talent in this country as we go forward.
I would like to see greater investment in homelessness services and social housing.
Ms Claydon: Hear, hear!
Ms MURPHY: I'm on a House of Representatives committee looking at this—with its deputy chair, who is in the Chamber—and there is a real bipartisan willingness, I think, to acknowledge the significant problem and that work needs to be done going forward. We've handed down an interim report, which I know the minister will look at. I urge the government to reconsider direct investment in fixing and building social housing, as one of the things out of that.
Everyone knows that I talk about women's health a lot; in particular, breast cancer because of my personal experience. We know that coming out of this pandemic there is going to be a greater burden on our health system because of the number of people who haven't accessed treatment and testing, who haven't even gone to their local GP, because either the services haven't been available or they've been scared to go because of COVID. The Breast Cancer Network Australia is really concerned about the number of women who in the next 12 months will find themselves diagnosed with a breast cancer that should have been caught earlier, and the need for more services, such as palliative care. I urge the government to look at that and the Minister for Health to look at that as well.
I urge the government to rethink its position on universities. I know this is a politically contested space, but I'm the daughter of a university lecturer who, after he was a public school teacher, was head of the school of education at Charles Sturt University in country New South Wales, and my father wouldn't forgive me if I didn't take this opportunity to say that people like my father are very concerned about the equity of children from poorer communities. He's concerned they won't be able to go to university, because they face leaving with a massive debt. It was a long time ago now, but I know that friends of mine at Kooringal High School in Wagga Wagga didn't do their chosen subjects because their parents couldn't afford to support them. I can't imagine what they would think now if they were facing, for example, a $58,000 debt on leaving university.
We know we have a shortage at the moment, unbelievably, of nurses, welders, bricklayers, engineers and hairdressers in this country. We urgently need skilling up in those areas. We urgently need some reforms to our democracy and our processes—the Uluru Statement from the Heart and an Indigenous voice to parliament. I would ask the government to look at reforms such as four-year terms. Australia needs to become a republic. And, of course, there are the fledgling green shoots of improved trust in politicians and government that we've seen during the COVID crisis, because governments have taken decisions based on experts, scientists and medical advice, not for political interests in the majority of instances and broadly. We need to tender those green shoots. We need to fertilise them. We need to help them grow into trees. Integrity commissions and parliamentary standards are important, and I ask the government to look at them as well.
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (11:55): In the hurly-burly of debate, discussion, disagreement and argument in this place we can often forget what a momentous, challenging, different, extraordinary year 2020 has been. The nature of the year and the circumstances in which our country and, indeed, the world find themselves as a result of COVID-19 is the backdrop for this budget, for which the appropriation bills we're debating today form the basis.
I think it is worth taking a few moments to remind the House of some of the things that have happened this year, because it does feel like it has been such a long year, because so much has happened this year that has put in place the questions to which this budget is an answer. This year, in one month alone more than one million Australians lost their jobs or saw their work hours reduced to zero. We've had over eight million people tested for COVID. Over 27,000 Australians have been diagnosed with coronavirus, and, sadly, over 900 people have died. Hundreds of thousands of Australians have had their international travel plans cancelled. As a result of that, business opportunities stalled. Family reunions were put on hold. People pressed the pause button on their opportunity to go and see and explore the world. Internally in Australia families have been separated due to some of the internal border closures which have caused such disruption to our country. People who ran successful businesses, who risked everything, turned up to work one day to find a business that was going gangbusters completely flattened. Major companies in industries as diverse as travel, like Virgin Australia, or clothing, like Tigerlily, have gone into administration. Families have had to juggle working from home, teaching their children from home and the pressures that that has placed on daily life. People have dealt with fear and uncertainty alongside isolation, and those challenges have been particularly acute in Victoria, where people have been locked down for so long.
Australia is remarkable in its ability to persevere and adapt to change. Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott was fond of saying, 'To be born in Australia is to win the lottery of life.' I think coronavirus has demonstrated we are so lucky to be here—it's something my constituents say to me all the time—because of the good leadership of the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the health minister and the officials who have put together the extraordinary response to COVID-19, and the fact that our systems in this country have worked. When you look around the world, when you look at the economic results and the health results, there is no other country that you'd want to be in at this time than Australia.
We went into this economic crisis caused by COVID-19 not with an economy on its knees but with an economy that was in a strong position. We were on track for a budget surplus. Confidence was high and businesses were strong. The strength of Australia's economy was highlighted this week when Standard & Poor's reaffirmed its AAA credit rating for Australia. We are now one of only nine countries around the world to hold a AAA credit rating from all three major credit rating agencies. To put this in perspective, although we know that growth in Australia dipped seven per cent in July, compare that to New Zealand where it was 12 per cent or the United Kingdom where it was 20 per cent. It's into these settings that the budget has been delivered.
The focus of the budget is about restoring confidence. It's about restoring the productive capacity of our economy. It's about ensuring that we can grow and that we can have a secure economic future. I, like so many on this side of the House, did not come into this place to increase the size of the Commonwealth or to see more Australians in Centrelink queues, but this unprecedented event has caused us to take unprecedented and extraordinary measures. This is a budget that no-one would have planned to deliver. It's a heavy burden but a necessary one. And, in order to improve and restore the productivity capacity of the economy, the focus of the budget has been on job creation, on training and on supporting manufacturing and businesses, because it is manufacturing businesses and it is employment that are the wealth creators of our future.
For people in Berowra, the budget will have a direct impact: 72,500 taxpayers in my electorate will benefit from the tax relief that has been provided by this budget, and 19,900 businesses will be able to write off the full value of any eligible asset they purchase. JobKeeper, in my community, has supported 6,400 businesses, supporting them through the pandemic and keeping them connected to their employees. The phone calls and the emails I love most are the ones where somebody calls me up and says: 'Thank you for JobKeeper. It has been a lifeline.' But I am so proud to tell you that we are now coming off JobKeeper because our business is coming back. These are calls and emails that I get every single week, and I salute the people who have acknowledged the support of JobKeeper and who are looking to get off it as quickly as possible.
They are big numbers of people, and the budget contains big numbers, but each of these numbers represents businesses, families and real people, people like Sonja Cameron of Cameron's Nursery in my electorate, who's used the budget's measures in relation to apprenticeships to take on two new apprentices. And the instant asset write-off has enabled her to purchase equipment and to make changes in her nursery business that she wouldn't have done otherwise. George Kerrison and Jason Jamerfrom Absolute Automotive in Dural: these are great automotive electricians in my constituency who were so keen to take advantage of the apprenticeship programs that they are bringing on new apprentices, which is a great opportunity not only for their business but for a young person to have the chance to have a go at a trade that they've always wanted. Providing the support that we're providing through the wage subsidy for apprentices has given the business more stability and more security and ensured that a young person stays on a training path rather than a welfare path. As one of my constituents, Gemma, said to me last week, the economy is not just about money; it's about people. It's about how we live, how we work and how we provide for the people we love. It's about peoples' creativity and industry. It shapes what sort of life it's possible to live and what sorts of opportunities exist for our children.
I want to talk about a couple of measures in particular that I think are so important. The first is, as I mentioned, the wage subsidies that we're providing for apprentices and young people. When you look at the facts from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, those statistics show that young people aged 35 are four times more likely to have lost their job or had their hours cut as a result of COVID-19. We also know, if you're unable to get work early in your career, it can be very difficult to establish the habits of work in the future, because you don't get into the habit and because employers use the period of unemployment as an excuse for not hiring you in the future. That's why the JobMaker Hiring Credit is so important, supporting around 450,000 positions, giving employers incentives from 7 October for each new job they create over the next 12 months that employs someone who's been on JobSeeker, on the parenting payment or on youth allowance. It's a great boon to get those young people into work as soon as possible.
The evidence from every previous recession indicates that the sooner you get young people into work, the sooner you get those habits of work going, the more successful their working life will be. That's why we're also committing to the wage subsidies for apprentices to support any employer who hires an Australian apprentice from 5 October up to 30 September next year. We've had a skills shortage in Australia for as long as I can remember. This is a great opportunity for young people to get the skills that we need, not just for this period but for the future of our country. Skilled jobs in the trades are part of a lifeline for Australia. They are indeed among the most secure jobs in Australia. There are many professional jobs that could be taken offshore in the future, but we still need the physical trades in this country, working on our building sites, working in technical services and working in places as simple as restaurants and hairdressers. It's very important that we take the opportunity to give young people a go.
The tax relief for working Australians, particularly for low- and middle-income earners, has been so important, giving people a boost to their pay cheque to ease the stress and burden that so many Australians are facing at this time, giving people more money that is theirs in their pocket to decide how to spend. Some will retire debt, but we hope that many people will use the extra money in their pocket to go and spend money in their local community, on local services and on local businesses that will help us create local jobs. The Treasury estimates that reducing the personal income tax burden on hardworking Australians will boost GDP by something in the order of $3.5 billion in 2020-21 and $9 billion in 2021-22, and create an extra 50,000 jobs by the end of 2021-22. It is not only the tax cuts for working Australians that are important but also the measures that we've put in place to extend the instant asset write-off and to allow people to carry their losses back against previous years' profits to improve cash flow for businesses so that businesses can invest and employ people and give people a chance.
I'm the chair in this parliament of the Parliamentary Friends of Suicide Prevention, and I note the presence in the chamber at the moment of my friend the member for Fisher, who is the chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Mental Health. He and I are both passionate advocates, as are many others in this place, for improved mental health and suicide prevention funding. COVID-19 has put an extraordinary burden on our mental health services, and it is has put an extraordinary burden on peoples' lives and created a mental health situation the likes of which we have never seen in our country before. In response, the government has invested an extra $5.7 billion—a record $5.7 billion—in mental health and suicide prevention. One of the game-changer measures that I have been calling for, for a long time, is the doubling of the Medicare funded psychosocial and psychological supports from 10 sessions to 20 sessions. That will make an enormous difference to people who are in a time of crisis.
The government is also proving an extra $500 million in funding to rapidly scale up other vital mental health services to help Australians deal with lockdowns and the challenge of isolation, fear for loved ones and concerns about employment. I think about the money provided to those frontline services, whether it be Beyond Blue, Lifeline, SANE, headspace, Kids Helpline or the many other services that in a time of crisis are there for Australians in need. Nationally, since 16 March there has been a 15 per cent increase in the number of Medicare subsidised mental health services delivered, with 7.4 million services provided and $819 million paid in benefits. That gives us a sense of the scale of the mental health response that is required in this budget. We're entering into an environment where the mental health situation in Australia, although better than many other places in the world, is something that needs constant attention, so I applaud the measures in this budget. I look forward to the government's response to and releasing of the Productivity Commission's final report, which I hope will chart a path forward for both after care and for early intervention, which I believe are so important in addressing mental health issues and the suicide rate in Australia.
Australians should feel confident that the government is committed to providing the best platform possible for our country to emerge stronger from COVID-19. I say thank you to the people across our country who are taking a risk to support a young worker and give them a chance as a result of this budget. I say thank you to the doctors, nurses, hospital orderlies, GP receptionists and people engaged in the health response at every level. I said thank you to the workers, the students and the carers who've adjusted to a new normal.
Under our government's plan the economy is forecast to grow by 4½ per cent next calendar year and unemployment is expected to fall to 6½ per cent by the June quarter 2022. This means more opportunities for everyone. COVID-19 has reminded Australians that there's no other place on this earth we'd want to be. This budget sets us up for a strong, stable and secure future.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (12:11): No-one in this place doubts that the coronavirus pandemic has been the defining feature of 2020 and no-one doubts that strong action needs to be taken by the government. However, this government has neglected to acknowledge the fact that the economy was in a downward spiral even before the health crisis hit. Don't take it from me. Former federal Treasury secretary Dr Martin Parkinson said, 'Going into COVID, we'd had very weak productivity growth, very weak income growth, economic growth was quite anaemic.'
Almost a year ago the OECD was calling on the Morrison government to support the floundering economy. Instead, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer were denying and dithering as the economy deteriorated. Even before the drought, bushfires and the coronavirus crisis, annual growth was well below trend, consumption was very weak, business investment had fallen, underemployment and household debt had hit record levels, wages growth had hit record lows and the debt had more than doubled. The national accounts confirmed that the Australian economy shrank in the first three months of the year, even before the worst impacts of the coronavirus were felt.
When the coalition came to power in September 2013 gross debt stood at $280.3 billion. By the end of January 2020 gross debt was $568.1 billion. Something likes two-thirds of government debt was borrowed by the government before the outbreak hit. We need to be clear that COVID-19 is not the sole villain in this government's blockbuster horror movie of a budget, featuring an eye-watering $1 trillion of debt—that's right, $1 trillion of debt—without a comprehensive plan for jobs.
They've locked in damaging cuts to JobKeeper in the face of serious underemployment and unemployment. The government's stubborn refusal to change JobKeeper has locked out of JobKeeper 600 meatworkers at JBS in my community. They have changed the eligibility criteria again and again, but they've locked 600 workers out of JobKeeper, causing them to lose their jobs. This government deliberately and intentionally harmed meatworkers in my electorate in terms of their financial prospects. In answer to a question of mine in question time the Prime Minister said that they could get JobSeeker and that JobSeeker is the same as JobKeeper. Prime Minister, JobKeeper is not the same as JobSeeker. These people want to keep their jobs. What you've done is sent them to the dole. That's what you've done.
The ABS labour force figures for September reveal the staggering reality. Over 400,000 jobs have been lost since the crisis, with 200,000 Australians dropping out of the labour market altogether. In September alone 30,000 jobs were lost and the unemployment rate rose to 6.9 per cent. Almost 2.6 million Australians were looking for either work or more work.
One thing that really strikes me about this government is the fact that the budget we're discussing today has a $213.7 billion deficit this year. The cumulative deficit over the forward estimates is $480 billion. That is a budget deficit in each year for the next decade. I got elected in 2007, and I can remember Joe Hockey, the member for North Sydney, the Shadow Treasurer, saying repeatedly—again and again and again—that upon them coming to government they would deliver a budget surplus in their first year and every year thereafter. I wonder how that's going now, Mr Hockey? And I wonder how that's going for those frontbenchers, so many of them who are still there from the Abbott years in opposition and the Turnbull years in opposition and, of course, the Nelson years in opposition. Where are those debt trucks now that we saw in the 2013 campaign? Those double-Bs—a conga line of double-Bs all over the place!
An opposition member: There'd be a shortage of trucks!
Mr NEUMANN: Exactly! Because what's happened is that the criticisms of the Labor government, of our side of politics, have been smashed to smithereens by these guys, by this government who have delivered budget deficits every year that they've been in—all seven years—and are projecting across the forward estimates budget deficits as far as the eye can see. They're going to get to a point, according to the budget papers, from a gross debt currently of $800 billion to a forecast of over a trillion dollars across the forward estimates but going up to $1.7 trillion over the decade. Let's not cop this nonsense from the Liberal and National Party that they're better managers of the budget. Let's not cop it.
The history of Australian politics and certainly of the last decade shows that the coalition government spent and spent and spent. They racked up deficits and they racked up debt, and they have the temerity to say to us, 'Where are you going to get the money from?' when it comes to our childcare reforms that the Leader of the Opposition announced in the budget reply speech. They've made $98 billion—not million, billion dollars—of un-offset expenditure in this budget.
One thing that really gets me about this budget, when you have a really close look at it, is what happens in 2021-2022. We've got a snapback, but they've forgotten about that snapback—they used to talk about it all the time. There's a 17.5 per cent spending snapback—spending falls off the cliff. But what are the budget papers saying? The budget papers say there are going to be 300,000 more people unemployed at that point in time than there were pre-COVID-19. That's right: a 7.25 per cent unemployment rate. So they're snapping it back when we're going to have 300,000 more Australians unemployed, let alone underemployed, than when the COVID-19 pandemic hit our health system and our economy and our community. So this government just hasn't got a clue on this stuff. They really don't. They've got no credibility on debt and deficit. They're not really fair dinkum about sustaining jobs.
When the member for Gorton asked the Prime Minister in question time about some form of a wage subsidy, he dismissed it. He was only forced into that wage subsidy, which we call JobKeeper, by the fact that the ACTU, the Labor Party and the business community rounded on the government and said they had to do it. It was inadequate—casuals were left off, the university sector was left off, the childcare sector was punted, the local government sector was punted and a lot of people were left out. But the government at least did something, and now they want to be patted on the back for their economic management! They were forced into JobKeeper, but they stubbornly refused to help the meat workers in my electorate. They refused to help them.
The Governor of the Reserve Bank, Dr Philip Lowe, argues that much more needs to be done to tackle the jobs crisis. He's absolutely correct. He said the RBA wants to see more than just progress towards full employment. The Prime Minister doesn't have a goal to achieve full employment. They don't. The budget papers that we're debating here today show they're not interested in full employment. The government's unacceptably high six per cent target for unemployment will see a generation of Australians sacrificed to the crisis, and 200,000 more of them when the snapback takes place in 2021-22.
Budgets, whether it is at home or in business or in a community organisation or a government, tell us a lot about your values, your ethics, your priorities. What about this government? This was a really big opportunity, because there was a lot of bipartisanship from our side of politics and goodwill in the community to undertake great nation-building and historic reform. But what are we left with? They could have had a new deal like Franklin Roosevelt's in the Great Depression in the 1930s. They could have acted like Labor prime ministers had done, like Ben Chifley had done following World War II, with the great post-war reconstruction and establishing the Snowy Mountains Scheme. We would have been very supportive that, I can assure you. In the 1970s what did Gough Whitlam do? He launched significant urban renewal programs, which saw local road infrastructure, sewerage to homes, better funding for local councils. That is what happened. In my community so much of Ipswich was sewered because of the work of Gough Whitlam and the work they did to renew communities. People in the suburbs, not just in the rural towns but in the urban areas, should be treated like all Australians should be treated. It is not just an economy that is built for the rich; it should be for all of us. Consider the lasting impact of what Bob Hawke did on economic and industrial reforms; Paul Keating's superannuation scheme; Kevin Rudd's nation-building; Julia Gillard's NDIS. This was an opportunity for this government in the budget. They could have done a lot, but what did they do? Even John Howard, to give him credit, established the Future Fund, which I think it is a good thing. But this government lack vision; they lack ambition; they want to leave people behind; they give us platitudes about us all being in it together. The National Cabinet was this wonderful initiative that was going to unify the country, but they spend the whole time attacking governments, interestingly, led by Labor Party premiers, like in Queensland and Victoria and Western Australia—even to point of litigating in Western Australia until they realised that that was a political disaster in Western Australia. In Queensland, just because there's an election, you have seen the Prime Minister spend a week—I can't believe it. I think I read what Denis Atkins said: in 40 years of covering politics he has never seen a Prime Minister spend a whole week campaigning in a state election. That is because the Leader of the Opposition in Queensland, Deb Frecklington, is so hopeless and incompetent and has lived up to my expectations of her lack of intelligence and capability. Honestly, Prime Minister, concentrate on your job and not campaigning against the Queensland government or getting your ministers to launch jihads on the Victorian Labor government or litigating in WA against the Western Australian Labor government. There is not a word about Tasmania, New South Wales or South Australia. This is a Prime Minister that should be doing his job. It's all about politics, it's all about the announcements, it's all about a marketing exercise and not about economic reform or the budget or the best interests of Australians or what we need to do to take the economy towards full employment.
Even then he divides Australians. Look what they have done in terms of their hiring subsidy and their credit, where 928,000 people over the age of 35 are left off any support. So it's not a budget for middle-aged people or older people, let alone people who need home care. There are about 103,000 places required in home-care packages for older Australians as our population ages. The government has spent nearly every MYEFO and budget cutting funding for aged care, even when the Prime Minister was the Minister for Social Services and the aged care portfolio was in that area, not back with the health portfolio.
The government seems like it's bereft of ideas. All they are doing in many ways is rolling out money, hoping that the business community will come back and snap back. What hasn't snapped back so far is that even on the budget's projections there are 160,000 people more who will lose their jobs by the end of the year. Guess what the government's doing? The government is going to force people by the end of the year to go back to $40 a day when it comes to JobSeeker. JobKeeper is being reduced as well, and it finishes in March next year. This is a government that seems to lack focus.
In my community, this budget has provided nothing. It doesn't matter whether we have a state MP, a mayor, a councillor or a senator with an LNP membership ticket in their pocket, our community seems to get nothing under coalition governments. So there's no funding for the continuation of the Ipswich Motorway project. There's no funding for the business case for the Ipswich to Springfield rail line. There's no funding for the Cunningham Highway upgrade around Willowbank, from Ebenezer Creek to Yamanto. There's no funding for a second Bremer River crossing such as the Norman Street Bridge. There's no funding for an Ipswich sports stadium at North Ipswich Reserve. There is no extra veterans recovery centre. They've got six veterans recovery centres. I've got the biggest RAAF base in the country, at Amberley. We projected we would have seven if we won the election. Guess which one has been left out. It's my community again, with the biggest RAAF base in the country and no veterans recovery funding in the budget. This is an outrageous government that ignores my community. It continually ignores our area, doesn't fund our community and ignores the meatworkers in Ipswich. It ignores the workers in Ipswich, whether they work in Woolies or in Kilcoy Pastoral Company. It has done nothing to assist regarding the challenges we have with the China embargo. It should do far better, and this budget proves it is a government out of touch with my local community.
Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore) (12:26): I'm pleased to support these appropriation bills in their original form. They make provision for the moneys required to be appropriated from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for expenditure for the remainder of 2020-21 and for the new activities agreed to by the government since the introduction of the 2020-21 supply bills in March of this year. Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2020-2021 proposes appropriations of approximately $36.8 billion, whilst Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2020-2021 proposes expenditure of approximately $14.9 billion and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2020-2021 proposes appropriations of approximately $141.7 million to support the functions of parliament, including security, new videoconferencing arrangements and the maintenance of assets and services.
This is an extraordinary budget for extraordinary times. The advent of the COVID-19 coronavirus has changed the world order in unexpected ways, disrupting trade, commerce, markets, plans and lives in a manner unseen in generations. The financial affairs of many of my constituents have been thrown into disarray, with reduced incomes, declining asset values and volatility surrounding their investments causing much anxiety and stress, particularly among retirees. People who once considered themselves to be financially secure and provident, for the first time in a long time have faced the stress of financial uncertainty. Mindful of the plight of our fellow Australians, our focus as a Liberal-National coalition government has been to act swiftly, first and foremost to safeguard the wellbeing of Australians and our communities, restore jobs, promote confidence and rebuild our national economy.
When the coronavirus shutdowns were first implemented and Australians directed to remain in their homes, it was distressing to see the long queues forming outside Centrelink offices across Australia, including around the corner from my own electorate office. Through the JobKeeper program, our government acted quickly to support around 3.5 million of our fellow Australians by enabling eligible businesses to keep workers in jobs through a wage subsidy for qualifying employees. This economic lifeline came at the very heavy cost of $101 billion. In hindsight, the system could have been improved to ensure that part-time workers did not receive more than their normal wages under JobKeeper and were incentivised to continue working when required to by their employers. However, most of these issues have since been addressed.
Young Australians in their prime are disproportionately represented in the unemployment figures, so our government is taking action to increase workforce participation for some 450,000 young Australians aged between 16 and 35, under the JobMaker program, by providing incentives for businesses to recruit additional employees. For those without the requisite work experience or training, the JobTrainer program is designed to provide up to an additional 340,000 places for school leavers and jobseekers in free or low-cost courses to boost entry-level skills needed in the workforce. The budget also contains $2.8 billion for the supporting apprentices and trainees wage subsidy to support businesses to employ up to 180,000 apprentices and trainees. These measures will benefit young people in my electorate as they transition to opportunities in the workforce.
For those who are retired or unable to participate in the workforce, the government has chosen to provide more support for discretionary spending to stimulate the economy. The government is mindful of the impact of rising cost-of-living pressures for those on pensions and fixed incomes. An additional $16.8 billion in income support has been provided for individuals, including extending the coronavirus supplement, and $12 billion in support of age and disability pensioners and other eligible recipients. On the other hand, for those of working age, the focus is on incentives to achieve increased workforce participation. Those who are able to work must be encouraged to do so, even if it means taking on temporary work in a new field for an interim period.
For the over 11.6 million hardworking Australians fortunate enough to remain in employment throughout the crisis, this budget delivers an additional $17.8 billion in personal income tax relief to support economic recovery, bringing forward the second stage of the government's Personal Income Tax Plan for 2020-21. Providing a one-off additional tax benefit will ensure that low- and middle-income earners receive tax relief of up to $2,745 for singles and up to $5,490 for dual-income families when compared with the 2017-18 settings. The majority of the benefits of reduced taxes will flow to those on incomes below $90,000, typical of many households in my electorate. As Liberals, we believe in returning more personal disposable income into the hands of individuals so that they may choose how best to spend their own hard-earned money. Discretionary spending drives our economy. Treasury estimates that reducing the personal income tax burden on hardworking Australians will boost GDP by around $3.5 billion in 2020-21 and $9 billion next year, creating an additional 50,000 jobs by the end of 2021-22.
The construction industry is a major sector within our economy that employs an estimated one million Australian workers. The Morrison government is supporting families and the home-building industry with grants of $25,000 to eligible owner-occupiers under the HomeBuilder program to build a new home or rebuild an existing home. There are more than 1,000 vacant sites in the City of Joondalup, so measures designed to initiate the construction of homes is beneficial to our local economy. This measure will support a range of local tradespersons and building contractors based in my electorate through a combination of greenfield development in new subdivisions and urban renewal in older suburbs. The issue of housing affordability is partially addressed with the grants helping many families enter into homeownership for the first time.
Many businesses in the Moore electorate are experiencing extremely difficult times due to the restrictions of international and interstate travel. A significant reduction in the number of international students and their visiting families has had a significant impact on the Joondalup economy, as has the decline in international and interstate visitors staying with family. From observation, retailers, service providers and food and beverage venues are not trading at optimum capacity. Turnover is down and cash flow is tight for many small businesses in my electorate. To assist, the Australian Taxation Office has changed its remittance arrangements to improve cash flow for eligible employers to between $20,000 and $100,000, benefiting around 800,000 small-business employers. The City of Joondalup's economic development unit, led by Nashid Chowdhury, has been proactive in engaging with local stakeholders, including the Joondalup Business Association, in forums and workshops to support local businesses through initiatives such as the development of a destination marketing strategy to attract more visitors to our region.
For viable businesses with a demonstrated track record of profitability, which would normally be profitable but for the coronavirus crisis, temporary loss carry-back measures have been introduced to allow companies with turnovers of up to $5 billion to offset losses against previous profits on which tax has been paid to generate a tax refund. It is estimated up to one million financially sustainable companies which employ up to 8.8 million workers will be eligible for loss carry-back relief. Losses incurred up to 2021-22 can be carried back against profits made in or after 2018-19. Eligible companies may elect to receive tax refunds when they lodge their 2020-21 and 2021-22 tax returns. This measure is estimated to deliver $4.9 billion in tax relief to businesses over the forward estimates and $3.9 billion over the medium term.
Focused on the future economic recovery, the budget introduces tax incentives such as temporary full expensing for productive assets which are designed to promote investment by the private sector in plans and equipment, boosting productive capacity and creating local jobs. Ninety-nine per cent of Australian businesses will be eligible. A wide range of businesses in my electorate will benefit from the full tax deductibility of assets such as delivery trucks, office furniture, commercial kitchen equipment, industrial machinery, power tools, earthmoving equipment, computers and electrical appliances.
The Morrison government is investing $1.3 billion through the Modern Manufacturing Initiative to support manufacturing research and development. With this funding, government will co-invest with our world-leading manufacturers to help them achieve scale, commercialise our world-leading research in intellectual property and connect with international markets. This will support commercialisation of some of the collaborative projects with industry being undertaken at the School on Engineering at Edith Cowan University, led by Professor Daryoush Habibi and his team. In addition the government is investing an initial $2 billion in the research and development tax incentive, supporting more than 11,400 companies which currently claim this incentive.
The budget allocates $245 million in federal funding to Edith Cowan University, based in my electorate, to establish a new campus specialising in creative industries, businesses and technology courses. A satellite campus, which will be based in Perth's central business district and house the Western Australian Academy of Performing Arts, is scheduled to open in 2025 at a total cost of $695 million, with the university contributing $300 million and the WA state government providing land worth $150 million. For residents of my electorate, it means a wider range of courses and subjects to choose from, access to a broader range of learning facilities, and educational resources to equip them for future careers in the workforce. This investment by the federal government transcends electoral boundaries. The Perth city campus will complement the courses offered at ECU's main Joondalup campus, based in the Moore electorate, and is expected to accommodate more than 8,000 students and 1,200 staff. During the construction phase, the project is expected to deliver $1.5 billion of economic activity and create more than 3,100 local jobs, adding to the government's economic stimulus program.
In our rapidly developing regional city of Greater Joondalup, investment in infrastructure is the key to meeting the needs of a growing population in Perth's northern suburbs. Since the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, $14 billion has been spent to boost demand and create jobs over the next four years, supporting 40,000 jobs over the construction period. This investment is part of the government's 10-year transport Infrastructure Investment Program, which has been expanded to $110 billion nationally and is already supporting 100,000 jobs across the nation. Locally, we will see the extension and widening of the Mitchell Freeway, grade separation of Ocean Reef Road and Joondalup Drive, the extension of the northern suburbs railway to Yanchep, upgrades to the Reid Highway and completion of the NorthLink project. The connection of Whitfords Avenue to a realigned Gnangara Road maintains a priority project, essential to promote economic development.
The budget provides an additional $3 billion towards fast-tracking shovel-ready projects that create jobs. This includes $2 billion to deliver small-scale road safety projects, as well as an additional $1 billion of funding for the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program. Funding will be provided to state and local governments, such as the City of Joondalup, on a 'use it or lose it' basis, ensuring that road upgrades and safety projects are completed within the agreed time frames. Locally, this will provide an economic boost to local earthmoving contractors, civil construction firms and a range of engineering consultants.
Mr HILL (Bruce) (12:41): There are a few things I want to talk about, but let me respond briefly to the previous speech. It sums up this government, really: it's a random grab bag of platitudes and spin. There's no vision, no strategy and no point to it—a bit like that member. We read in the newspaper that the only reason he's here is that he stacked a bunch of branches in the Liberal Party for Senator Michaelia Cash. This is his little reward: to hang out in federal parliament. Unbelievably, the first thing he talked about that concerned the residents of his electorate were their asset values and their investment outlook. Let me tell you what concerns the people in my electorate about your government's budget. They are terrified about what's coming down the pipeline in this budget: the cuts to wages, the cuts to JobKeeper in March, the cuts to Newstart, or JobSeeker, or whatever platitude and spin you want to put on it and call it—$40 a day. The budget that you're speaking in support of is going to push millions of Australians back into abject poverty, to live on $40 a day, and you think that's a good thing. There are the attacks on superannuation and the refusal to guarantee their superannuation entitlements. You've effectively privatised half the stimulus by getting the most vulnerable people in this country to clear out every last dollar of their retirement savings just to survive, because you didn't act fast enough or do enough. Your industrial relations agenda to cut penalty rates—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ): I just remind you to direct your comments through the chair.
Mr HILL: There's the government's industrial relations agenda to cut penalty rates for the most vulnerable workers. That's a good thing, is it? It's all very well to talk about the incentives for young people—we support those—but what about everyone looking for a job who's over 35 years of age? They get nothing; they've been forgotten. There is casualisation. I heard the member opposite say, 'People just need to take a bit of temporary work if they find it.' Yes—true. Any work is good work, but this budget bakes in the agenda of privatisation of public services. Only yesterday in Victoria, in the middle of a pandemic, with unprecedented demand for Centrelink services, the government cut 420 call centre jobs from Centrelink, half of them in my electorate. Do you know what those people are getting from the government? They're getting nothing—no redundancy; no pay-out—because they're just casual labour hire workers. The government has privatised the Public Service and the government bakes in that privatisation in every agency—tens of thousands of casual labour hire workers. This is the world that the government wants to return to, accelerate and run towards in this so-called snap-back recovery. People in my electorate are worried about the fact that they can't get food. It's all very well for the government to tell us, 'We put $200 million into emergency relief.' Well, that's not landing in the disadvantaged suburbs. There's nothing in this budget that fixes that problem.
The government say to people, in a pandemic, that they should leave the suburb where they can't get food and catch a bus to where those big four charities, which they've loved to hand the money out through, happen to have offices. They're not prepared to reverse the cuts that Prime Minister Abbott put in place from the small local benevolent societies, the neighbourhood learning centres and the local charities, who get nothing from the federal government. They say, 'We put $200 million into four big charities,' which don't service people properly in my electorate, but the member opposite is worried about asset values and investment outlooks.
The member for Werriwa and I were saying, whilst listening to that drivel, that the people in our electorates are worried about having to sell their house at the bottom of the market when the mortgage relief suspension runs out soon, just at the very time that the government is pushing people into poverty by cutting unemployment benefits and cutting JobKeeper. Unbelievable! There's another bill, which we will talk about later, making it harder to get an education. I hope the Australian Electoral Commission roll you at the next election, Member for Moore, and, if they don't, that your party rolls you and replaces you with someone who makes some kind of contribution to this place other than reading out the drivelous platitudes that whoever sends you in here gives you to read out. It's just pathetic.
This budget is a lost opportunity. The big lie is that somehow the economy was strong before this crisis. The economy was weak and tanking before this crisis. Underemployment was at record levels. Over a million Australians were not able to get enough hours of work to survive. Business investment was at historic lows—the lowest since the government was elected. There was no business confidence. They weren't investing. Productivity growth was anaemic at best. The government has now managed, unbelievably, to rack up a budget that's hurtling towards a trillion dollars of debt at the end of this four years, on the path over the next decade to $1.7 trillion of debt, the highest budget deficit ever and the highest in percentage terms of GDP since World War II, with no real plan for jobs and no real reform. That's the thing that really gets you at the heart of this budget. I get the tax cuts. I get them. It's nonsense to say that they're fully funded. They're borrowed. They're on the credit card for the next generation. They're just another instalment of 40 years of failed trickle-down economic theory that somehow, if we give money to people over here and to businesses, a bit might trickle down to the rest of us. It doesn't work like that. It's failed.
The government is running up a record budget deficit, a lifetime of debt, with nothing to show and no real reform. It has no plan for energy, to modernise our energy grid, which is the real reason that power prices are so high. It has no plan for child care, to support women's participation in and return to the workforce. It has no plan for education, except to make it harder to go to university. As Jacqui Lambie said—I agree with her on this—it makes it harder for poor kids, like people from my electorate, and Northern Tasmania and your electorate—
An honourable member interjecting—
Mr HILL: Not yours over there, but from Northern Tasmania. The member opposite should be ashamed of having voted for that legislation, which will make it harder for people from her electorate to get a tertiary education. She should be ashamed.
The government have drifted pointlessly, now in their eighth year of government. Visionless, pointless—there is no purpose to this government. They like to pretend that they're all shiny and new. They're on their third Prime Minister, their third Treasurer. They have a lifetime of debt and nothing to show for it. There is nothing on social housing. They hate scrutiny, and that's another thing to talk about. This is not just a lost opportunity. There are active nasties in this budget, very deep in the budget papers. They've refused to introduce a national integrity commission. They announced it three years ago. They love the announcements, but nothing actually happens. It's all about the photo-op. There's no follow-up. Where's the National Integrity Commission? It's not in this budget. 'It's not a priority,' the Attorney-General says.
Unbelievably, not only haven't they introduced a national integrity commission; they don't want their rorts and their waste and their corruption exposed, because they've cut the Auditor-General's budget. They've used COVID-19 and this budget to cut the Auditor-General's budget, to silence the independent watchdog. Make no mistake: this is revenge for sports rorts. It's revenge for exposing the corruption, as it now looks, in paying $30 million to a Liberal Party donor for land worth $3 million. The Defence contracting blowouts, the casualisation of the public service—what's the government's response to this? Cut the budget of the independent watchdog that is exposing their rorts, waste and corruption. Who knows what else they're hiding? It's vengeful and it's pathetic.
The Auditor-General has been in structural deficit for the last few years because of the accumulation of cuts. They call them efficiency dividends. Let's be clear: for a small agency, that is a cut. The efficiency dividend piles up, year after year, and it's cut after cut after cut. Last year he lost $3.3 million and the year before $4.4 million. We're at the point now where the Auditor-General said to the Prime Minister, who's supposed to look after him—he's an independent officer of the parliament, and the Prime Minister is supposed to look after him—'I can't do it anymore. I can't meet KPIs of 48 performance audits a year without fear or favour.'
Auditors-General are appointed for a 10-year term, one term, and their job is to scrutinise whoever is in government. You would think at the very time you're blowing a trillion dollars of taxpayer money on the credit card, and you've pushed government spending to the highest level ever since 1970—if you look in the back of the budget papers, there's this table that says the government is now spending 35.4 per cent of GDP on the economy; that's the highest level I can find anywhere in Australia's history—maybe World War II would have been higher—you would also think this is the very time you'd want to invest in independent scrutiny and make sure you're getting value for money. We want every dollar of taxpayer money to count when you're spending that much. And what's the government's response? 'We're blowing a trillion dollars, but we can't find the $6.5 million for the Auditor-General that he asked for. And, to top that off, we're going to cut another $1.28 million from his budget and make sure his total resources are $14 million less.' This is a cover up. The impact will be that every year there are two fewer performance audits. They're on the way down to 38 at the end of the forward estimates. It's a trillion dollars of Liberal Party debt and avoiding independent scrutiny.
The Public Accounts and Audit Committee, which I'm a member of, is supposed to stick up for the Auditor-General. It's failing in it's duty. The Prime Minister has failed the Auditor-General. The government members should be ashamed. I remember, as a Victorian, when the Jeff Kennett Liberal government tried this little trick on the state Auditor-General. It led to a backlash against the Kennett government, as people caught on and realised what was happening. It was a small issue, it was a small amount of money, and it was a big part of why that government got chucked out at an election that no-one thought they could lose. Labor went to the election on a platform of restoring democracy and restoring accountability, and that built trust, particularly with people in regional areas, who sniff this stuff out.
The other thing I want to call out is that this budget is horrible news for tens of thousands of Australians waiting for their partner visas. When Labor left office, people used to wait about six months for a partner visa. You fall in love with someone from overseas—this is quintessentially Australian. It has been part of the Australian story for decades, that people fall in love with people from other countries and they want a visa so that they can come and build a life here. That's a good thing. Under this government people are now waiting 2½ years, tracking towards three years, for a partner visa. Nearly 100,000 people across the country are waiting for partner visas.
The news in this budget is literally destroying the relationships of tens of thousands of Australians. It's nasty, it's insidious and it needs to be called out. On the surface it looks okay, because they're increasing the number of partner visas from about 40,000 to more than 70,000. That sounds okay, but you have to scratch into it to understand what's really happening. They've cut the number of partner visas each year that have been issued. It's an illegal cut. Section 87 of the Migration Act explicitly says that the minister has no power to cap the number of partner visas. Unlike other visas, the minister cannot cap the number of partner visas. They're demand driven. People fall in love with other people, and they have a right to bring them to this country. The parliament twice, in the 1980s and 1990s, rejected attempts to give the minister the power to cap partner visas, but this government are doing it anyway, even though it's illegal.
So the government have felt a community backlash over the last few months as people have realised this, and we've aired in this chamber and the other place and through the media what's actually going on. The devil is in the detail. What they've said in the budget papers is, 'We're going to issue more partner visas this year.' But they've actually said, 'We're going to prioritise onshore partner visas'—this is for people who are already here, who are already with their loved one; they're just hanging around on a bridging visa for a few years, waiting for the government to get around to issuing a partner visa. The government are doing this to cut the waiting list, to try to get rid of some of their political problems and under the cover of COVID, because they won't show up in the migration headline statistics. All these caps were driven by the Prime Minister's Pauline Hanson racist suck-ups to try to implement a cut to migration. He said, 'I want to cut migration.' He hadn't cut migration. What he'd done was cut the number of permanent visas issued every year. There are more people than ever hanging out in the country on bridging visas. They're here; they're waiting. He hasn't cut migration; he's cut permanent visas, which causes hardship and pain to people who fall in love with someone from overseas.
They've said, 'We will issue the onshore visas.' Well that's good. They should have done it last year, they should have done it the year before, but that's good. Issue the onshore visas. But they've also said they will not prioritise offshore visas, except where the relevant sponsor resides in a designated regional area. The impact of these measures is racist and discriminatory, and I say that very deliberately for two reasons. It's discriminatory because anyone who lives in a city in Australia—like in my electorate or your electorate—who falls in love with someone from overseas will not be eligible for an untold number of years to bring their partner here. Yet, if you live in a country area—undefined—a apparently that's a better form of love, that's a better relationship, than if you happen to live in a city. That's discriminatory. That is disgraceful. I have a letter from the assistant minister, who told me, 'Partner visa applications are generally considered in the order in which they're received to ensure fairness and equality for all applicants.' That's patently not true. For any Australian who lives in a city who is waiting for someone offshore, that's no longer true, is it?
The other aspect which is disgraceful—it's a subtle one but it's disgraceful—is that, if you fall in love with someone who is from a nice white Western speaking country, they're going to get a visitor visa to come here, aren't they? Then they can apply onshore and hang around and wait and they will get looked after—because they're nice. But, if you happen to fall in love with someone from Africa, from the Middle East, Sri Lanka or South Asia, well, we can't trust them to come to the country on a visitor visa, can we? So they can just wait offshore for years. This is discrimination.
How do you think Australians who fall in love with people who happen to have a different skin colour or happen to be from a country that the Immigration department is a bit suss on feel about this blatant discrimination buried in this budget? It is disgraceful. So just to be clear with the government: this remains a mess. People will try to bring their partners here to apply onshore but they will continue to fight. People are angry. The government talk of keeping Australians together, but they are keeping and breaking couples apart. (Time expired)
Sitting suspended from 12:56 to 16:00
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (16:00): I stand here today full of anger, rage, frustration and disappointment. I apologise to the House if, in the next 15 minutes, I'm not able to keep my emotions in check. Today I read a story published in The Australian, by David Penberthy, the South Australian correspondent, titled 'Coronavirus: Why were these four newborns left to die?' I quote from his article:
Victoria's stage-four lockdown prevented four sick newborn babies who subsequently died from being flown from Adelaide to Melbourne to receive lifesaving cardiac surgery.
The babies, the fourth of whom died only last Friday, would normally have been taken by a team from Adelaide's Women's and Children's Hospital and flown to Melbourne's Royal Children's Hospital for specialist heart surgery.
But with Melbourne under lockdown the distraught families of the infants were told that their children were not permitted to enter Victoria for the operations.
Let me repeat that:
But with Melbourne under lockdown the distraught families of the infants were told that their children were not permitted to enter Victoria for the operations.
Last Friday, 16 October, when that fourth child died, there were two detected cases of coronavirus in the entire state of Victoria. Those four children are dead. They will never know what it is like to enjoy the life that we do. This should not have happened. Section 92 of our Constitution says:
… trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free.
'Absolutely free' means that sick children that need an operation get to fly from Adelaide into Melbourne. Then there is section 117:
A subject of the Queen, resident in any State, shall not be subject in any other State to any disability or discrimination which would not be equally applicable to him if he were a subject of the Queen resident in such other State.
What that means is that a child born in South Australia or born anywhere in this country has the right, under our Constitution, to go to that hospital in Victoria and get life-saving surgery. Every single person involved in this disgrace has blood on their hands. Deputy Speaker, I apologise that I'm upset over this, but it is not the first time this has happened. Back in August, we had a Ballina mother left to mourn the loss of one of her twins after that twin was denied entry into Queensland for emergency care. And we had the shocking and callous response from a politician in Queensland, who said:
People living in New South Wales, they have New South Wales hospitals. In Queensland we have Queensland hospitals for our people.
What a disgraceful comment when one young child has died. Then we had the case of a Queensland man having his treatment in New South Wales, under the great Dr Charlie Teo—brain surgery that was needed to save his life—and Dr Teo said: 'When you get back to Queensland, you need all the rest and recuperation that you can get. You should be able to go to your home.' We have the bureaucrats in Queensland, at a time when they let footballers go to resorts and let rock stars and movie stars go to their homes, forcing a 70-year-old recovering from brain surgery to be locked up in a hotel room. What an absolute disgrace!
Then we have the young mother, the Northern Rivers mother from New South Wales, who was refused entry to a Queensland hospital where her newborn baby was receiving urgent medical treatment. The paediatrician treating her, Chris Ingall, said it was a desperate situation, particularly in the vital early days usually shared by a mother and her new baby. He said:
"It borders on medical negligence actually because sick babies need their mother's immunity.
"To have this separation at this point for any baby, there is no medical upside. It is just bad.
"It's very saddening for the family and bad medicine for the baby."
This is what these lockdowns are causing. These are the appalling decisions that we are seeing by some politicians in this country and medical bureaucrats. It is an absolute disgrace.
But there is no worse disgrace than the continued ban on the drug hydroxychloroquine. We have state chief medical bureaucrats banning Australians getting access to a drug and a medical treatment that we know the evidence shows is saving lives around the world. Yet that medical treatment is being denied to sick Australians. What's the evidence? Only this morning, a new meta-analysis was published. It found that 19 out of 19 early-treatment studies found that hydroxychloroquine was effective in saving lives and reducing hospitalisation—and not just by a small amount; 63 per cent improvement was the average found in those 19 studies. What's the probability of there being a random chance of this being correct? They worked it out. The random probability that hydroxychloroquine is not effective, when you have 19 studies looking at early treatment, is one in 524,000—one chance in 524,000 that those 19 studies could be wrong.
It's actually worse than that. When you look at all 115 studies, 86 have concluded that hydroxychloroquine actually benefits you. The average improvement found in those studies—some were early treatment, some were late treatment—was 32 per cent improvement. And what did they say in this paper? That the probability that an ineffective, cheap treatment generated results as positive as the 115 studies to date is estimated to be one in 20 million. There's a one-in-20-million chance, based on the evidence, that the drug hydroxychloroquine is not effective. Yet today that treatment remains banned in every state of this nation. In Queensland a doctor that prescribes it, a doctor that looks at these studies and says, 'Wow, a one-in-20-million chance that this is wrong', can go to jail for six months.
How did we get to this stage? How did this happen? We've got a group called the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce. They have done a report on all the treatments and all the drugs. If you go to their summaries page, they state:
The evidence indicates hydroxychloroquine is potentially harmful and no more effective than standard care in treating patients …
That's completely contrary to the evidence. How did they come up with this? They say that the evidence comes from 11 randomised trials that compared hydroxychloroquine plus standard care. Hang on a minute! We've got 115 trials here, and this mob have looked at 11. Then they go on: 'The vast majority of evidence is from the RECOVERY trial which randomised 4,716 hospitalised patients with COVID.' So, basically, denying Australian citizens access to a medical treatment all comes down to one study—this RECOVERY trial.
Let's look at the RECOVERY trial. Firstly, the RECOVERY trial should be completely irrelevant because every doctor who advocates for hydroxychloroquine says that you must give the treatment in the first five days and you must combine it with zinc. In this RECOVERY trial, firstly, they did not use zinc and, secondly, they started the treatment, on average, nine days after the patient first started to get symptoms. So they gave the drug to the people too late and they didn't include zinc. Yet we are holding up this trial as the reason why we are denying sick Australians medical treatment.
It gets worse. When someone first told me that in this trial they had overdosed the patients I thought that couldn't be right. I didn't think you could overdose patients in a trial like that, so I looked at the evidence myself. It's clear that in that trial they gave the sick patients 2,400 milligrams of hydroxychloroquine in the first 24 hours and then they gave them another 800 milligrams every day for the next nine days, so all up they gave them close to 10,000 milligrams of hydroxychloroquine, a drug that has a half-life of 20 or 30 days. They loaded those people up. What did they find? Surprise, surprise, the people loaded up with such a dose died.
How do we know that this was an excessive dose? The medical protocols written in published peer reviewed studies recommend 200 milligrams of the drug twice a day for five days, so that's 400 milligrams on day 1, 400 milligrams on day 2, 400 milligrams on day 3, 400 milligrams on day 4 and 400 milligrams on day 5. Yet in this study they gave these people 2,400 milligrams—six times the recommended dose—and they wondered why they got sick and died.
What's even worse is that, when the French online newspaper FranceSoir interviewed the gentleman behind this trial and asked him to explain how he came up with 2,400 milligrams—such an excessive dose—the only explanation from the answers given was that the people behind that trial confused the drugs. When they were asked that question they said—and there's a recording of it, so it can't be denied—the reason they went for 2,400 milligrams is that that's the typical dose you give to someone with amoebic dysentery. The problem is hydroxychloroquine is not a drug that you give for amoebic dysentery. Another line of drugs is—hydroxyquinolines. Yes, you can give 2,400 milligrams of hydroxyquinoline without a problem. As they said in that interview, you can give them 10 times as much. They confused the drugs.
This RECOVERY trial, which our clinical evidence task force hangs its hat on to ban treatment for Australians, should be investigated by the police. The size of the dose is verging on criminal. There should be a full investigation of this. The clinical evidence task force should take that off their website. Instead of looking at just 11 studies, they should look at all 115 studies and they would come up with the conclusion that there's a one-in-20-million chance. That's where we're up to.
It's very serious for these people to recommend that. There are universal human rights laws that apply that should guarantee Australians access to medicine. Firstly, article 25(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognises:
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including … medical care …
Medical care is being denied to Australians and yet the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that everyone has a right to medical care. There's also article 12 of the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, to which Australia is a signatory. That concludes that there should be:
The creation of conditions which would assure to all medical service and medical attention in the event of sickness.
That is not being provided to Australians.
These bureaucrats are in breach, in violation, of these international treaties by denying Australians access to these drugs. I ask them to go back and look at the evidence and change things. Australians should not, for one more day, be denied access to this treatment. (Time expired)
Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond) (16:15): I too rise to speak on the appropriate bills. The fact is that this is a government whose harsh cuts and cruel decisions continue to hurt Australians, particularly those in regional areas, like in my area on the North Coast of New South Wales. Regional Australia has been left behind by the Liberals and Nationals—left behind by a government that has no plan to create jobs in the regions and no plan to secure a future for our regions, despite the fact that we are now in the Morrison recession. This is a government led by a salesman. That's all he is—a salesman. He is not a leader. In fact, he's such an ineffective Prime Minister, he's running a do-nothing government with absolutely no substantial agenda for the country. There's no plan for jobs, no plan for wages growth, no plan for social housing, no plan for child care, no plan to address the crisis in aged care and no plan for action on climate change.
All we saw in this government's budget is that the Liberals and Nationals will rack up a trillion dollars of debt. But what has the community got for that? The budget doesn't do enough in terms of creating jobs or securing the future. The budget just leaves so many people behind. So many were left behind in this budget. The fact is that the decisions made by the Liberals and Nationals in the budget mean that the Morrison recession will be deeper and longer than necessary. In my area on the New South Wales North Coast we need much greater support. We have 33,000 locals on JobKeeper and over 14,000 people on JobSeeker. They need support and assistance.
The government's leaving Australia with a trillion dollars of debt and not much to show for it. That's $1 trillion of debt, but millions of Australians are left behind, including the over 900,000 people aged 35 and over who are on unemployment benefits, who have been deliberately excluded from those hiring subsidies announced in the budget. In the budget there was no plan to lift the permanent rate of JobSeeker from $40 a day, no plan to tackle insecure work, no plan to create opportunities for women and no plan to improve access to child care. The Morrison recession is the worst in almost a century, and the decisions made by this government are making it so much harder for millions of Australians.
In terms of JobKeeper, so many were left behind, particularly casuals and those in the arts and entertainment sector. This government has really failed to provide adequate assistance to the arts and entertainment sector, which impacts so many people in my region. Unemployment has been too high for too long, and now another 160,000 Australians are estimated to be on the jobless queues by Christmas. As I have said, this is a government with no plan for jobs, no plan for infrastructure investment and no plan for investing in our regions—where we need it. In fact, all we get in the regions is more of the National Party's lies, cuts and chaos. As I've told the House many times, that's all we get—cuts to health, cuts to education, cuts to aged care, cuts to services like Centrelink and NDIS and cuts to TAFE and universities, right across the board.
Of course, one of the most shameful acts of this government is their cuts to aged care. We must always remember that it is our seniors who built this nation. They worked hard, raised their families and paid their taxes. We have a duty as a nation to ensure that every older Australian is treated with dignity and respect and we must ensure that they can access services when they need them. Instead, the Morrison government's crisis in aged care has shown how incompetent they are when it comes to protecting the elderly. Prior to the pandemic—and particularly once the pandemic started—the government were warned by experts that our already troubled aged-care system was vulnerable. They were warned and didn't act, and there have been tragic consequences—and this from a government that shamefully cut $1.7 billion from the aged-care sector. We're seeing the results of those cuts right across the board, and they are hurting some of the most vulnerable in our community.
Shockingly, the budget had no significant funding for residential aged care, but we've seen tragically so many older Australians dying during the pandemic. All we saw were those 23,000 additional home-care packages announced in the budget, but that won't come anywhere close enough to meet the massive demand; we've got over 100,000 Australians on the waiting list for home-care packages. What about them? There are so many of them desperate for those home-care packages. The fact is this government is a disgrace when it comes to aged care, and their legacy will be their incompetence, the $1.7 billion in cuts and all of those tens of thousands of Australians waiting for home-care packages. The government has absolutely no plan for aged care.
Labor has. We've put forward some of those suggestions. Firstly, we need minimum staffing levels in residential care and proper funding, because of those massive waiting lists when it comes to home-care packages, so more people can stay in their homes longer. We also need to see better training for staff in our nursing homes. The fact is the legacy of this government, the Morrison government, when it comes to aged care is quite simply neglect and incompetence. The cuts they've made to aged care and the very tragic results of that are absolutely shameful.
Also, the pandemic has really presented some very unique challenges for the higher education sector in the regions and in my electorate, specifically for the Southern Cross University. Recently the Southern Cross Uni announced a $33 million funding shortfall, which will lead to catastrophic losses of more than 130 local jobs. Seventy-one local staff have taken voluntary redundancies, and there are a further 63 full-time job losses. SCU is a really strong economic driver in our region and produces quality graduates and great research outcomes, and now more than ever we need to be focusing on the fact they need to keep delivering for their students and our community. It's imperative that the Morrison government takes the necessary steps to ensure the survival of Southern Cross Uni, because when you take hundreds of jobs out of a regional area like the North Coast it has a massive impact on the local economy, devastating right across the community.
Southern Cross Uni has identified the need to grow their domestic student numbers, which of course are currently restricted due to the funding caps. They're seeking a removal of those caps and increased funding for alternative entry pathways. An increase in this federal funding will allow SCU to offer far greater opportunities for those students who desperately need to retrain and upskill during the Morrison recession. So I'll continue to call on the government to commit more funding for SCU, and I'll also continue to condemn the government for their unfair increases when it comes to university degrees.
Students and parents right across the North Coast were outraged to learn this government will cruelly increase the cost of university degrees. This is outrageous, particularly for students in the regions. An ordinary four-year degree will now cost about $58,000 for many disciplines, making it so hard for those students from the regions to actually go to university. But, make no mistake, every student who pays more, every student who misses out on a place and every job loss in the university sector is the fault of the Liberals and Nationals. That is the reality. This government is doubling the cost of a university degree for thousands and thousands of Australians, many of those are in regional areas like mine and already experience disadvantage.
The fact is what we want to see, what Labor wants to see, is university and TAFE more affordable, more available and more accessible, because investing in people and education and training is one of the best investments we can make as a nation. Yet, what do we see? Again we're seeing cuts to the university sector and increases in the cost of degrees. What it is is the Liberals and Nationals yet again failing regional communities.
Another major issue in my area that locals constantly raise with me is the need for a national integrity commission. We, in Labor, have made it very clear we'll establish an independent, transparent and powerful national integrity commission. It's been almost three years since the Morrison government claims to have started work on a national integrity commission. But, to date, what's been delivered? Nothing. We heard in question time there's been a draft bill since December 2019, yet we've seen absolutely nothing. Apparently it's too hard to do that at the moment. That's just outrageous! The government have been stalling on this for far too long. In my community and, indeed, right throughout the country, people are calling for a federal ICAC, for a national integrity commission. We see, despite the sports rorts and this ongoing airport-land scandal, the Morrison government just refuses to act. We really did see highlighted, particularly in light of the recent events in New South Wales when we saw the disgraced Liberal MP Daryl Maguire, how important it is to have a national ICAC. We saw shocking evidence in ICAC over the past week confirming that New South Wales Premier Gladys Berejiklian turned a blind eye to the corrupt business dealings of her boyfriend, Liberal MP Daryl Maguire, and she didn't report it to ICAC. All last week I was inundated with people who want to see action when it comes to a federal ICAC.
In terms of the budget itself, it was great to see the Leader of the Opposition's speech in reply and the very important issues he outlined. Firstly, there was the early childhood education and care package. It's so important to have affordable child care, and Labor absolutely has a plan for that. It also has a manufacturing plan and a rewiring-the-nation plan, and it also has a plan to address social housing. It's only Labor that outlined all of those important aspects.
I want to go back to some of the lies, cuts and chaos that we see from the Liberals and Nationals. We don't just see them federally; we also see them at the state and council level in New South Wales. What we know about the New South Wales Berejiklian government is that they're rotten to the core, as was exposed by ICAC over the last few weeks. Let's have a look at some of their lies, cuts and chaos—particularly those of the Tweed Nationals MP, Geoff Provest, and his rotten government—and how they impact us on the North Coast.
First of all, let's have a look at their pay cuts for public servants. These local workers are the heroes of the pandemic, and now they've been forced to suffer a pay cut thanks to the New South Wales Liberal-National government. Nurses, teachers, police, firefighters, paramedics, cleaners—so many fantastic public sector workers—risked their lives to look after us, and what do they get from this government? A pay cut. Outrageous! There's also the lack of health services in regional New South Wales. With recent border closures, what we saw is how underfunded the health and hospital services are in northern New South Wales. It is absolutely outrageous. This has been going on for a long period under the Liberal-National government and must be addressed. It is disgraceful and absolutely shameful.
Talking of shameful actions, it was outrageous to see in the New South Wales state parliament the Liberal-National government voting to essentially kill koalas. That's what we saw. We saw the Tweed Nationals member, Geoff Provest, and his disgraced Liberal and National party mates vote for legislation that will allow for the widespread killing of precious koalas on the North Coast. Make no mistake about it: they all voted for this legislation this afternoon in the New South Wales parliament. They voted for the local land services amendment bill, which will allow private rural landholders and property developers to destroy our koalas through widespread land clearing. This is an act of environmental vandalism. It's absolutely outrageous. My community is angry at the Liberals and Nationals for pushing through this legislation that will allow such harsh action when it comes to our very precious koalas.
Another issue on the North Coast is a lack of protection at our beaches in terms of shark mitigation. We have had many shark sightings on the New South Wales North Coast. We need more drones, smart drum lines and helicopter surveillance, but, of course, we're not getting them from the Liberal-National government or from the Tweed Nationals MP, Geoff Provest. We're not seeing that at all. The fact is that it's just not good enough. While Sydney beaches get lots of protection, on the New South Wales North Coast we're forgotten. We have outstanding surf lifesaving clubs, and they desperately need effective shark mitigation, detection and other general beach and surf safety measures. They need to have those in place. The fact is that the Liberal-National government have failed locals yet again. Labor will always fight for our community—we will always stand with them—and these issues around shark mitigation are vitally important.
I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank the Tweed deputy mayor, Reece Byrnes, who successfully passed a motion at council to purchase and provide drones for Tweed surf clubs to assist with shark monitoring and swimmer safety. Congratulations on that. But it shouldn't be up to the council to be doing that. Our state government had a plan in terms of shark mitigation. It had a plan. It went to other places in the state, but not enough went to the North Coast at all. We have had so many shark sightings. This is an issue that people constantly raise with me.
Whether it's the federal Liberal-National government or the New South Wales state Liberal-National government, their harsh cuts continue to hurt regional Australia and areas like mine on the New South Wales North Coast. Of course, we're now in the Morrison recession, and this government's trillion-dollar debt has left so many behind. As I said, it's a government with no plan—no plan for jobs, no plan for wages growth, no plan for social housing, which is so desperately needed, no plan for child care, no plan to address the crisis in aged care and no plan for action on climate change, which our community desperately wants to see. When it comes to the regions, we primarily blame the National Party for that. As I've said many times in this place, National Party choices hurt, and they really do hurt the regions. We have particularly seen that when it comes to the budget and the number of people left behind, particularly those older workers—nothing for them—particularly women and particularly people in so many different sectors, like the arts and entertainment sector. They've all been left behind. They were left behind with JobKeeper, as were the casual workers. We've seen such a severe impact in my region, and a lack of support from this government.
We need to see greater investment in our regions. We need to be providing security for the future of the regions and our country, but we're not seeing that from our government. Most importantly, for our young people, we need to see training and education and opportunities they can access to get secure, permanent jobs. We desperately need to see that. I continue to call on this government to invest more in our regions as they've been forgotten in the Morrison government's budget.
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (16:30): I rise today in support of our government's economic recovery plan for all Australians, which is already assisting many businesses and households across the Central Coast. This budget is about creating jobs, rebuilding our economy and securing Australia's future, including through tax relief. Around 61,600 taxpayers in my electorate of Robertson will benefit from tax relief of up to $2,745 this year. Other important economic initiatives include two one-off payments of $250 for our age pensioners to assist them with the costs of living and to cope with the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Through this budget, the government is expanding our record 10-year infrastructure pipeline, which is already supporting 100,000 jobs across the country. On the Central Coast, there is a $15 million boost in funding going towards planning for faster rail between Sydney and Newcastle, which will assist in finalising the scope, cost, timing and delivery of this project. Faster rail is something that residents of the Central Coast have been advocating for many years. With one in four people from our region commuting to Sydney or Newcastle for work or study every day, this initiative will mean commuters will be able to spend more time with family and friends and doing the things that they love. The vice-president of the Central Coast Commuters Association, Eddie Ellis, said he fully supports the Morrison government's announcement of additional funding, and can't wait to see the outcome of the planning when it's finalised. This builds on earlier announcements to improve the daily commute, including delivering continuous mobile coverage along the RailCorp corridor between Wyong and Hornsby, free wi-fi at train stations and $35 million for commuter car parking at Gosford and Woy Woy stations. A total of 14 new mobile sites have already been delivered with a further eight to be completed, and wi-fi connectivity is now live at all 19 station platforms.
The 2020-21 budget also delivers $16.7 million to the already announced $69.8 million Central Coast Roads Package, totalling $86.5 million going towards local upgrades. This additional funding is part of a $2.7 billion boost to infrastructure in New South Wales, and it will assist in upgrading the existing single-lane roundabout at the intersection of Ocean Beach Road and Rawson Road at Woy Woy. I know that many peninsula residents who use this roundabout to get to work and school every day will be pleased to hear that the upgrades will assist in reducing congestion, especially as this busy thoroughfare can increase commuting times. Kylie Brown from Woy Woy uses the intersection daily, and told me it can be a nightmare at peak traffic times and very dangerous for motorists and pedestrians. She said she's looking forward to seeing the intersection fixed for the safety of the community.
Eight road upgrades have already been completed as part of the Central Coast Roads Package, with an additional 12 currently under construction. Overall, the package will see 29 individual road upgrades across our local area, and I'm advised that all are expected to be completed by mid-2025. Infrastructure improvements like these mean jobs, they mean stronger local communities and they mean building a more secure future for our nation. That's why I'm proud to be part of a government that is backing local employment with 190 direct and indirect jobs expected to be supported as part of these upgrades.
A number of important initiatives funded in previous budgets are also underway, which includes the Central Coast Clinical School and Research Institute, which is currently under construction. Students are due in semester 2 of next year. The new club house and change rooms at James Brown Oval in Woy Woy are due to be completed by the next soccer season, while upgrades to the amenities block at Rogers Park will commence in early 2021. The federal government's $9 million investment for the Glen for Women is on track. I'm advised land has been purchased and the development application is underway. Progress has been made on the Peninsula Recreation Precinct, with Central Coast Council, I'm advised, completing a final concept design for the new skate park, and consultation on the sports amenities is well underway with local sporting and community groups. There is a grant agreement for the upgrades to the club house at Lemon Grove Netball Courts, and designs are being developed by council. Improvements to Pinyari Park in Kincumber and the highly anticipated Woy Woy scoreboard are already delivered, as is the linear accelerator at the Central Coast Cancer Centre, which will be ready to take its first patient as early as next month.
As part of this year's budget, the federal government is also supporting our next generation of skilled workers through the Boosting Apprenticeship Commencements wage subsidy. The $1.2 billion wage subsidy will support up to 100,000 new apprenticeships Australia-wide. This is in addition to financial support already provided under the Morrison government's $2.8 billion Supporting Apprentices and Trainees package for existing apprentices and trainees. This support will benefit hardworking small businesses like Terrigal Electrical Services, run by Ryan and Yvette in my electorate of Robertson. Ryan said that the new 50 per cent wage subsidy has given their business the confidence to hire two new apprentices, bringing his team to around 11 people. The JobKeeper payment has also enabled Ryan and Yvette to retain their existing staff and help cushion the blow of the coronavirus pandemic. Other key measures backing local business in the 2020-21 budget include the increase to the instant asset write-off, from $30,000 to $150,000, enabling hardworking businesses to claim an immediate tax deduction for the full cost of equipment installed by 30 June 2022. Ryan and Yvette shared with me that they have been able to use this initiative to invest back into their business by purchasing two new vans in the last three months. These are just some of the examples of how the Morrison government's budget is helping people and business on the road to recovery out of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The budget also guarantees the essential services that Australians rely on, including an additional $1.6 billion to support the aged-care sector, which will deliver 23,000 more home-care packages across Australia, and $10.3 billion in funding for the childcare system in 2020-21. The Morrison government is also investing $51 billion into education, injecting $550.3 million into short courses and additional university places. One billion dollars will be provided for university research, and regional students in universities will benefit from an additional $400 million in support. Importantly, the budget invests over $5.7 million into mental health, including $100.8 million to support the Better Access initiative, and will double Medicare funded psychological services from 10 to 20. This is so important to people in my electorate and right across Australia who are struggling as we deal with the impacts of recent bushfires and COVID-19. The 2020-21 budget sets out our economic recovery plan for Australia and it's designed to fast-track business and infrastructure investment. I know that the measures in this budget will assist people and small businesses of the Central Coast. While there remains a significant task ahead, there is hope and Australia is up to the task. I commend the bills to the House.
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (16:39): It's a pleasure to be able to speak in this debate on the appropriation bills. We heard the Treasurer's speech and we had the budget reply. I want to commend the Leader of the Opposition for his speech and his commitment to a plan for Australia's future, unlike what we saw in the budget. I'm not so churlish, though, as to not acknowledge the investments which the government is making through this budget—needed investments into my own electorate and into northern Australia around roads and other infrastructure; investments into national parks in my electorate, at Kakadu and Uluru and on Christmas Island; the investment to address the issue of ghost nets; money for Rum Jungle rehabilitation; and of course the ongoing commitment to defence infrastructure in the North, which is a common view across the parliament and something which is unsurprising.
As we know, we're all Keynesians now. I had the pleasure of being here in the global financial crisis, when the now government were definitely not Keynesians.
An honourable member: I thought you were going to say you met Mr Keynes!
Mr SNOWDON: I'm not quite that old! I'm getting close. I remember well the oppositionist views which were expressed by the then opposition, including the now Prime Minister, which I thought then were a sad indictment of what should have been a more bipartisan approach to addressing the crisis that was induced through the collapse of the financial instruments. Nevertheless, I think it is important that we accept that the world has changed significantly and that those who were then critics of us and bleating about deficits and balanced budgets have now understood that, in times of crisis, as we had then and as we have now, it's important to invest government resources into developing the economy and addressing infrastructure.
Nevertheless, this budget will rack up—as you well know, Mr Deputy Speaker Zimmerman—$1 trillion in debt and, I think, a forecast $1.7 trillion over 10 years. That's an enormous commitment of Australian future wealth. But, with all that, as the Leader of the Opposition has observed, this doesn't do enough to create jobs. The budget fails to build for the future and leaves too many Australians behind. That's really sad. We know that the millions who are left behind will include 928,000 people over 35 on unemployment benefits, who have been deliberately excluded from hiring subsidies. There are no real plans for child care. There is no proper plan for aged care. There is no proper plan for energy, one which would drive down costs and provide investment certainty for businesses. There is no plan for the future of JobSeeker recipients—and I'll come to that in more detail shortly—leaving 1.4 million recipients, as at 25 September, with an uncertain future as to whether they will go back onto the old rate of 40 bucks a day. I invite any member of the government to tell me or tell the Australian community that they think that's a fair cut—40 bucks a day.
I want to concentrate on an area of particular need, in my view, and that is the failure of the budget to address the needs of Indigenous Australians, our First Australians. The budget fails to offer any funding that will make substantial and overdue improvements for First Australians. Some of the many areas it fails in are housing, closing the gap, access roads to communities, communications, providing Indigenous jobs, reforming CDP, improving social security, building clinics and reducing incarceration and inequities in education. On the need: only this week, communities out at Arlparra, north-east of Alice Springs, were cut off for over five days as a result of wet weather. Not only did they lose complete access to the community for two days; there was a substantial period where they had no communications and no access to EFTPOS. No access to EFTPOS meant, apart from anything else, they couldn't make purchases at the local shop. In addition, it meant they couldn't actually undertake their Centrelink obligations because they couldn't get onto the internet, and they become penalised. This budget doesn't address any of those issues. It does not address those issues. It doesn't address the poverty that exists amongst First Nations Australians.
Before the onset of COVID-19, in 2016, more than half—that's 53.4 per cent—of First Australians lived in very remote areas and were living in poverty. In urban areas, in 2016, the average First Nation household incomes were only three-quarters of what they were for the rest of the population. In 2018-19, the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Survey found that more than a third—that's 38 per cent—of very remote First Nations households experienced hunger. This means they ran out of food and could not afford to buy any more. There's nothing in this budget for that. And it makes me cranky. Forty-two per cent of the population in my communities are Aboriginal people, most of whom live in remote communities, most of whom are dirt poor, most of whom live in overcrowded housing. This budget does nothing to address those issues, except to raise uncertainty around whether or not, as I said, the JobSeeker income will fall back to 40 bucks a day.
The failure to address the stupidity of the current Community Development Program scheme, the job scheme, the Work for the Dole scheme, which operates in remote communities, is appalling. It is a failure. It is an absolute failure. We've been continuing to bring this to the government's attention, and they've continued to ignore us. It's discriminatory, and it doesn't work. It needs to be chucked out, and the government need to start again. There's nothing in this budget to fix that.
An area which is totally underfunded is housing. The government has committed, along with the Northern Territory government, I think $2.8 billion over 10 years for housing in the Northern Territory. The view is that the government's expenditure into housing will reduce overcrowding by a level of 25 to 30 per cent by 2028. Well, tell me how that works if you've got a household of 14 people? How does it work? Does it mean a quarter of them will move into another house? That means there are still 12 people living in that house. Yet this is common practice in remote communities. And what this investment by the government does not anticipate or plan for is the decrease in mortality in Aboriginal communities and the high birth rates. While the population is growing—the curve is going up dramatically as a result of natural increases—the housing curve is going down. There is a disjunction; they're moving apart. And, if we want to address the health issues in remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, we need to address the issue of housing. This budget provides $150 million through the Aboriginal business organisation for house purchases. That will have no impact—absolutely zero impact!—on the poverty I've been speaking about or the need for housing in remote Australia. We need to be a lot better than that. We need to be a lot better than that!
As I said, the CDP scheme—well, what can you say? It doesn't work. And, despite the criticism that the government receives on a regular basis, we don't see change. I've offered and am happy to sit down with the government at any time to work in a bipartisan way to try and address these issues, but the government's got to be fair dinkum, and, frankly, the government isn't. And that's a problem.
How do you address this issue? The government did what is, on its face, a good thing in this budget. They provided $39.8 million for extra funding for the Clontarf program, an education program based on attracting young Aboriginal men to go to school, stay at school and complete Year 12. On its face, that's very good thing. But that's it. Nothing—zero—in this budget for equivalent girls' programs, one of which—the Stars Foundation— I know very well. It is at least as good as Clontarf. If you don't understand, if this government, if the Prime Minister can't see the need to educate young women, the mothers of the next generation, what are we talking about here? What we should have seen was an equivalent amount of money—$39.8 million—for equivalent girls programs—not dodgy ones, not part-time things, but ones that have an outcome. They are about retention and getting young women through Year 12 and providing for their welfare, such as Stars does.
So I'm disappointed. If you look at this through the prism of those most disadvantaged Australians, you have to say they have not done well. There is a drastic need across this country for improving health outcomes—we know that, obviously—with all the close the gap targets, which clearly have not been met. But to do that you need infrastructure. We know there is a substantial need for investment in First Nations clinics across this country. There is nothing in this budget for any substantial increase in expenditure on providing primary health care services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people around Australia.
I could go on and on. I could and I would if I had more time. I won't have time to address the issues around the deep policy fault lines that exist between us and the government around the Uluru statement. It's not addressed in this budget: the need for a voice, the need for treaty, the need for truth-telling, the need for a makarrata commission. We can do a lot better than this. As I say, I am prepared to accept the bona fides of those who are prepared to work with us, but where deliberate decisions are made which leave the interests of First Nations people outside the door, not in the room, not at the table, with no-one to speak to, without a voice, there's a problem. This budget does nothing to fix that problem.
I end where I started and commend the Leader of the Opposition for his contribution in his address in reply. I say to the government, I know it's not common practice. Unlike you—that is, the government—when you were in opposition around the GFC, we want to be constructive and productive. Listen to what the Leader of the Opposition has put forward. It's a way ahead, a strategy for improvement of the Australian community and the Australian economy. I ask you to look at it seriously and not just disregard it.
Ms HAMMOND (Curtin) (16:53): I am very happy to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No.1) 2020-21 and highlight the impact that this budget will have in my electorate of Curtin. 2020 has been a year none of us will forget. We didn't expect it, but we won't forget it. Tragically, lives have been lost, businesses closed, jobs lost and families separated because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Because of the pandemic we are experiencing the most extreme economic crisis since the Great Depression and the Australian economy has entered its first recession in almost 30 years.
While Australia's performance on the health and economic front has been better than many other developed countries, the global economic environment remains uncertain, with the impact of this crisis likely to be felt for many years to come. But Australians are resilient. I have spoken previously in this place of the resilience of the people in my electorate of Curtin. The can-do, buckle-down attitude alongside the strong community ties we all share have been tested this year. But, rather than being frayed, they have, if anything, been strengthened.
Australia's better placed than many countries to recover, because of the health and economic measures that have been implemented since the pandemic first hit our shores. Since the onset of COVID, the government has committed $507 billion, or 25.6 per cent of GDP, in overall economic support, which has kept Australians safe, protected jobs and ensured that Australia is in a very strong position upon which to base its economic recovery.
Some of the actions already taken have had a direct impact on my local community. The government's JobKeeper payment has supported 6,700 businesses in Curtin, supporting them through the pandemic and keeping them connected to their employees. Ian Belton, the managing director of Caterlink, a third-generation family-run company in my electorate, managed to keep their 30 employees employed because of JobKeeper. Ian said, 'We were flying through a storm and the government assistance has been one of the strategies we are using to extend our runway so that we have a safe landing.' JobKeeper has also supported Creative.adm. Run by Marty Shearwood, Creative have been supported by the JobKeeper payments, allowing them to keep their 11 staff in work. Marty told me, 'The JobKeeper wage subsidy gave us the confidence we needed to retain our staff, to boost team morale and, most importantly, ensure we could provide a consistent level of service to our clients as they dealt with their own COVID-19-related issues.'
The cash flow boost has helped around 6,000 small and medium businesses in my electorate of Curtin. Glen from my local cafe Deli Chicchi in Mount Claremont had this to say: 'The government measures have helped us when our business had to close to sit-down diners because of the restrictions. In fact, one of the biggest help provided has been the boost in cash flow measure. At the point at which these payments came through, I was just about to have to remortgage or close my doors. It, along with the JobKeeper payments, kept my staff in jobs, allowed the business to keep going and helped me to pay my small independent suppliers.'
The instant asset write-off was equally welcomed by many businesses. For example, the owners of the Floreat Market the Herdsman Market in my electorate, who employ 140 people, used the instant asset write-off to build up additional facilities. Anthony Pullella, one of the owners, told me: 'Through the insignificant asset write-off we were able to improve our kitchen facilities up at our store. Because of this larger kitchen, demand for our meals has increased and we are actively looking for a new chef and kitchen hands. We also upgraded our IT system to streamline our proceeds to be more efficient, installing new checkouts for faster service, better reporting systems and faster to use. We are proud people, proud of our quality and service, and, through the asset write-off, we've been able to afford these changes, which will kick our business into a great space for the next decade.'
The supplement for age pensioners saw about 9,000 age pensioners in Curtin received payments of $750 in April and in July. Over 300 carers in Curtin also received this benefit. George Bowden, a constituent in my electorate, said this: 'The first $750 payments were such a help. It doesn't sound like much but it went so far in helping with the weekly shop, especially when it was hard to find the cheaper essentials, and it assisted with other household costs like care insurance.' And 4,864 individuals in Curtin have received the JobSeeker coronavirus supplement, which was added to provide additional support throughout this crisis.
The people in my electorate have been overwhelmingly positive about the measures taken to date by this government. This bill, outlining the 2020-21 budget, continues to build on those measures. It's one which provides a way forward, a path of hope and encouragement. Of course the 66,000 taxpayers in Curtin and the 1.2 million taxpayers across WA who are going to benefit from the tax relief are pleased with this measure. They earned their money. They know what they want to spend it on, and we're going to allow them to do it. Importantly, we're also going to continue to provide much needed transitional support to those in need. For example, our aged pensioners and our carers will receive a further $250 payment in December, and then again in March next year.
Above all of these, it's the measures that go to supporting jobs and job growth and the underpinnings of our economy which are going to benefit the people in Curtin, both throughout the coming very difficult times we are about to face and into the future. There are a number of them I want to highlight—and I, like all the other speakers, will probably run out of time, so I'll do my best. The first category of measures that I want to address are those targeted at small business. In Curtin there are close to 25,000 small and medium-sized businesses across a vast range of industries and professions. There are a number of initiatives supporting them directly. The two which I know will be of great interest to the Curtin businesses are the extension of the instant asset write-off and the loss carry-back initiative.
Given how successful the earlier version of the instant asset write-off has been, I've no doubt that the extended version will be fully embraced. This will allow businesses with a turnover of less than $5 billion to immediately write off the full value of eligible assets that they purchase for their business. As I said, the first tranche of the instant asset write-off was embraced by businesses in my electorate. This one will be again. Secondly, complementing this measure, if a business paid income tax in 2019 and then incurs a tax loss in 2020, the tax from 2019 will be refunded. I know many businesses who, because they struggled with the shutdowns this year but otherwise ran a very successful business, will utilise it and will really appreciate the cash flow support this measure will provide.
There are people looking for work throughout Australia. In February 1,981 people in Curtin received JobSeeker. By May that number had, sadly, climbed to 5,297. While the number of people on JobSeeker in my electorate is slowly coming down and is now at about 4,800, this figure shows that there are still many people in Curtin actively looking for work. I want to highlight two key initiatives which will help those in my electorate trying to seek work. The first of those is the JobMaker hiring credit. This is designed to support small businesses and create jobs for young people. Substantial funds are being made available to support small businesses hiring new staff aged between 16 and 35 currently on JobSeeker. The credit will be payable for up to 12 months and will provide for new jobs at a rate of $200 per week for those aged between 16 and 29, and $100 per week for those aged between 30 and 35. The second significant support is the extension of support for apprenticeships, with a new 50 per cent wage subsidy for businesses who employ apprentices or trainees, supporting them and creating 10,000 new apprenticeships and traineeships across Australia. Businesses in my community have already reached out to me to find out details on both of these measures. They want to go out and find new staff members. They love this measure and I know they will embrace it.
Another area of significant interest to the people of Curtin is health. In my electorate we have 11 hospitals, a mix of private and public, which service not only the people in my community but also people all over Perth and Western Australia. Curtin is also the home of many healthcare workers. It's the largest employment sector for people living in my area. To all of you who have been working tirelessly over the last six months, I say: thank you.
This budget delivers record funding of $93.8 billion in 2020-21 for health—an increase of almost 43 per cent since 2014. WA's health funding is increasing by $184 million over last year. The extension of Medicare subsidised telehealth services has enabled over 30 million consultations since the crisis began. I know that access to telehealth was warmly welcomed by patients and doctors in my electorate. I also commend and highlight the $5.7 billion being put into supporting mental health across our nation. Mental health is a vital issue—it's an issue of national importance—and this budget delivers.
Manufacturing is something that, surprisingly, excites me. The Modern Manufacturing Strategy is a stroke of genius. What we are doing here will be significant. It creates jobs and more career and life opportunities for people. Very importantly, it helps support our national sovereignty and security. I have a number of people who work in the areas that are targeted under our manufacturing strategy and I want to highlight one company—Chironix.
Chironix, a company founded by Daniel Milford, is at the forefront of rapid deployment and the management of autonomous robots and digital wearables. This company is playing an important role in the defence and resources sectors by optimising and integrating new software into existing technologies and allowing them to work more effectively. An example of this is the work they're doing on Project Simpson with the US Office of Naval Research. They're going to develop a technology that will significantly improve outcomes for casualties in the field. Project Simpson is named in honour of the Anzac stretcher-bearer Jack Simpson. It will integrate three cutting-edge technologies that will allow a single medic to provide a casualty with lifesaving treatment, monitor key vital signs hands-free and evacuate the casualty to a field hospital.
These sorts of projects are really exciting. They're really the future of advanced manufacturing in Australia. It's these sorts of projects that we'll be targeting under the Modern Manufacturing Strategy.
The people in my electorate care deeply about the environment and the impacts of climate change. They all want energy that is clean and cheap. To this end, the budget's inclusion of $1.9 billion in new funding to support low-emission and renewable technologies has been welcomed. Likewise, the $250 million to modernise our recycling infrastructure and build an improved recycling industry so that we reduce waste and do more of it here is also being embraced in Curtin.
Most of the schools in my electorate have their own dedicated recycling and management programs. There is also a local organisation, Greenbatch, that works with many of the schools to collect plastic waste and turn it into 3D-printing filament. It's an example of the circular economy at work.
I also have to give a shout-out to my local councils, many of whom have stepped up on their local recycling and waste initiatives. The five councils of Mosman Park, Cottesloe, Claremont, Subiaco and Peppermint Grove have joined with Cambridge through the West Metropolitan Regional Council to manage waste. They have done significant work with respect to recycling. Not only do they collect it and invest in it but also they have a vast recycling educational program.
It would be completely remiss of me when talking about environment initiatives to not note the incredible work done by the numerous volunteer organisations in my area that ensure that our natural environment and wildlife are preserved, enhanced and, where necessary, restored. The friends-of groups and the Coastcare groups are simply phenomenal. They do incredible work. Most of it is just taken for granted. I thank them sincerely for that. I also thank them for the time they take in educating and enlightening me about all the things I don't know. I also thank them for frequently challenging me and giving me cause to rethink and reconsider things.
I have other things, but I note that I have only eight seconds left. All I say is that this has been a pretty bad year—I was going to use a word you're not allowed to use—but I know that this budget sets the path ahead. In our future we have to live with hope.
Mr ZAPPIA ( Makin ) ( 17:09 ): COVID-19 has thrown the world into turmoil, and I accept that. It has disrupted normal life right across the world. It's exposed weaknesses in countries and in societies throughout the world, including here in Australia. It's also caused widespread divisions and differences of opinion as to what is the most effective response to COVID-19. The immediate priority for most governments of course has been to keep people safe, to provide the health services that they need and to minimise the economic and job losses that have occurred.
COVID-19 has also become a test of government competency. Governments have choices about the decisions they make and choices that reveal their ideology, their priorities and ultimately their competencies. Those choices will of course determine how long and how severe the COVID-19 fallout will be and, importantly, how quickly the recovery will be. And that is a matter that the Morrison government will have to contend with at the next election, because the recession we're currently in is very much dependent on the policies of this government and how well it manages the situation that we are in. In doing that, the budget was about choices—all are budgets are—and the 2020-21 budget of the Morrison government sets out its priorities for the coming years and its COVID-19 recovery response. It's a shallow, short-sighted response and very poorly thought through, with no evidence base behind many of the policies and announcements that were made and with no long-term economic or social strategy. It's more like a marketing budget framed for the next federal election, and, whilst the Prime Minister denies that it will be in the second half of next year, we'll have to wait and see about that. It's a budget with a lot of electoral sweeteners, with billions being spent but with no long-term economic structural reform, no reset of economic direction and no new foundations for Australia's future. The only legacy of the Morrison government's 2020-21 budget will be a massive debt, indeed, the worst in Australia's history for years to come.
The government's own budget figures are very clear: a $213.7 billion deficit this year, $703 billion of net debt this financial year growing to $966 billion at the end of the forward estimates and gross debt, currently at $800 billion, is expected to hit $1.7 trillion by the end of the decade. Yet, with all that debt, 928,000 people aged over 35 years who are currently unemployed will be worse off because they've been excluded from the government's job subsidies programs. They will find it even more difficult getting back into the workforce when they have to compete with people that will be subsidised ahead of them.
In this budget, there is nothing for an aged-care sector that is currently in crisis—nothing of substance. I notice that there are some additional aged-care packages. They fall very far short of what is needed to reduce the waiting lists for those packages. We have no national energy security strategy in this budget. Again, that's something that Australians have been calling out for for years. There is no healthcare reform for a sector severely under strain. There is continued uncertainty about both the JobKeeper and JobSeeker programs, which this government and members opposite continuously laud. None of those people who are on either of those programs know what the future holds for them, and, indeed, for those on JobSeeker, it is just over two months away and their supplementary payment will cease, bringing them back to the $40 a day Newstart allowance that they will be expected to live on.
It's a budget that does very little for a struggling housing construction sector, and we know, even from the budget's own figures, that that sector, which would traditionally rely on population growth, now has the additional challenge of a population in this country that is not likely to grow in the immediate future. We have a university sector, heavily reliant on overseas students, where some 260,000 employees equally face a very uncertain future because we don't know when overseas travel will resume. And we have a budget, that everyone on this side of the House have continuously reminded the government of, that completely ignores climate change. I accept that for many people right now climate change might not be at the forefront of their mind. But, in reality, for governments it should be because it's an issue that will affect the future of our country and indeed the whole planet. We cannot just continuously push it aside because there are other supposedly more pressing issues to deal with. Yes, those pressing issues are there, but to suggest that you can't deal with both again reflects on government competency.
Perhaps the most demoralising aspect of the Morrison government's 2020-21 budget is that it offers no hope to the one million Australians who are currently unemployed and the up to 2½ million who are possibly underemployed. In my own electorate there are 10,234 people who are presently on JobSeeker payments. That's almost twice the 5,695 who were in that position in December of last year. The figure has effectively doubled. Some 1,196 people are currently receiving youth allowance, which again is almost double the figure of 636 at the end of last year. What future is there for those people when not only have the numbers doubled but the opportunities have shrunk? They've shrunk to a point where I have no doubt that the future will indeed be bleak for many of those people. It will be even more bleak when perhaps JobKeeper ends in the early part of next year.
I now want to turn to the decimated travel and tourism industry of this country. My understanding is that the sector overall employs about a million people across the country. It has been perhaps the hardest hit of all the different sectors, and for many of the tourism operators or the people in the travel industry sector there may never, ever be a recovery for them. I was recently contacted by a local Makin travel agent, Connie Dziwoki, who owns and runs Genesis Travel and Cruise at Ridgehaven in my electorate. Connie has been in business for over four decades—pretty much all her life—working in the travel industry. Up until the beginning of this year she employed 3½ people. The interstate and international border closures have ruined her business. Connie now has no idea what the future holds for her, and, despite industry lobbying, the Morrison government's federal budget provides no business security for Connie or the 40,000 travel industry employees across Australia. The loss carry-back provisions announced in the budget are of no benefit to Connie or indeed any of the other 1,300 sole traders who operate a travel business or who operate one under a family or unit trust or a partnership. My understanding is that they will not benefit from the loss carry-back provisions at all. So what does the future hold for those like Connie? At 63, she's very unlikely to easily find another job, particularly when her expertise and experience is in one industry sector alone, and one that is not likely to rebound very quickly in any event. She had a business that was worth money. It is now worth absolutely nothing. She has nothing to onsell that she previously had that might have enabled her to set herself up for her retirement years.
The Morrison government's budget has not only failed Connie; it has failed so many others in a similar situation to hers, and it has left them behind. Members opposite quite rightly come in and talk about the success stories of the Morrison government, but I never hear them talking about those who have been left behind, who I'm sure have contacted their offices, just as they contact the offices of opposition members of parliament.
For my home state of South Australia, the Morrison government's budget is indeed a disappointment. Despite the efforts of South Australian coalition members to try and put a positive spin on the budget, it does very little indeed for South Australia. The demise of manufacturing over the past five years has hit South Australia particularly hard. South Australia was a state that in the late sixties and early seventies relied on manufacturing to the point that around 30 per cent of the economy depended on manufacturing, as did about 30 per cent of employment. Those figures have dropped, just as the national figures have, to around five or six per cent today.
The provocation of GMH by this government in this parliament in December 2013, prompting GMH to shut down its Elizabeth car making plant, was a massive blow to South Australia. Business confidence in that state has fallen away ever since that day, and you can track it. It's pretty clear. Population growth has now stagnated in the state. The housing sector, as a result, has also stagnated. In fact, last year I think we had 11 or 12 or maybe even 13 housing construction companies go into liquidation. In the last couple of years we've had iconic brands like Coca-Cola shut down their manufacturing plant in Adelaide. And only last week West End brewery announced that in a couple of years it would no longer continue to manufacture in South Australia. Again, it's not just the direct numbers of employees that these brands have; it's also the flow-on they have when they close down, and there's a psychological impact on the state when iconic national brands close their doors. Then, today, I read that BHP's $3.7 billion expansion of the Olympic Dam mine has also been abandoned. That was lauded as the possible savour of South Australia in the years ahead, and $3.7 billion of expansion would have been a terrific injection into the state. That has now been abandoned.
It goes further than that. What is the Morrison government's response to what is happening in South Australia? When we look at infrastructure funding, despite the spin about the figures, the reality is that by 2023 South Australia will get less than four per cent of national infrastructure funding, which is far less than it would be entitled to based on population or road length in the state. When we look at the full-cycle docking of submarines, there's been no decision about where that's going to take place. There's no certainty for the people down at Osborne as to whether they'll have jobs in the future or not. And, when we look at the new submarines that were supposed to be built in South Australia, with 90 plus per cent of jobs created being in South Australia according to the former member for Sturt in this place, we now know there is no commitment to a minimum Australian local content of jobs on those submarine builds. So we have a massive $90 billion, or thereabouts, expenditure for a product about which we have no idea how many jobs it will create in Australia, let alone in South Australia, which is very much dependent on all of that.
The Morrison government has failed South Australia time and time again, and it has done so again in this budget. Compare and contrast that with the response from Labor leader Anthony Albanese in terms of the budget response. The budget response from Anthony Albanese was not a comprehensive list of issues that will be taken to the next election, as I'm sure members opposite would appreciate, but it certainly addressed some of the key issues the Australian people have been calling out for: a major reform of childcare, the rebuilding of the national energy grid, the revival of Australian manufacturing—a real policy that also invests in Australian skills—an Australian centre for disease control and a social housing strategy. Each one of those isn't simply just throwing a few dollars at some industry sector, trying to keep people happy for a few moments; they're about setting a new direction for the country. They're about building a new economy and providing certainty for the long-term future of this country. That is the kind of response we should have but didn't get from the Morrison government.
COVID-19 was the perfect opportunity, given the way the whole world has changed, to reset the direction of this country. It was an opportunity for the government, given that it literally had a free hand to spend whatever money it wanted—and it has spent that money but not very wisely—to set some new policies and new directions and, indeed, prepare Australia for the years to come in a way that provided confidence to the people of this country and kept Australia competitive with the rest of the world. It was an opportunity to invest in nation-building initiatives and a vision and a strategy for Australia's future. But this government failed to do that. Labor's response, I believe, has at least set us in the right direction.
Mr SHARMA (Wentworth) (17:24): The federal budget delivered at the start of this month lays out a comprehensive economic recovery plan for this nation. The COVID-19 pandemic, on top of the tragic loss of life that it's caused, is the biggest shock to hit the global economy since the Great Depression. The global economy is forecast to contract by 4.5 per cent through 2020, and in the last major economic shock, the global financial crisis, the world economy contracted by 0.1 per cent. So we're talking about a shock in orders of magnitude bigger than we experienced in the global financial crisis. There have been over 32 million cases of COVID-19 around the world and no-one has proven immune. We've seen world leaders, from the UK Prime Minister to the President of Brazil, and indeed the President of the United States, struck low with COVID-19. In a normal year around the world, malaria kills 600,000 people, HIV/AIDS kills 950,000 people, and over 800,000 people take their lives through suicide. So far this year, COVID-19 has killed over one million people, and there are still several months to go. So anyone who plays down the lethality and seriousness of this disease is not only wrong; they are dangerous. They are encouraging complacency where none is warranted.
The economic shock of COVID-19 has been equally profound. It's undoubtedly the biggest economic shock to the globe since the Second World War. As I mentioned, the predicted global economic contraction is about 4.5 per cent, and that's across all major economies. The IMF expects the United States economy to contract between four and five per cent over 2020; Japan by five per cent; the Euro area by eight per cent; the UK by around 10 per cent; and New Zealand has contracted by around 13 per cent. In fact, the only major economy that's forecast to grow in 2020 is China's.
The 2020-21 budget outlines further measures to help cushion the blow of the pandemic, accelerate the recovery and help rebuild the economy for the future. It builds on previous support measures, including JobKeeper, JobSeeker, cashflow relief for small businesses and early access to super. All up, these measures will amount to some $507 billion in government fiscal support since the onset of the pandemic. This is one of the biggest fiscal stimuluses ever delivered by a government.
This year has been hard for many Australians, but we are emerging from this crisis intact and together. Of the 1.3 million Australians who either lost their jobs or had their hours reduced to zero in April, over half are now back at work. Four hundred and forty-six thousand jobs have been created in the past four months. Consumer confidence has been up for seven months straight. In just this month, consumer sentiment jumped 11.9 per cent on a month-on-month basis, following an 18 per cent jump the previous month, to what is 105 points on the Melbourne Institute and Westpac Bank Consumer Sentiment Index. Quoting from Westpac-consumer sentiment October, it was 'the highest level since July 2018' in the 'ongoing success across the nation in containing the COVID-19 outbreak' and the response to the October federal budget. Whilst the Australian economy is expected to contract by 3.75 per cent in calendar year 2020, it's forecast to recover in 2021 and grow by 4.25 per cent. Unemployment is expected to peak at around eight per cent in December and decline after that. These are sobering figures, but, without direct government support, it's estimated by Treasury and the budget papers that unemployment would have peaked at 12 per cent and stayed there for considerably longer.
Although I know it's perhaps of little comfort to Australians doing it tough right now, Australia has fared well in terms of managing the health and economic impacts of this crisis. Our deaths from COVID-19 are significantly fewer than in other developed countries and our economy has weathered the storm better. We entered this in a strong fiscal position, having restored the budget to balance, and, even with the additional spending of over $500 billion, our net debt to GDP ratio will peak at around 44 per cent and remain low by world standards. Just yesterday, Australia had its AAA credit rating reaffirmed. We will manage this debt burden by restoring jobs, growing the economy, positioning Australia's future industries and shrinking the debt as a proportion of the economy.
The budget lays out our strategies to rebuild the economy and secure Australia's future. First of all, the budget is supporting households. The budget will bring forward stage 2 of our income tax relief, increasing the low-income tax offset and lifting the tax thresholds. As a result, more than 11 million Australians will get a tax cut backdated to 1 July. Lower and middle income earners will receive up to $2,745 in tax relief for singles and up to $5,490 for dual-income families compared with 2017-18. This will support consumption and small business.
The budget is also helping job creation. There will be a new JobMaker hiring credit to encourage businesses to hire younger Australians, payable for up to 12 months and available to those employers who hire Australians aged 16 to 35 who have been on JobSeeker in one of the past three months. Treasury estimates that this will support around 450,000 new jobs for young people. The budget also commits an additional $1.2 billion to create 100,000 new apprenticeships and traineeships, with a 50 per cent wage subsidy for businesses who employ them. This is in addition to the earlier $2.8 billion commitment to protect 180,000 apprenticeships and trainees.
The budget will also help Australians looking to retrain and to upskill, providing funding for 50,000 new higher education short courses in areas such as information technology, health, science and teaching. The budget is also providing investment incentives. Business investment will be the key to economic recovery, and the budget provides support for new investment. Four out of five jobs in Australia are in the private sector, so this is the obvious focus of our efforts. This will be the engine room of our economic recovery.
In measures announced in the budget, businesses with a turnover of up to $5 billion, which is nearly every Australian business, will be able to write off the full value of any eligible asset they purchase for their business, with no limit on the value of assets eligible for full expediency. Businesses will also be able to offset losses from this financial year against profits made in prior financial years, back to 2018-19. These loss carry-back measures will provide instant relief for viable businesses that have found themselves in tough times this year.
The budget is also caring for the vulnerable. The budget will provide record funding for hospitals, for schools, for child care, for aged care, for mental health and for disability services. An additional $3.9 billion will be provided to the National Disability Insurance Scheme to further its life-changing support for the 400,000 Australians who have a disability. As we all know, the mental health impacts of this crisis have been significant, with around seven million Medicare subsidised mental health services delivered since March and some very troubling reports about increases in mental health episodes across the nation.
In this budget, the number of Medicare funded psychological services available will be doubled from 10 to 20 per year, and there will be more funding provided for headspace, Lifeline, Beyond Blue and Kids Helpline. I would like to give a special shout-out to headspace in here today, given it is headspace Day and given the work that headspace in my own electorate in Bondi Junction does. The budget also makes provision for 23,000 additional home care packages that will be provided to the elderly, increasing the total to more than 180,000—a tripling since 2013. Age pensioners will receive two supplementary payments of $250 in each of the next two quarters.
The budget will also provide help with affordable housing also. Under an expansion of the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme, an additional 10,000 first home buyers will be eligible to purchase a home with a deposit of as little as five per cent. The budget also provides an additional $1 billion in low-cost finance to support the construction of affordable housing, taking the total concessional finance that has been provided to community housing providers to $3 billion. That is on top of the $4.6 billion that is provided annually by the federal government in rent assistance.
Importantly, the budget is supporting clean energy and supporting the environment. Australia has a promising future in a low-emissions world, and this budget helps accelerate and support this transition. A $1.9 billion package of assistance will be used to fund research and development and help commercialise promising new technologies in areas such as clean energy, clean hydrogen, battery storage, low-emission steel, low-emissions aluminium and soil carbon. Of this, $1.6 billion will be provided to the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, or ARENA—a renewal of funding that I campaigned hard for.
The budget also contains almost $250 million to modernise recycling infrastructure and help build a recycling industry here in Australia, so we reduce our waste process more of it here. This will help implement the 2020 decision of COAG, the Council of Australian Governments, to ban the export of waste glass, waste plastics, waste tyres and waste paper. Once the relevant legislation is enacted, the export of waste material from Australia of glass, plastics, tyre and paper will be prohibited unless it is processed first into a value-added material or it will be reused as a manufacturing input overseas.
This will help phase-in the end of the almost $645,000 tonnes of unprocessed plastic, paper, glass and tyres that Australia ships overseas each year. It will fund and encourage the development of a circular economy in Australia, by enhancing voluntary product stewardship and supporting businesses to consider the full life cycle of products before they're manufactured and before they sell. It will impose obligations for manufacturers, distributors and importers of certain products to manage the full life cycle of these products, and to take greater responsibility for their impact on the environment. And it will help realise the economic and community benefits of processing Australian waste here in Australia. In doing so, it will create new industries, create new products and create new jobs.
In the budget, there is also a significant sum to protect the health of our oceans and waterways and marine ecosystems, including sea grasses, coral reefs and, of course, the Great Barrier Reef.
The budget is also investing in the future, in high-technology, knowledge-rich, innovative industries that will be the key to Australia's future economic success and prosperity, and I'm pleased the budget is helping to nurture these. There is $1 billion in research funding for the university sector. The Universities Australia chair, Professor Deborah Terry, said:
The Government clearly understands you can't have an economic recovery without investing in research and development.
This will ensure world-class research and discovery can continue on Australia's university campuses. That means universities can play their part in the national effort to rebuild the economy.
I agree with that sentiment. We can't have an economic recovery without investing in research and development, and universities will play a part in the national effort to rebuild the economy. An additional $459 million will go to CSIRO, to fund essential scientific research, and there's our Modern Manufacturing Initiative of almost $1.3 billion that will help improve collaboration, support commercialisation and build new, promising industries in areas such as space, recycling, clean energy, medical products and food manufacturing.
A few weeks back I was at a blood plasma fractionation facility that has just opened up at Macquarie Park in North Ryde. It's in the electorate of the member for Bennelong, Mr Alexander. We were there to open a new blood plasma fractionation facility being started by two Australian founders—Aegros is the name of the company—and they're doing research into a promising hyperimmune to treat COVID-19. When I spoke to the founders, John Manusu and Hari Nair, they told me how important the investment incentives in the budget were. They have spent a lot of money acquiring new plant and equipment to run this blood plasma fractionation facility, and they were encouraged about the future with the measures announced in this budget.
In the week after the budget, I took the Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, to a local Bondi cafe in my electorate of Wentworth, Bennett Street Dairy. There he met the owners, who told him how they'd used JobKeeper and the cashflow relief to small businesses to pivot their business and to invest in new technology. What had been a sideline they were doing in cookie dough had turned into a mainstay of their business, because of the measures we provided in response to COVID-19.
I'm pleased to announce that there is also significant money available locally in my own electorate of Wentworth. Many of my electors will benefit directly from the measures in the budget. There are over 85,000 people in Wentworth who will get tax relief through the tax cuts. There are over 33,000 small businesses that will be eligible for the investment incentives and the carryback provisions. There are over 10,000 people in Wentworth who have kept their jobs, through JobKeeper, and there are over 7,000 businesses that have benefited from the cashflow boost. There are 5,000 people who benefitted from the coronavirus supplement, and over 6,000 aged pensioners will receive the additional support payments.
There is also additional funding through the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program, which will benefit community infrastructure projects in Wentworth, from walking paths and bike lanes through to picnic shelters. Woollahra Municipal Council, Waverley Council, the City of Sydney and Randwick City Council will, together, receive an additional $15 million to spend on local infrastructure and community upgrades by the end of 2021. I'll be working closely with local mayors and councillors to identify high-priority projects.
This has undoubtedly been a challenging year for governments and nations around the world. We, in Australia, should each feel proud, each one of us, of how we have performed so far. We have good reason to feel confident about our future. This budget is another important step towards a post-COVID Australia, and I commend it to the House.
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (17:39): We are in perilous times, facing the deepest recession this nation has seen in almost a century. Australia needs a federal budget that does some serious heavy lifting, to drive the economic activity and create the jobs that we so desperately need. Regrettably, this federal budget fails to deliver on both fronts. Despite creating a trillion dollars of debt, it offers no comprehensive plan for the future and leaves far too many Australians behind. This budget has no plan for social housing, no plan for child care, no plan for cheaper, cleaner energy, no plan to address the crisis in aged care and, critically, no plan for jobs. It fails to deliver the stimulus we need to support the recovery process. It fails to invest in so many critical local projects, including some fabulous ones in my electorate of Newcastle. And it fails to drive greater workforce participation by addressing the child care affordability disaster.
Worse, this budget slashes support for hundreds of thousands of businesses and workers at their most critical time of need. The reduction in JobSeeker and JobKeeper tears close to $25 million every fortnight out of Newcastle at a time when many of our local businesses are already on their knees.
The other truly remarkable aspect of this budget is that, despite accumulating an eye-watering amount of debt, it still manages to miss the mark and leave so many citizens without. Women have been left behind. Jobseekers over 35 years of age have been left behind. Australians and their families who rely on aged care have been left behind. Many tens of thousands of businesses and their workers have been left behind. The 2020 budget has been touted as the most important and consequential budget of our history, but, tragically, it fails to deliver what Australia needs to protect our economy and our people. It leaves way too many Australians behind in its very narrow view of the recovery process. Make no mistake, decisions made by the Morrison Liberal government in this budget mean that the Morrison recession will be deeper and longer than it needed to be.
To be clear, there are many tried and tested ways to drive local and national activity and to spur our economy back to life. First, the Morrison government needs to kickstart residential construction and get more Australians into safe, secure and affordable housing by investing in social housing and repairing the existing stock. The housing construction sector is heading for a 27 per cent collapse, and there's a projected shortfall of now almost half a million homes in Australia. There are also 100,000 social housing dwellings in urgent need of repair. Roofs are leaky, mould is creeping and pipes are corroding. Regrettably, the government has instead chosen to splash millions of public dollars on its flawed HomeBuilder scheme, which subsidises private property owners with zero lasting community benefit. It says a lot about the priorities of this government.
Another great way to speed our national recovery is by increasing productivity. Currently, one of the largest handbrakes on productivity is spiralling child-care fees. Child-care fees have skyrocketed by almost 35 per cent under this government, with families now paying, on average, $3,800 more per year. When parents weigh up whether to go back to work, the cost of child care means that it's often just not worthwhile. That doesn't make any sense. That's why a Labor government will introduce a working family child care boost. This will support Australian women and parents to get back to work, to put more money into the pockets of working families. Under Scott Morrison's current child-care system, a family with two kids in child care and a primary earner earning $100,000 will gain nothing in disposable income if the secondary earner works a fourth day each week. But, under Labor's childcare plan, the same family will be better off by up to $2,100 per year if the second income earner works that fourth day. Indeed, Labor's boost will make child care more affordable for 97 per cent of families in the system, and, importantly, no family will ever be worse off. The Morrison government needs to take Labor's lead and to invest more in child care.
The government has also failed to support important infrastructure projects that could be key to our recovery, particularly in regional communities. In my city of Newcastle, there was nothing for a series of key projects that would have diversified and strengthened the entire regional economy for decades to come. The Morrison government turned its nose up at the University of Newcastle's STEMM regional transformation hub, which has a significant job creation potential and the capacity to position our region as a leader in the critically important technology based industries of tomorrow. And it failed to support the Port of Newcastle's $1.8 billion deepwater terminal, despite the fact this project will create 15,000 direct jobs and indirect jobs and transform the regional economy. Of course, the government did not need to stump up that amount of money; the Port of Newcastle actually has a whole lot of dollars ready to spend, but this government needs to provide assistance, to work with their belligerent state counterparts to make this happen.
Instead, the budget provides $360 million to fund the Newcastle Inner City Bypass, a project, I might add, that the state Liberal government had already promised Newcastle. While this is a great project, and it will be good to see it being delivered earlier, the point is: it was already funded. All that the Morrison Liberal government have done is actually bail out their mates in the Liberal New South Wales state government from honouring their promise to Newcastle. Unless the state government come through with the funds that they promised, there will be almost zero net gain for the city. So I do hope that it is a requirement of this Commonwealth funding that the state government must ensure that the money they had promised for the Newcastle Inner City Bypass now gets spent on new projects in Newcastle. I'll be looking out to make sure the Commonwealth holds the state to account in that regard.
A remarkable feature of the 2020 federal budget is that, despite creating towering mountains of debt that will linger for generations, it still manages to leave so many people behind. Women, who have already been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19, have been left behind by this budget. We know that the economic impacts of the pandemic have not been distributed equally and that women have borne the brunt of this pandemic. Women were more likely to have lost their jobs but less likely to have qualified for government support through JobKeeper, but this budget offers almost nothing to address the grave structural inequities that face Australian women. There is no new funding for frontline domestic and family violence services—and shame on you, the Morrison government, for ignoring that sector in this budget, when you know full well that we are now facing spiralling increases of domestic violence as a result of COVID-19. There is no new funding to drive down the gender pay gap. There is no new funding to bolster women's superannuation. And, as I said earlier on, there is nothing more for child care. And there's nothing to support women's economic security in retirement. Indeed, despite the budget racking up more than $1 trillion worth of debt, the Prime Minister's rehashed Women's Economic Security Statement—which they had forgotten to print and produce at the time that the Treasurer was doing his budget, which suggests just how much of a priority the Women's Economic Security Statement really was—only allocated $240 million in new funding. For those interested in what proportion that might be of the Commonwealth's budget, that amounts to 0.024 per cent for 51 per cent of the population. For some additional perspective, the budget actually invested more in waste management than it did in women's economic participation measures. Just let that sink in for a little while—for 51 per cent of the population.
Older Australians are another group who has been dudded by the Morrison government as a result of its failure to properly fund our aged-care system. Despite almost 700 older Australians tragically dying from COVID-19 in our aged-care residential facilities now, this budget confirms that the Morrison government still has no plan to fix our country's broken aged-care system. The budget offers no new significant funding for residential aged care, despite the fact that we've seen as a result of this pandemic a desperate need for increased funds and resourcing in this sector. It was needed to protect residents, to protect those families and to protect our most vulnerable residents.
The 23,000 new home-care packages in the budget won't even come close to fixing the current list of 103,000 older Australians who are waiting for home-care packages that they've already had approved. They already know they're eligible for them, they've been approved for them and they're on the wait list. Indeed, we learnt from the aged care royal commission that shockingly only 300 new home-care packages will in fact be delivered by 2024 despite the fact that the Morrison government has announced tens of thousands more. That is not good enough. Nobody in my electorate of Newcastle thinks that is good enough. Indeed, I doubt there is an electorate in Australia that would actually think that is okay.
Likewise, it's not good enough that nearly one million jobseekers over the age of 35 have been excluded from the government's new JobMaker wage subsidy scheme. On this issue, I'd like to share with the House some words from a constituent of mine who lives in my community and wrote to me of his deep worry about his 35-year-old son after watching the Morrison government's budget. On this issue, Mr S—I'll refer to him as—wrote: 'It pains me as a parent of a 35-year-old who has been struggling unsuccessfully through COVID to find employment and fallen between the cracks for JobKeeper support to hear news reports and commentary lumping him and his peers into the less relevant basket. Since when was 35 years old financially comfortable? They are a vulnerable group of still relatively young Aussies. They do not deserve to be left to their own resources again.' I couldn't agree more with Mr S. We learnt last week that more than 100 jobseekers are competing for every low-skilled job vacancy across Australia, and the government expects another 160,000 Australians to join the unemployment queues by Christmas. It's simply unconscionable that the government is abandoning jobseekers when they turn 35.
It's not just individuals who are abandoned by this budget, indeed whole industries have been betrayed. Many in the tourism sector, especially travel agents, saw their revenue disappear overnight and are now facing closing their doors without any support. Similarly, thousands of people working in the arts sector found themselves out of work and ineligible for JobKeeper through no fault of their own. There's no targeted support for these hard-hit industries. Likewise the budget locks in the government's so-called university reforms, which will slash a billion dollars every year from university revenue at the worst time possible. This has all the hallmarks of a vendetta. Indeed, the government changed the rules three times to ensure that universities would not be able to access JobSeeker payments. Universities should be central to the recovery, not left to fend for themselves in the face of multibillion-dollar losses. I call on this government to do more.
Mr SIMMONDS (Ryan) (17:55): The 2020 Morrison government budget and the appropriation bills before us are all about jobs. It's our nation's economic recovery plan to create jobs, rebuild our economy and secure Australia's future. We are investing in skills and training, building the instant asset write-off scheme, providing tax relief for hardworking Australians, increasing our sovereign manufacturing capability, investing in shovel-ready projects in infrastructure, supporting mental health services and NDIS providers, and advancing our renewable technologies and recycling capabilities.
The 2020 federal budget will provide the necessary support to families, businesses and industries to lead Australia out of the COVID-19 recession. The COVID-19 pandemic has imposed an economic shock like no other, and it has seen our global economy contract by 4.5 per cent. Compare the scale of that challenge to the GFC, where the global economy contracted by less than one per cent, to understand the scale of the economic challenge and the economic mountain that Australia has to climb now. Ten per cent of our workforce have either lost their job or had their working hours reduced to zero, decimating businesses and forcing many people to become unemployed—some for the first time in their lives.
The record $257 billion of direct economic support provided by the Morrison government has cushioned the blow of the pandemic and provided the necessary social safety net to protect Australian lives and livelihoods. The JobKeeper program has enabled businesses whose revenue has been impacted due to the pandemic to retain their staff, to keep Australians in jobs and to keep those employees connected to those businesses so that business can come out the other side of the COVID-19 recession. The cash flow boost gave businesses a leg-up when the downturn first hit. JobSeeker rates were increased to ensure that those who were not eligible for JobKeeper still had the support they needed.
As I have moved around the electorate during the COVID-19 recession and the health crisis, I have been talking to local businesses, local employers and local employees about the supports that the Morrison government has been offering. For a number of businesses that operate within the electorate of Ryan, the economic support provided by the Morrison government has been absolutely instrumental in retaining staff, keeping their doors open and just making sure that they exist on the other side of the COVID-19 recession. I spoke to Dean, the franchisee of JAX Tyres at Mitchelton. He undertakes a range of things—like it sounds, it is a car servicing and tyre changing business. They are accessing JobKeeper. The support has meant he hasn't had to let staff go. He said this: 'The support has provided peace of mind, especially to my long-term casual staff who, without JobKeeper, would have been the first to be stood down.'
Lisa is the owner of F45 gyms located in Indooroopilly and Pullenvale. They are using JobKeeper for permanent and part-time staff, including their PTs and trainers. Because it is being supported by JobKeeper, the business is able to afford to also keep on its short-term casual staff who didn't qualify for JobKeeper. When the gym was shut, when the initial pandemic occurred, the staff were doing three Zoom training sessions a day and pre-recorded sessions with clients. Because of JobKeeper, their business was able to rapidly adapt to the new circumstances and the new model that they found themselves in so that they could focus on retaining their clients, not on the bill to retain their employees.
Luke is the owner of Suburban Social at Chapel Hill—a local restaurant and bar that, when the pandemic first happened, switched to takeaway service and a drive-through service. It operated throughout the initial shutdown without dine-in but has since, thankfully, been able to open back up to its dine-in patrons. They had six staff on JobKeeper. His quote was as simple as this: 'JobKeeper saved our bacon.' His words, not mine: 'JobKeeper saved our bacon.'
Dal at Performance Physio said that JobKeeper not only assisted them to continue to operate but also enabled them to honour their rent agreements. This put them in a strong position to ensure the success of their business as they navigate through these unprecedented times. This support is helping not just their small business but the local landlord as well.
The Picabeen Community Centre in Mitchelton is a fantastic not-for-profit organisation within the Ryan electorate. It works directly with young people and their families and provides essential support and wellbeing services. Never have their services been so important to our local community than right now while families are dealing with COVID. David, who does the centre's administration, said that the cash flow boost has allowed them to increase the services they provide to the community at the time that the community needs it the most. He said, 'More people are requesting mental health services and food packages, and the cash flow boost has allowed us to meet the demand.'
The Lone Pine Koala Sanctuary was hit hard by the COVID-19 restrictions. It initially had to close its doors. Still it remains a shadow of its former self because it relies heavily on international tourists, who simply can't come at the moment. However, while the people who normally attend the sanctuary can't attend, there are ongoing operation costs. It has to provide animal care, medicine, landscaping, maintenance, security and plantation management. All of this continues despite the lack of visitors. Robert, the general manager of the Lone Pine Koala Sanctuary, said, 'It is government support schemes, such as JobKeeper, that have allowed us to maintain the employment of many full-time equivalent staff and continue to care for our 470 resident animals.'
Finally, I look at Flash Printing, a family business in Brisbane that provides printing and digital photocopying services. The owner, Jeff, lives in the electorate of Ryan. He said that JobKeeper has been fundamental to the ongoing survival of his business. Initially it enabled him to plan a period of grace while demand collapsed and then it ensured that the extended families related to the business were confident that bills would be paid and food put on the table.
This support has a human face right across the Ryan electorate, whether it be in the not-for-profit sector, the tourism sector or the small business sector. This is food on the table for families. This is jobs. This is opportunities for them. These are just a handful of examples from across the Ryan electorate where the economic downturn is being alleviated by the government's current support packages, which are continued in these appropriation bills. The Morrison government, through its economic recovery plan in the 2020 budget, is going to continue to back local businesses like these, to protect lives and livelihoods, and to secure our future post COVID.
There are a couple of other aspects to the appropriation bills that I want to touch on. Firstly, the commitment of the Morrison government to local infrastructure in the Ryan electorate. This is significant because one of the key aspects of the last election, when I put myself forward to the Ryan electorate, was that our focus had to be on fixing local roads, reducing congestion and getting more federal funding to get people home to their families sooner and safer. I'm glad to see that that advocacy is starting to yield results.
The 2020 budget is providing $112 million to upgrade the Centenary Motorway, which affects Ryan residents; $50 million to upgrade the Indooroopilly roundabout; $12.5 million for the Kenmore roundabout upgrade; $1.4 million to upgrade the intersection at Sir Fred Schonell Drive in St Lucia; $700,000 to contribute to the upgrade of the Gresham Street Bridge in The Gap; and $11.7 million for the Brisbane City Council to upgrade local roads and to improve safety. These investments might seem small in the scheme of the federal budget, but, gee, they're big for the Ryan electorate. They're going to help connect our communities, improve road safety and create local jobs.
When construction on the Indooroopilly roundabout project starts next year it will create over 350 jobs for our local community. These projects are going to get people in my electorate home sooner and safer. Investing in these shovel-ready projects is an important focus for the Morrison government in the 2020 budget. Overall, the Treasury estimates that the full $100-plus billion infrastructure package will support over 30,000 direct and indirect jobs over the life of those projects.
In addition to the infrastructure funding, there is other local support for our community. There is $150,000 in grants through the Stronger Communities Program that will go to our local community organisations and to the fantastic volunteers who work day in, day out to support our community and who need those grants in order to either improve their service to the community or to get improved facilities. There's $100,000 to establish a new Australian cadet unit at Kenmore. There's $50,000 for the Bardon Bowls Club for a project that they're currently undertaking. There's $50,000 for The Gap men's shed for a project that was recently signed off, which is going to include both new CCTV cameras—can you believe that there are some grubs within the wider community who would seek to vandalise something as important as the local men's shed, but unfortunately it happens—and more sustainability equipment.
I want to particularly talk about the new Australian cadet unit that will be headquartered in Brookfield. This has tremendous support from the local community, and it is something I personally advocated for with the Treasurer. COVID has been tough on our local kids. We know that. The new cadet unit will provide an exciting outlet for them to learn new skills and to make lifelong friends. With the support of the Kenmore-Moggill RSL and the Gallipoli Barracks at Enoggera, the new unit will be an important addition to our community. Army Cadets is a community based youth development organisation that focuses on preserving the customs, traditions and values of the Australian Army. Prospective cadets in our local community will have the opportunity to develop leadership, team-building and survival skills that will set them up for life. This is a community that isn't currently serviced by a cadet unit. The closest is at the barracks itself, at Enoggera. The president of the Kenmore-Moggill RSL sub-branch, Lieutenant Colonel Richard Maher, and the sub-branch Treasurer, Richard Ponsonby, have been instrumental in proposing this initiative and ensuring the necessary support is in place to make this project is a success so that the federal government, in providing support, can be assured that we can get on with establishing this cadet unit for the local community. It's intended that the proposed unit will be named after Corporal Mathew Hopkins, who was killed in Afghanistan in 2009 while serving with the 7th Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment. Corporal Hopkins was educated locally at Kenmore State High School, just down the road from where this cadet unit will be placed, so it's fitting that the proposed cadet unit will be named in his memory—the memory of a distinguished soldier and father. The Department of Defence has already approved the cadet unit application and the costs associated with its establishment, and the project has the support of the Gallipoli Barracks at Enoggera. Although the Brookfield cadet unit will run independently, the Enoggera cadet unit has agreed to facilitate their establishment and operational logistics.
I was very pleased that when the Prime Minister came up to Queensland last week to talk to Queenslanders about the budget and what it means for their families he took the opportunity to visit the Ryan electorate. We went out to the COVID-19 vaccine lab at the University of Queensland where some of our nation's best researchers are use federal funding to test a possible COVID-19 vaccine. Can you believe that there of all places, where such important work is going on, some infantile student protesters were running amuck and vandalising the PM's car? But not even that could prevent us from talking to these researchers, who are doing vital work for our Australian community and for our nation. We are incredibly grateful for the sacrifice that these researchers are making, away from their families and friends, and working long hours on long days, to make sure that we are given every opportunity to get our community COVID-safe and to get our economy firing again.
There is so much in this budget for the electorate: the JobMaker Hiring Credit, the extra support for apprentices, which is going to help our young people, and the extra funding to improve recycling and waste management. Overall the Morrison government is committed to seeing Australia through the COVID-19 recession. Our strong economic plan—this recovery plan, the 2020 budget—will provide the support that Australia needs to create jobs, rebuild our economy and secure our families' future. As the Treasurer said on budget night, our plan will grow the economy and our plan will create jobs. This is the discussion around the kitchen tables of Australian homes that is important. This is the focus that they want to see from the Australian parliament, from the government. We are focused on that 100 per cent—to give your families jobs and opportunities.
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (18:10): We debate these budget measures here today, in perhaps the most trying times that have faced our nation since the Second World War. The COVID-19 pandemic has been a test of who we are as a nation. I've been really proud of the way that my community has pulled together to confront these challenges. From the community Facebook groups to the neighbourhood WhatsApp groups, people have been looking out for each other and doing the little things for each other that we need to get by. We've done our best to support local small businesses that have been forced to pivot their business model to adapt to COVID-19 health restrictions. Most importantly, we've been following the health recommendations from the experts—social distancing, hand-washing and mask wearing—in a way that has crushed the second wave. It's been tough going, but we know that the best way to get through this is to come together. That's always how Australians have gotten through crises. When natural disasters hit we're there for our neighbours. We're there to help a mate and we know they will be there for us too. It's the Australian way.
But, unfortunately, there have been those who've sought to use this pandemic as an opportunity to divide us—those people who have put their own interests before those of the community; those people who have sought to use this crisis to build their own profiles, spruiking conspiracy theories that offer anxious members of the community the false comfort that there is a grand plan to the calamities that beset us. There are those who have sought to use this crisis as a political tactic, undermining the advice of medical and public health experts in pursuit of short-term political point scoring.
Perhaps worse of all, there are those who have sought to use this crisis to set one Australian against another, laying the blame for this crisis on one ethnic group or another—playing the politics of race at our nation's most challenging moment. The first target for this were Asian Australians. Since the beginning of this pandemic, we have seen a small minority of people direct incredibly harmful language at Asian Australians, painting them as spreaders of COVID-19. They have imported the hateful and divisive language of US President Donald Trump in calling COVID-19 the 'Wuhan virus' or the 'Wuhan flu'.
I regret that a member of this place has been one such person using this tactic. The member for Hughes, who we heard from earlier in this debate, has over the past month published numerous Facebook posts and opinion pieces where he refers to COVID-19 as the 'Wuhan flu', all while peddling dangerous conspiracy theories about medical treatment for COVID-19 not approved by the Therapeutic Goods Association and downplaying the threat of the pandemic—all of this without any rebuke from the Prime Minister or the Minister for Health. It's rhetoric like this that, at the height of the pandemic, led to social media posts laying blame for supermarket shortages at the feet of Asian Australians. In my own electorate, a fake social media post was created in March claiming that Asians were hoarding food, baby formula, toilet paper and medical supplies to be exported to China from a Footscray warehouse. This wasn't a Facebook post with a few hundred likes; it was shared almost 95,000 times. Victoria police were forced to investigated and debunk the post.
It's tempting to think that these attacks on multicultural communities are only being carried out on social media. But, sadly, this year we've increasingly seen COVID-19 related racism incidents on the streets of Australia, and they are getting physical. Research from the Asian Australian Alliance and Per Capita found that 60 per cent of reported COVID-19 related racism incidents involved physical or verbal harassment; 40 per cent of incidents happened on a public street or a sidewalk; and 22 per cent of incidents happened in a supermarket. Only 9.4 per cent of them happened online. The research quotes participants detailing the abuse directly, and it makes for disturbing reading.
The increasing strategic tensions between China and the United States during COVID-19 have further exacerbated the prejudices being experienced by Chinese Australians. One of the authors of this research from Per Capita, Mr Osmond Chiu, appeared before a Senate committee last week to give evidence on the issues facing diaspora communities in Australia. Unfortunately, the behaviour of government senators at this hearing towards Mr Chiu could have been tabled as direct evidence on the very topic he was there to give evidence on. Senator Abetz had the gall to begin his questions to Mr Chiu and his fellow attendees at this hearing, Yun Jiang and Wesa Chau, by demanding that they 'unconditionally condemn the Chinese Communist Party', as if by virtue of their mere ethnicity their loyalties to Australia were somehow in question.
I am proud to say that I know Mr Chiu and Ms Chau personally and regard them as friends, and I know that they have lived lives of public service and the best kind of patriotism—a desire to make our country a better place. I was embarrassed and revolted by their treatment by Senator Abetz, and all members should be clear that an Australian's ethnicity should never bring their loyalty to our country into doubt. Disappointingly, in spite of Senator Abetz's behaviour being not just morally repugnant but patently absurd, neither the Prime Minister nor the acting minister for immigration and citizenship have been able to see their way to condemning this ethnic McCarthyism.
We've also saw a series of articles from a columnist at the Herald Sun Andrew Bolt laying blame for the COVID-19 outbreak in Victoria at the feet of multiculturalism more broadly. In an article on 14 October, titled 'Toxic multiculturalism has weakened Victoria leaving it vulnerable to coronavirus', Bolt stated:
Multiculturalism has weakened Victoria, leaving it more likely to be smashed by a pandemic … This virus hit hardest in suburbs with big foreign-born communities, and in schools, housing commission towers or businesses with many immigrants. The Victorian catastrophe is not just a failure of government. It is also a failure of an immigration intake, plus multicultural policies, that produced a fractured people that cannot be trusted to voluntarily do their basic civil duty in a pandemic—keep a social distance, wash hands and don't work and socialise when sick. How stupid we are. So pure in our multiculturalism. And, in Victoria, so sick from it, too.
That's just one of a series of articles Mr Bolt has published through the pandemic blaming the Victorian second wave on multiculturalism. On 12 July Mr Bolt wrote an article titled, 'Multiculturalism made Victoria vulnerable to coronavirus'. It reads:
The second wave of this coronavirus outbreak has hammered home the dangerous pitfalls of diversity, with immigrants a common denominator in the worst virus hot spots.
He goes on to say:
multiculturalism has made Victoria more vulnerable not just because we're increasingly a nation of tribes, less likely to make sacrifices for people outside of our 'own'.
Again, on 25 June, in an article called 'Victoria's coronavirus crisis made by multiculturalism', he writes:
Victoria's coronavirus outbreak exposes the stupidity of that multicultural slogan 'diversity makes us stronger'.
These articles are wrong and out of touch with modern Australia, particularly modern Melbourne. We don't have the data, but perhaps COVID-19 infections have been higher in industries with higher numbers of migrants because often these are the essential services that have continued to operate while non-essential workers have remained at home. They're the supermarket staff, the warehouse workers, the truck drivers, the aged-care workers, the doctors and nurses who have kept the state running during COVID-19 restrictions. I've spoken to many of these staff, and they and their unions understand well the dangers of COVID-19 and have sought to protect themselves and their community as much as humanly possible while continuing to do these essential jobs. They deserve our thanks, not our blame.
As for migrants only caring about their tribe and not the broader Australian community, Mr Bolt could not be more out of touch. Walk into any charitable or community endeavour in 21st century Australia, particularly in Melbourne, and you'll see a room full of migrants, people who love our nation and feel a sense of public service to Australia. Just this year, I was proud to speak in this place about the incredible contributions made by inner city multicultural groups in my electorate to the bushfire relief effort for Victorians in rural and regional areas. The Australian Islamic Centre volunteers from Newport Mosque collected five truckloads full of donations and drove to Bairnsdale at 3 in the morning, with the assistance of the MFB and the CFA, to put on a breakfast sausage sizzle for exhausted firefighters. Buddhist Vietnamese volunteers from the Quang Minh temple delivered $33,000 in donations to the CFA in Bairnsdale and the CFA District 11 Headquarters Brigade. Sikh Volunteers Australia organised their volunteers to stay for 15 days in East Gippsland and help serve a thousand meals a day. They were helping out their fellow Australians, not their own tribe.
It's been the same in the current COVID crisis. Sikh Volunteers Australia have organised the delivery of well over 100,000 meals to the needy. And, when Richmond premiership champion Bachar Houli's mum was infected with COVID-19 and put into intensive care, he put the community first at this incredibly difficult personal time and spoke out at a public awareness campaign about the real risks of this virus. Again, they deserve our thanks, not our blame.
Public rhetoric blaming multiculturalism for COVID-19 is dangerous. Unfortunately the stresses of COVID-19 provide fertile soil for those who are willing to exploit Australians' anxiety for their own ends. Indeed, just this week, ASIO DG Mike Burgess acknowledged in evidence at Senate estimates:
Many of these groups and individuals have seized upon COVID-19, believing it reinforces the narrative and conspiracies at the core of their ideologies.
They see the pandemic as proof of the failure of globalisation, multiculturalism and democracy and confirmation societal collapse and a race war are inevitable.
The AFP deputy commissioner Ian McCartney said before estimates effectively the same thing, that young people are particularly at risk of being radicalised because:
We're finding now … that the concern for us is young people being radicalised online—very aggressively in relation to right-wing extremism.
Our security agencies have been warning about the threat of right-wing extremism for some time. ASIO's Mr Burgess repeated his evidence yesterday that 30 to 40 per cent of their priority counterterrorism caseload is now dedicated to extreme right-wing individuals.
It's not only the stresses of COVID-19 that have caused this up-tick in right-wing extremist activity. The actions of the Christchurch terrorist, an Australian who murdered 51 of our brethren in New Zealand in the name of this ideology, has poured accelerant on the trends before COVID-19. Despite warnings from our intelligence services, the threat of violent right-wing extremism remains almost unaddressed in the budget. There's nothing for new initiatives countering violent extremism and nothing for early intervention and nothing for deradicalisation. Indeed, the only direct response to the rising threat of right-wing extremism from those opposite is to ask for it to be called something else. It makes them uncomfortable. They don't want to think that people on the political Right could be extremists.
Well, it should make them uncomfortable, because those on the far Right of our politics are complicit in the rhetoric that radicalises right-wing extremist violence. It's a straight line from the title of the Christchurch terrorist's manifesto to the Great Replacement to the 2017 YouTube video of the same name, published by Lauren Southern, who is now a regular guest on Sky News, to the 2011 book on the same title by Frenchman Renaud Camus, and to the inspiration of it all—one of the most revolting books ever published, the 1973 book by Frenchman Jean Raspail, The Camp of the Saints. The Camp of the Saints enjoys general obscurity amongst decent people in our society, but on white supremacist forums it's regarded as a foundational book. It's been described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as one of the top 2 books in white supremacist circles. It tells the story of an invasion of France by a flotilla of 800,000 migrants from India, led by a man who eats only human excrement. It depicts Indians in the most dehumanising manner imaginable to promote the idea that Indians are morally deviant. The book exploits the most egregious racial traits imaginable—migrants as vectors for filth and disease, while white women are forced into sexual servitude in the face of the invasion. As one representative example, the death of one character is described thus:
Lydie ... She died in Nice, in a whorehouse for Hindus ... each refugee quarter had its stock of white women, all free for the taking. And perfectly legal. (One of the new regime's first laws, in fact. In order to 'demythify' the white women, as they put it.)' ... The enterprise was even given a name: the 'White Female Practice and Experimentation Centre' ... white women soon lost all pride in their colour, and with it, all resistance.
At one point, the hero of the story, a violent vigilante resisting the arrival of the Indians, murders a young Frenchman sympathetic to the migrants, while lamenting:
That scorn of a people for other races, the knowledge that one's own is best, the triumphant joy at feeling oneself to be part of humanity's finest—none of that had ever filled these youngsters' brains ...
It's disturbing stuff. Even worse, the author argued in an interview in 2016 in favour of violent resistance to immigration saying:
We're fed up ... There is going to be a resistance movement, and it has begun ... If the situation comes the one I predict—catastrophic—there will be certainly resistance that is both tough and armed ... Without the use of force we will never stop the invasion'.
This book incites violent right-wing extremism, and yet Andrew Bolt has bragged in his Herald Sun column about owning an autographed copy inscribed to him by the author: 'For Andrew, hoping without believing that the book will remain fictional. End game in 2045 to '55. Good luck, and in friendship.' Mr Bolt described the revolting premise of this book as 'prophetic and brave' and 'prescient'.
Research from the Victoria University has shown that 'exclusionary narratives contribute to violent extremism. The mainstream discourse around Great Replacement theory—originated from The Camp of the Saints—radicalises violent right-wing extremists, and we need to fight it.' It's no coincidence that the first commitment of the Christchurch Call, the global initiative to fight violent extremism in the wake of the Christchurch terrorist attack, led by the New Zealand government, was to:
Counter the drivers of terrorism and violent extremism by strengthening the resilience and inclusiveness of our societies to enable them to resist terrorist and violent extremist ideologies, including through education, building media literacy to help counter distorted terrorist and violent extremist narratives, and the fight against inequality.
Australia signed up to the Christchurch Call and we need to live up to it too. The COVID-19 pandemic has shown that we're strongest when we're united in a common cause. We're most resilient when we come together to the aid of those in need in our community. When we live up to the ideals of mateship and egalitarianism in the face of a crisis, especially in these difficult times, we need to counter the inaccurate and exploitative narratives that seek to weaken us and divide us. Those of us in public life, particularly in this place, have an obligation to lead this effort. In particular, as the member for Scullin has so rightly pointed out, we are in desperate need in these times of a new anti-racism strategy. We need to invest in the things that bring us together as Australians, to tell the real story of modern Australia, the inclusive story best described by Noel Pearson in his Declaration of Australia and the Australian People—three stories make Australia: the ancient Indigenous heritage, which is its foundation; the British institutions built on it; and the adorning gift of multicultural migration. Three stories make us one as Australians. That is the national story we must honour in this place.
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn—Deputy Nationals Whip) (18:25): I stand to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2020-2021, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2020-2021 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2020-2021. It's certainly been a tough year for most of us in Australia. There have not been too many people who have escaped the scourge of coronavirus. Some places in my electorate have fared reasonably well. It was big industries who kept their industries open because they had to, and they kept the jobs going in most parts of Central Queensland. I'm referring to the coal industry, the gas industry, the cement industry, the chemical industry, and, of course, the ports and the rails kept on ticking over. Although the profits might have been down a little, overall they were able to keep their doors open. The real losers were, of course, the retail shops that weren't allowed to open and, as a lot of members have spoken about today, the travel agents. They've been really hit; a double whammy has hit them. They've had to try and recoup their client's money from overseas prebookings of holidays et cetera. Tourism in general has taken a big hit.
My electorate covers 133 square kilometres, and it's a mixed industry—agriculture, farming and resources. Overall, the budget has widespread support, and I have not had any complaints that I know of directly into my office re the budget. Because of the diverse economic commodities, roads, bridges and transport infrastructure is very important to my electorate. It's an important lifeline for many of our rural communities. I'm pleased that the recent 2020 budget answered the call. Our government has now secured funding for some of those critical infrastructure projects for Flynn.
There is money for the John Petersen Bridge, a narrow, one-way bridge on the Boyne River, south of Mundubbera and on the way to Durong—$20 million. That will be very much appreciated by the people who use that bridge and by the people who don't use it because it's very dangerous. For instance, car carriers do not use that bridge because it actually does damage to the cars on the carrier. That's how rough that section of road is. When it's finished, that will make a great improvement. The bridge is on the way to Wellcamp airport in Toowoomba, which is expanding nicely. We now have two plane loads a week at 45 tonnes per plane going out of Wellcamp direct into the Asian markets. So it will be greatly appreciated by those people who use that bridge: heavy vehicles, cattle trucks, timber trucks, grain trucks—and, of course, agricultural products. So that's been a great win for the electorate. It will provide a back bone for economic growth, and it will be good for our regional towns, accelerating agricultural growth and building a more resilient and agile agricultural sector and therefore creating more jobs.
Another particular road of importance is the Springsure to Tambo road, which is 250 kilometres in length. That services many properties along the way—Beauchamp, Mantuan Downs, Bucklands Road properties, Yarrai, Ian and Norma Roth's property, Wharton Creek, Albinia, Cungelella and many, many more. Goodliffe is another big property. For instance, Mantuan Downs will carry 13,000 head of cattle per year along that road. At the moment it's a dust bowl in these dry conditions. They will appreciate, no doubt, all those different properties along that road when the job is completed.
Upgrading a section of the Dawson Highway is also a blessing. It will improve the safety and reliability of the heavy traffic in that area. It not only cuts the cost to cattle producers but also reduces the bruising of the cattle on the roads. As those roads lead into the Gladstone port and the Brisbane port, it will benefit all those users—including the new intermodal hub at Yamala, just outside of Emerald.
The agricultural industry around Central Queensland continues to grow overall, although we have had dry weather and drought conditions all along the eastern coast of Australia. It's good to see from the agriculture minister that agriculture has actually grown this last year, from $60 billion to $61 billion. That is pretty good in times of drought.
The Springsure-Tambo road has been closed 21 times in the last five years. We have also had the money gazetted for the Philip Street four-lane project in Gladstone city itself; this is a section of road on Philip Street, a main carry-on road, that has lacked that four-lane highway all the way through. This $20 million will complete the road.
The Australian economy is dependent on the resource industry. The resource industry adds $290 billion to our coffers each year. It's not to be neglected and we should promote it whenever we can. Living in regional towns throws out many challenges to our people, and drought is the only thing that is stopping us from going ahead at the moment.
Our government has invested heavily in water infrastructure. It needs to, because if we want to increase our agriculture—to get that from $60 billion up to $100 billion—we need water infrastructure. I am pleased to say that the federal government has put aside another $2 billion for such good projects.
Building the Cooranga Weir on the Boyne River near Mundubbera will be a blessing for all those farmers who use and need the water. The Boyne River has a dam on it at Boondooma, but quite often this dam is insufficient to supply the people on the Boyne River. The weir will generate reliable water for good agriculture which already grows blueberries, citrus, avocados, nuts et cetera.
A new weir on the Barambah Creek close to farmers at the Coalstoun Lakes and Ban Ban Springs will also be a great addition to supplying farmers with much needed water. There is 5,000 hectares of rich agricultural land in the Coalstoun Lakes, and the average rainfall is about 30 inches a year. If we could get permanent water into those places, it is unbelievable how much product that that country will be able to produce. However, it's the lack of reliable water that stops most farming in my area. Dryland farming is mainly where the products come from. The irrigation out of the Fairbairn Dam at Emerald is a blessing and just goes to show what permanent water can do for farming in any area.
Building the Bardwell weir upstream from the Silverleaf Weir on Barambah Creek will also be a wise investment. It will benefit cotton, wheat and sorghum growers in the area. Building the Paranui Weir on the Dawson River will also have the same effect for those farmers in the Banana Shire. It will be great for that area once those weirs are built. Upgrading the Bedford Weir at Blackwater and the Claude Wharton Weir at Gayndah is something I will be fighting for in next year's budget. We must get started. We need to work with the Queensland government, whoever gets in after next weekend. We want to work with them and get these up and running as soon as possible. The money is there for water infrastructure. If they don't use it, it will go to some other state. I don't want it to go out of the area because it's needed in Flynn. It's a must for us.
As I get towards the end I'd just like to say that Rookwood Weir is finally going ahead but at a reduced volume and that the Paradise Dam is being knocked down. So the federal government is wanting to build extra dams and the state government is wanting to pull one down and reduce the water in the new weir at Rookwood. The Rookwood Weir, once we get it, will be a shot in the arm for agriculture in that area. That's what we're all planning on. I'm grateful that the federal government has put forward money for these projects.
The next big project would be building an Inland Rail line from Gladstone to Toowoomba. This would be a major project. As I see it, the Brisbane port is crowded out with rail, roads and all sorts of infrastructure. It makes perfect sense to bring the rail from Melbourne through to Gladstone, where we have the best port on the east coast. A container terminal would be a great asset to the region. Australia as a whole would benefit.
Business has been tough, but I can see a huge light at the end of the tunnel. We're going to face labour shortages, and we as a government are going to have to address that in the future. The 2PH farm in Emerald, a big citrus farm, requires up to 500 workers a year. Australians cannot or will not fill those places, so we need to work on that. It's all about jobs, jobs and jobs. I think the budget suitably enhances those criteria for getting Australia back to work.
Mr KEOGH (Burt) (18:37): The Morrison government loves making announcements, but it never delivers. It is always hardworking Australians who end up paying the price. We have seen lots of numbers recently through COVID and the federal budget, but budgets should be much more than just numbers. They should be about agendas and priorities. That's where this year's federal budget falls over. It completely and utterly lacks vision.
Protecting Australians should be the Morrison government's biggest priority—protecting their health, protecting their jobs and protecting their livelihoods. They can't let people just go it alone. The key word here though is 'should'. Unfortunately, time and time again they've proven that they're all about the photo op, not the follow-up. In this budget this government has put pen to paper to rack up $1 trillion of debt. It seems that it has little inclination to seek any sort of bang for that buck. I think it's useful to go through how this will affect our communities. Let's first turn to infrastructure funding.
The Morrison government spends on average $1.2 billion less on infrastructure each year than what it has promised in its budgets. Last year it was a whopping $1.7 billion less than what it said it was going to spend. Little wonder that the Australian economy was in a dire situation before the COVID pandemic hit us. It's essential that the projects that have been announced in this year's budget—projects intended to deliver more jobs and stimulate our economy—are delivered now, not many years down the track.
My community has yet again been left off the list. WA is often forgotten when it comes to federal funding and national schemes, so much so that when I looked into the allocations for the last three rounds of infrastructure spending for WA what I found was appalling. Of the total $2.5 billion of funding allocated to Western Australia in the last three major infrastructure announcements under this government, less than 11 per cent was spent in electorates held by Labor members of parliament—the very well-deserved and sorely-needed Fremantle Traffic Bridge and part of the Tonkin Highway project in the federal electorate of Perth. That's it. Labor electorates represent nearly one-third of Western Australia's population and yet are receiving less than 11 per cent of the overall spend under this federal government. The way that the Morrison government is dealing with infrastructure spending is simply shameful.
Let's look at what they're doing to assist people on lower incomes. People on lower incomes are going to be left worse off under the Morrison government budget. The federal government tax cuts will leave more than a million Australians earning between $37,000 and $45,000 a year paying a higher rate of tax on their superannuation contributions than on their take-home pay. That's not fair. In Burt, the average household income is around $1,500 a fortnight. Often that's a combination of incomes from both partners in the family in the household. That's less than $90,000 a year. According to the government's budget tax measures, while almost no-one earning less than $90,000 will apparently be worse off, nor will they actually be any better off. Taken by itself, the stage 2 tax cuts that we've just passed would notably give tax cuts to only those who are earning more than $90,000 a year. That means that many, many people in our community are missing out on tangible benefits that should have been flowing to them through tax cuts. To make matters worse, despite the protestations of this government about always being the party for lower taxes, next financial year the Morrison government's budget is going to deliver higher taxes to those people who are relying on the low- to middle-income tax offset. People who are earning up to $126,000 a year will have their taxes increased by up to $1,080 a year under the Morrison government, who will be withdrawing that low- to middle-income tax offset at the end of this financial year.
Let's also look at the situation when it comes to the systems and programs that the government has to support the unemployed and people in work in Australia. Under this government we've seen a decrease in the rate of JobSeeker. We've got a decrease in the rate of JobKeeper and changes to the availability of JobKeeper for businesses in our community. This is going to hit a huge number of people across our communities and across our nation. In my electorate alone, in the seat of Burt, there will be up to 15,000 employees potentially affected by these changes from the Morrison government. But this is precisely the wrong time to be withdrawing economic support. The country is in the depths of a recession. They might not like it being called the Morrison recession, but under this approach, where they're withdrawing economic support early, we are certainly going to end up in what will be the Morrison recession. It will be something that has developed under their watch, and it is not appropriate. The government likes to say that, with economic conditions improving, it's appropriate to reduce the rate of JobKeeper because businesses won't need it. Yet, to qualify for JobKeeper, a business still needs to demonstrate a 30 per cent decline in turnover. So, yes, fewer businesses might be qualifying for that, but the businesses that still have a 30 per cent decline in turnover clearly need the full rate of the JobKeeper that was available before because they clearly haven't benefited from the economic growth that is allegedly occurring through our communities at this time.
The government tries to claim that it has a plan for jobs in this budget. Let's look at that. The government's plan for jobs is going to produce an additional 160,000 newly unemployed people by Christmas. How on earth is that a plan for jobs? That is a plan for fewer jobs. Whilst nearly one million unemployed people aged over 35 have been deliberately excluded by this government from being eligible for hiring subsidies to help them get back into work, the average worker in Australia will no doubt gratefully receive a $50 a fortnight tax cut. Meanwhile, millions of JobKeeper recipients have seen their pay cut, just this last fortnight, by at least $300 a fortnight. I'm already having constituents contact me about these reductions in their take-home income—and it is hurting them. It means that they are now unable to pay their rent. What does the Morrison government have to say in response to that?
There are many things that the government could have done in its budget to better support our communities. For starters, it could have address the costs of child care and the current disincentives to work. We should instead be looking at a universal provision of affordable child care in this country. That is not a welfare measure; that is a fundamental economic reform. Children in Australia are fortunate enough to be able to go to any public school in the country and get a good education and education support. It doesn't matter how much their parents earn, everyone is able to access that education. Everyone is able to access Medicare. So why is it that that education support is only available on a universal basis from the age of five and above?
We know—the research is in—that the first thousand days of a child's life are fundamentally critical to their development and prosperity later in life. Wouldn't it make sense to try and increase the universal accessibility of education—it's in the name, 'early childhood education'—to as many children in this country as possible? The beauty of this is it's not just about improving the development and education of our children. It also enables more parents to get back into the workplace, not only to be able to feed their families and to be able to pay for the things that their families would like to do, but also for the fulfilment that comes from being able to pursue the career of their choice.
The way the current system operates, it denies parents that opportunity of being able to pursue their career, to be good role models to their own children and to our communities about what is available and possible for them to pursue. Finally, as we think about the recession that we are currently facing in our nation, remarkably, if we made child care and early childhood education more accessible to more children, it would require more staff in those centres and it would be a job-creating program. This is a fundamental economic reform, and the government has blinked at the opportunity that it presented.
Another thing that the government could have done—and it speaks loudly about its priorities—is invested significant funds into repairs and upgrades to the social housing stock that we have in our country. On my side of politics, we believe that at least $500 million could have been put into this sort of scheme, working with the states on a matching funding basis. This would allow repair work to start immediately, not only making sure that our rundown housing stock would be improved to provide better dignity to those that are living in public housing but also it would provide immediate work for the local plumbers, the chippies and the sparkies, who are in need of that work in the construction industry. We would have been supporting our communities, the people who are homeless and the people that have been out of work because of the recession that we're currently confronting. The McGowan government in Western Australia put aside $142 million in its budget to refurbish 15,000 existing social housing dwellings, and a further $97 million was allocated to build or buy an additional 250 dwellings for new social housing. Why couldn't the federal government have looked at a scheme like that and expanded that on a national basis, helping so many people in our community?
Finally, I want to turn to areas that are confronted by one of my portfolios, in defence industry. It's not just local communities that have been negatively effected by this pitiful budget under the Morrison government. COVID has also delivered to us a unique insight into why sovereign, self-sufficient defence manufacturing and supply chains are so vital, not just for supporting our businesses but also for our nation and its defence as a whole. Australia should be a country that makes things. We need to leverage the money that is there in the budget to make sure, as I said at the beginning, that we get the best bang for our buck. We should be a country that is making high-value, high-end manufactured goods and the supplies that are required for defence industry and leveraging that into a broader, high-end manufacturing industry in our nation.
The Australian government has embarked on a $270 billion defence acquisition program over the next decade. Unfortunately, despite the headline-grabbing media releases, the commitment to the Australian defence industry and Australian industry capability has been completely lacking. You only need to look at last week's great media announcement, with Naval Group Australia, about its $900 million tender to manufacture equipment in Australia for the Attack class submarine program. I don't see why it needed all of this hoopla, because it should have been a given that at least $900 million of manufacturing opportunity will be provided under the new Future Submarine program. It shouldn't be a surprise that Australian companies are merely being given the opportunity to tender to do work in our defence industry space. You see, this announcement is, quite literally, a drop in the ocean. The overall spend on the Attack class submarines is $90 billion, so this $900 million across a 25- to 30-plus-year build, that will go out to the 2050s, is around only one per cent of the total project acquisition cost.
Frankly, it's offensive to Australian defence manufacturing industries and businesses that this government, and the prime contractor responsible, have such little faith in our local industry. They have worked so hard to promote that they're providing an opportunity for business to seek a mere one per cent of the work, with no commitment that that will be delivered to Australian business. It's why Labor made a commitment to ensure that we will have mandated, enforceable, audited and transparent Australian industry contract requirements in major defence projects going forward, because our defence industry not only demands it to ensure that we've got the jobs, the skills and the capability here in our nation, but it's the opportunity to make sure that we're supporting our high-end manufacturing industries across the board in our nation. But this government only pays lip-service when it comes to supporting the defence industry. It's all about the headline, it's all about the photo op, but it's never about the follow-up.
Dr ALLEN (Higgins) (18:52): Early on, the Morrison government identified that the COVID-19 crisis was not just a health crisis, but it was also an economic crisis. All Australians have been impacted in some way, particularly in my home state of Victoria. As we know, women have also been heavily impacted by the economic fallout from COVID-19. Between February and May, 482,000 women lost employment and the women's unemployment rate rose by two percentage points to 6.9 per cent. This was largely the consequence of women predominantly being in hard-hit industries such as accommodation, food services and retail. It was certainly through no fault of their own. However, the easing of restrictions in these industries in states other than my home state of Victoria has seen a recovery in women's employment, with 60 per cent of the jobs created since May being filled by women. This is a very welcome development.
The Morrison government understands the important economic role of female participation in the workforce. That is why this year's budget includes the Women's Economic Security Statement. In 2018, my predecessor in the electorate of Higgins, Kelly O'Dwyer, the then Minister for Women, released the inaugural Women's Economic Security Statement. I am so proud that the 2020 budget included an updated Women's Economic Security Statement. This builds on the important strides already made by the Morrison government, and complements the broader array of budget measures designed to see us tackle the COVID recession.
The 2020 WESS—the Women's Economic Security Statement—has five priorities. The first priority is to repair and rebuild women's workforce participation and further close the gender pay gap. Before COVID-19, Australia had made significant progress on women's economic security. Most notably, women's workforce participation had risen from 58.7 per cent in September 2013 to 61.6 per cent in January 2020, pre-COVID. These are among the best rates in the world. However, as a result of COVID-19, those participation rates have unfortunately fallen to 57.5 per cent in May 2020. The Morrison government recognises that population, participation and productivity are the keys to economic prosperity. We have, therefore, built programs for women's participation to increase and to return to the workforce. One of these central planks of the economic revival program is JobMaker. JobMaker is a $74 billion plan, which includes $50 billion in tax relief to households and businesses. This means more money in the pockets of families and more money to keep businesses open and to lead to job creation. This is critical for female dominated industries such as hospitality and retail. The tax cuts are going to low- and medium-income earners, and that means they spend it in the economy.
There's also a very important signature program called the JobMaker Hiring Credit program, which is worth $4 billion. Young women have been hit particularly hard by COVID-19 and they account for one-third of the total fall in women's employment. The hiring credit program is available to employers for each new job they create over the next 12 months that hires an eligible young person between the ages of 16 and 35 years. We know that when an economic recession hits—it doesn't matter where it is in the world—it hits the young hardest. With this program, the businesses will receive $200 per week if they hire an eligible employee between the ages of 16 and 29 and $100 per week if they make a hire aged between 30 and 35 years. This will stimulate new employment. This will help the young and it will help women.
There's also $2.8 billion for the Supporting Apprentices and Trainees wage subsidy. This will benefit around 90,000 small and medium businesses to keep 180,000 apprentices in work. More than 14,000 women apprentices and trainees have already benefited from this measure. That is a very welcome development. $1.2 billion has been committed to create the new Boosting Apprenticeship Commencements subsidy to support employers to take up 100,000 new apprentices and subsidies. This will prevent a skills shortage and create opportunities for women.
There is also the Mid-Career Checkpoint, because we understand how difficult it can be to re-enter the work force when you're raising a family. Having four kids myself, I know how sometimes the confidence can ebb. It's important that we support women going back into the workplace after they have had their children or during the times they are in and out of employment. It can be a very challenging task. The government is investing $75 million to support up to 40,000 Australians looking to return to the workforce. The program targets women aged 30 to 45 years looking to step up their career. This is an incredibly important program. All Mid-Career Checkpoint participants receive an introductory skills assessment which considers the participant's employment goals, skills and qualifications.
I am also very passionate about making sure that women step up to the jobs that have higher salaries. We know that the gender pay gap is partly because women are attracted to employment which has less robust salaries. We really want to encourage women to take the jobs that are flourishing, that are increasing in number and that also have higher wages. That includes encouraging women into STEM—science, technology, engineering and mathematics. We know that those are the jobs of the 21st century knowledge economy and those are the jobs in which we want women to become trained and educated in preparation for their own future. If we are to bridge the gender pay gap, it is critical that we equip women and girls to gain the skills to access high-skilled, high-paying jobs. That is why the government is providing an additional $14.5 million to support women and girls looking to enter STEM fields. They are girls like Grace Halifax, an eight-year-old student in my electorate of Higgins who is passionate about coding and wants other students to learn too. Many of you will have heard of this amazing young woman because of her efforts to launch 'The ABC of coding' in lockdown via Zoom. She encouraged 250 students to sign up to free coding lessons for six weeks during lockdown in Melbourne, which was an amazing outcome—showing that she has a passion for understanding that the ABC of coding is like the ABC of language, and that is the base for mathematics and technology going forward.
The government is also providing additional funding for the Women in STEM and Entrepreneurship grants program—called the WISE program, very appropriately. To date, WISE has provided $7.97 million to 46 organisations supporting a range of projects that have increased girls and women's participation in STEM and entrepreneurship. Our government is also committing $25.1 million for the Women in STEM Cadetships and Advanced Apprenticeships to create STEM career pathways for up to 500 women through industry sponsored advanced apprenticeship-style courses starting in 2021. These course will be hotly contended for. I already know many constituents who are going to put their hand up for these exciting apprenticeships and cadetships. We're also providing support for women in vocational training through our VET funding of $585 million to deliver skills for today and tomorrow. I'm only through the first priority of the Women's Economic Security Statement—and look how many programs there are and how much funding is committed to women.
The second of these priorities is to provide greater choice and flexibility for families to manage work and care. This includes ensuring that we have provided enough support for a child-care recovery packages in Victoria in my home state, where the Morrison government recognises the hardship that the childcare centres have gone through during COVID and the extended lockdown in Victoria. We've committed $372 million to a child-care recovery package for Victoria. This means that Victorian services can continue to receive a 25 per cent recovery payment through to 31 January 2021. This is incredibly important to provide choice and options in an accessible and well-supported child-care program.
The third priority is to support women as leaders and positive role models. We know that women have not had the same role models to look to that men have had because it is relatively only in our recent history that we have witnessed women in power. Like men, women need to be able to look across the country and see themselves represented at every point of significance. One of my local constituents, Melanie, recently wrote to me about the business she runs with her sister Emma, Fasham in Armidale. To them, mentoring is such a vital tool to support women who have entered any industry and inspire them to achieve their goals. Emma and Melanie joined the family business 15 years ago after a long and successful career in real estate. They know better than anyone how important it is to be surrounded by mentors who inspire and challenge them. They also know how vital it is to have mentoring opportunities to assist young women who may face challenges, particularly like the COVID challenges we face today.
One such Australian woman I look up to is the CEO of Alcidion, in my electorate of Higgins, Kate Quirke. For those of you in this House who are not aware, Alcidion is a healthcare informatics company focused on using data and technology to provide safe and smart healthcare delivery across Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Kate Quirke was named Women in Technology Executive Leader and is a great example of the importance of taking Australian innovation to the rest of world.
The concept of 'if she can do it so can I' is a very powerful motivator. Men take for granted that they have role models of power and influence. For women, this is a relatively recent development. That is why the government is investing in the Women's Leadership and Development Program. This program aims to improve outcomes for women across six key focus areas: job creation, leadership, economic security, workforce participation, safety and international engagement. An additional $47.9 million is being provided to expand this program to help women retain employment and build career pathways, with an emphasis on male dominated industries.
The fourth priority is to respond to the diverse needs of women. Women experiencing multiple disadvantage have lower workforce participation rates than the national average. The Morrison government is committed to supporting women from diverse backgrounds to overcome these barriers and strengthen their economic security. This includes women who are not located in metropolitan locations, those who are taking breaks from the employment market and those who are looking to return to work after extended time away.
Young women will also have support through our government providing $729 million from 2020 to 2024 to support the Transition to Work service. This service provides intensive assistance to young people aged 16 to 24 who have disengaged from work and study and are at risk of long-term welfare dependency. We also have funding for older women and have committed $41.7 million for a Career Transition Assistance program. This program makes it easier for mature age jobseekers and volunteers to access training to increase digital literacy, find job opportunities and identify transferable skills. I'm of an age where I understand how hard it can be when you're not a digital native. We know how hard it can be to access software programs and to upskill, and I welcome this development. There are so many women who can take advantage of this to build their confidence, to get a better job and to get back into the workplace.
The last priority is the fifth priority, and that is to support women to be safe at work and at home. We know that this is very important for empowering women and for their economic security. As we know, COVID has been particularly tough for women and children in violent households. The government recognises this and has provided $2 billion to the National Legal Assistance Partnership to support frontline legal assistance services delivered by legal aid commissions, community legal centres, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services and specialist domestic violence units and health justice partnerships. Increased funding for the Federal Circuit Court as part of the 2020-21 budget includes $12.8 million over the forward estimates in additional resourcing for family law matters. The government is further supporting women and children experiencing family and domestic violence through the $60 million Safe Places Emergency Accommodation program to provide new and expanded emergency accommodation facilities. Everyone deserves to feel safe in their home, and I'm very proud of this support we're offering vulnerable women.
To close, I'd like to say that this is a budget essentially for all Australians; however, what it has nailed is a targeted and proportionate approach to the unique challenges faced by women, which the government is cognisant of. I welcome the measures in this budget that go to the heart of the five priorities set out in the Women's Economic Security Statement. We recognise that women have been hit particularly hard by the COVID-19 pandemic. We recognise that women are central to the healthy and robust Australian economy of the future. Australian women know we have their back.
Mr DAVID SMITH (Bean) (19:07): I rise in support of the appropriation bills. The numbers in this budget are big—a $213.7 billion deficit this financial year; $480 billion of cumulative deficits over the forward estimates; the budget in deficit every year for the next decade; net debt of $703.2 billion this year, growing to $966.2 billion at the end of the forward estimates; and gross debt, which is currently over $800 billion, forecast to get to well over a trillion dollars over the forward estimates, peaking at $1.7 trillion over the decade. I note these numbers and ask those opposite to remember them the next time they consider reheating old debates of debt and deficit.
But budgets are much more than numbers. They're about priorities and they're about delivering on those priorities. They tell the nation what matters. No-one on this side of the chamber will ever forget Labor's budget priorities to deal with the GFC—investing in our schools and social housing and driving demand to keep the nation out of recession. As a Labor member, I won't forget the 2013 budget that funded the NDIS and better schools funding reforms. Certainly I will never forget the Liberal-National budget of 2014 that cut funding for the ABC and SBS and cut funding to public services across the country. It went for savings from Newstart recipients, youth allowance recipients and pensioners. Clear priorities indeed. This 2020 budget lays out the Morrison government's priorities: how it's going to deal with this deep recession, what it will invest in, how it will drive demand and what policies matter. This is where this year's budget falls over.
It's no secret that the Australian economy has been hit hard by the pandemic, but what the government has chosen to ignore is that the economy was suffering long before COVID reached our country. Before this budget was being crafted, debt was more than double what this government inherited, and growth had been the weakest it's been since the GFC. With all the talk about these being unprecedented times, the truth is that the problems gripping our economy existed long before COVID arrived, and the solutions need to endure long after it's gone.
To its credit, this government supported proposals for wage subsidies proposed by the Labor movement. How have they now responded in this budget? Not by increasing support for groups that needed it most, but instead by withdrawing funding from those already in strife. What's worse than withdrawing support is continuing to neglect the groups that weren't being helped in the first place. They include casual workers, women and elderly Australians, who are being excluded from vital support. There is no plan for the future of JobSeeker recipients, leaving well over a million recipients, including over 4,000 in my electorate of Bean, with an uncertain future as to whether they will go back to the old rate of $40 a day.
There is nothing in the budget to drive jobs through the transition to a clean energy future—the opportunity to rewire the old central distribution stuctured grid. Modernising the grid will provide thousands of new construction jobs for Australians, many of those in our regions. It will revitalise traditional industries like steel and aluminium, and it will allow growth in new sectors like hydrogen and battery production, laying the foundation for the next stage of renewables investment, driving down costs and providing investment certainty for businesses.
There are no funds in this budget to stand up and build the workforce of the National Integrity Commission or to appropriately fund the National Audit Office. There is nothing to seriously drive our science, research and development sectors, with much of the potential gains chimeric or narrowly defined—the sectors that will be the very drivers of productivity gains in the future. There are no additional funds to address the crisis in aged care, with the extra home-care places in this year's budget being a drop in the ocean compared to the waiting lists today. Nor are there any meaningful measures to advance opportunities for women. And, as we debated this week in this chamber, there is nothing to support our vital aviation sector.
We also see this budget as missing a huge opportunity to invest in higher education. On top of the stress that many year 12 students face this year, the government, with its usual disregard, increased university fees, with some degrees more than doubling in cost. This will mean that thousands of Australian will likely miss out on going to university and getting a degree.
After spending five years creating a tradie crisis in Australia, the government back in 2018 promised an extra 300,000 apprentices over a four-year period. After a complete failure on this front they have reheated this approach to promise an additional 100,000 apprentices and trainees by the end of 2021. The reality is that more than 140,000 apprentices have been lost on their watch. The gap between announcement and performance is massive. This budget doesn't go close to making up for seven years of failure that has seen more than $3 billion cut from TAFE and training.
For those in the ACT, be aware that this budget, disappointingly, continues with an APS-wide staffing cap, a policy which is driving billions of dollars in inefficient contractor arrangements and which is undermining expertise in our public service. Since 2013, 15½ thousand fewer people have been employed under the Public Service Act and there are over 19,000 fewer ongoing employees. In the ACT alone, since 2013 we've lost over 7,500 ongoing positions. While there have been small gains in non-ongoing roles, this government has missed an opportunity to create thousands of entry-level jobs, despite having work that needs to be done across every state, city and town in this country. The efficiency dividend is continued, screwing down on our valuable national cultural institutions and across the public service. It is a policy that, as highlighted in a bipartisan Senate committee report, is having detrimental effects across the ground. Whilst there have been one-off equity injections that are welcome, there is nothing in the budget that addresses the ongoing cuts to staffing in our national institutions. It doesn't address the erosion of critical expertise in science and engineering across the public service. Our nation's population has not got smaller. The work of the public service has not got less complex. Demand for needed services has not got any less. Yet this government doesn't address these issues.
This budget continues with an infrastructure deficit here in the ACT. Despite recent announcements of $155 million in projects, there is only $75 million in new project funding over the forward estimates. Further, when you consider the population of the ACT compared to the overall spend, ACT gets less than half of its share. That's right: 1.7 per cent of the national population, but only 0.7 per cent of the spend. These figures really highlight that, despite the spend, the ACT is being short-changed.
An area that many in my electorate care about is integrity. Governance and audit processes matter to them and to me. They want better oversight of decisions made by this government. Given the sports rorts scandal, the regional infrastructure scandal, cash for visas and recent revelations on land sales, there is a drive for better oversight, accountability and improved standards as integral to good government. This is a position those opposite pretend to agree with. However, they still haven't even produced a draft bill, despite promising to do so before the end of 2019. The list of scandals the government has been embroiled in seems to go on and on. It seems that now more than ever the funding and support for the National Integrity Commission must be appropriated.
This budget also highlights what the Morrison government really thinks of oversight and integrity. It has delivered a devastating blow to the Australian National Audit Office's ability to continue to hold it to account. Led by the Auditor-General, the Audit Office helps ensure taxpayers get value for money for the government's spending. As the recession takes hold and Australia hurtles towards $1 trillion of debt, now is the worst time to cut scrutiny of government spending, as every dollar must count. Yet instead of providing the $6.5 million boost the Audit Office requested, the Prime Minister has cut the budget by a further $1.28 million. For the record, an Albanese government will do the opposite and stand up for integrity and transparency in government.
But it's the critical area of jobs where this budget really falls down. This budget will rack up $1 trillion of debt, yet still doesn't do enough to create jobs. It fails to build for the future and leaves too many Australians behind. It's a budget that aims for six per cent unemployment. That's right—it doesn't aim for full employment. It doesn't even say, 'Let's at least work to a goal of an unemployment figure with a five in front of it.' That's why it has plenty of headline-seeking announcements but still forecasts that another 160,000 Australians will be added to the jobless queues by Christmas. Sadly, some of these people will be in my electorate of Bean.
In fact, with $1 trillion of debt and not even replacing our ageing school science labs, you could argue this budget is not delivering bang for buck for the nation at all. These bills and this budget say, 'We don't really have a problem with thousands being out of work and we don't have a problem with tens of thousands being underemployed.' This government has little plans for the 928,000 people aged over 35 on unemployment benefits who have been deliberately excluded from hiring subsidies. This budget says to those people, 'Good luck finding a job, because we really haven't got much to offer you.' It says to businesses like travel agents in my electorate, 'We only have a tax initiative that relies on turnover and dollars in the bank for you.'
As one business, Absolute Outdoors, said:
The instant asset write-off is only useful if you're in a cash position to invest and for that investment to be useful to generate more revenue. Or else it's useless.
This will be the case for many businesses across the Bean electorate. Here's the news for those opposite: if you don't put in levers to drive demand, to bring business through the front door, being able to write off a new asset is cold comfort. This is why we've been saying this budget misses the mark.
In contrast to these shortcomings, the Australian people got a positive viable alternative from the Leader of the Labor Party in the budget reply—a plan to kickstart the economy and boost workforce participation through policies such as housing investment, a working-family childcare boost and an Australian skills guarantee. It is a plan for a future made in Australia and a plan to invest in the skills, research and training to kickstart the next generation of Australian manufacturing jobs.
At a recent visit to the Wonderschool in the Lanyon Valley in my electorate of Bean with shadow minister Amanda Rishworth and our federal leader, we could see firsthand the value of investing in early education. It's an excellent early education provider, and families and their children should not have barriers to accessing such an environment.
Labor recognises that many working mums and dads currently cannot afford to work more than three days a week. This has been affirmed by new research by the Grattan Institute that shows the significant financial barriers many Australian parents currently face to working full-time. Under this government's childcare system, for a family of two children in child care and a primary care earner earning $100,000 the gain in disposable income if the secondary income earner works a fourth day in the week is zero. Under Labor's childcare plan, the same family will be better off by up to $2,100 per annum if the secondary income earner works a fourth day. Our plan is to scrap the childcare subsidy cap, which often sees women losing money from an extra day of work, and lift the maximum childcare subsidy rate to 90 per cent. Under our plan, 97 per cent of all families in the system will save between $600 to $2,900 a year, with no family being worse off. As our shadow minister said before, the evidence is overwhelming that removing the financial disincentives for women to work more is great for families and great for the economy.
Unlike those opposite, another critical area that Labor has a real plan for is manufacturing—not a glossy brochure type plan to be used in question time but a robust plan for meeting the challenges of this recession through good secure jobs. That includes a national rail manufacturing plan to see more trains built in Australia by local workers, ensuring every dollar of federal spending spent on rail projects boosts local jobs and industry. It also includes a defence industry development strategy that leverages our $270 billion investment to develop sovereign industrial and research capabilities and build skills and expertise within the Australian workforce, and an Australian skills guarantee to give apprentices, trainees and cadets a genuine foot in the door when it comes to work on major Commonwealth projects by ensuring that one in ten jobs on major federally funded projects are given to apprentices, trainees or cadets.
Labor is not blocking supply and will vote to pass these bills. But let's not pretend that this budget contains what is required for our nation, for our territory or for the electorate of Bean. It's a budget that looks in the rear-view mirror. It's a budget that racks up a trillion dollars in debt and looks to fast forward the nation back to pre-pandemic settings: an economy that was not working for many in our community. As my colleagues and I have said, our best days lay ahead of us, and we cannot miss this opportunity now to do things better. We cannot miss this opportunity to build a better nation.
Mrs McINTOSH (Lindsay) (19:21): Small businesses know what it takes to create local jobs, and they have what it takes to emerge from the coronavirus pandemic and lead our economic recovery with the support we are delivering as part of the budget. Around 5,000 small businesses in my electorate of Lindsay used the JobKeeper program to stay in business and to stay connected to their employees. There have been challenges for all businesses. For Phil and his team at Quest Penrith, the border closures and travel restrictions as a result of the coronavirus pandemic have had a significant impact on his business. They've used JobKeeper to get through the difficult time and are eagerly awaiting further borders to open so they can get on with work. Luke, the general manager of the Penrith Valley Regional Sports Centre, described JobKeeper and the cash-flow boost as being given a lifeline, allowing them to continue to work through the pandemic as well as get on with the vital refurbishments and upgrades that I delivered as part of my election commitment. As part of the Morrison government's $257 billion in direct economic support to cushion the blow of coronavirus and strengthen our position for recovery, JobKeeper has helped businesses in Western Sydney, like Quest Penrith and the Penrith Valley Regional Sports Centre and so many more, get through the pandemic.
From our sports facilities and small businesses to Australian manufacturers in our community, like SpanSet in Emu Plains, JobKeeper has been the link that has kept their employees connected and has put them in a strong position to respond now our economy is fighting back. More than half of those who lost their jobs are back to work and, with the measures announced in the budget, we're helping small businesses to emerge from the pandemic, expand and employ more Australians. This budget is all about jobs. For businesses in Lindsay it means tax relief, incentives to hire young Australians and purchase equipment to grow business, and support to take on and maintain apprentices and invest in the skills and training to sustain a highly skilled workforce. We've delivered tax relief for over 11 million hardworking Australians. Over 80,000 taxpayers in Lindsay will benefit from these tax cuts. Not only will these measures allow people to keep more of what they earn to spend on what matters most to them; they are also expected to create around 50,000 jobs. This is part of our economic recovery plan to rebuild our economy and create jobs without increasing taxes.
We're also supporting businesses to get the equipment they need to scale up and create more jobs by extending the instant asset write-off. Now 99 per cent of businesses will be able to write off the full value of assets they purchase. It will unlock investment, expand the productive capacity of the nation and create tens of thousands of jobs. Not only will this support business looking to purchase what they need to grow but it will generate economic activity across our economy as small businesses buy, sell, deliver, install and service these purchases. This will lead to more local jobs for our community.
Tracy, the managing director at Plustec at Emu Plains, this week received the Australian-made certification for her business. The energy-efficient doors and windows at Plustec are the types of Australian-made products recognised for quality and value. Plustec is the type of business that will benefit from the extension of the instant asset write-off, allowing them to scale up and continue to manufacture Australian-made products and, very importantly, create local jobs. With nearly 15,000 small and medium sized businesses in Lindsay and so many manufacturing businesses, it's important we support them to come out stronger as part of our economic recovery. From July 2020, we introduced immediate deductions for eligible startup expenses and we're investing over $2 billion for research and development for businesses. Eligible businesses that have struggled will now be able to offset tax losses against previous profits. This will assist nearly one million businesses that employ around 8.8 million workers.
I talk a lot about the backing of Australian manufacturing and the importance of this. It is more important now than ever. I've met with many local manufacturers, such as Pandrol in Blacktown, Jeff from J Sinclair Engineering; Tanya from Da-Mell Air Conditioning, Robert from GPC Electronics, and Grant and Scott from Custom Denning. Custom Denning want to see more support for Australian jobs, and that's exactly what we want to achieve. Established since 1955, they're Australia's oldest bus builder, and Sydney's only bus builder now. They're based at two facilities. Across St Marys in my electorate of Lindsay, they employ over 150 staff and have invested over $30 million into their company. I visited their business and saw firsthand how they are moving towards new advanced manufacturing techniques and have partnered with universities and TAFE to provide more opportunities for Western Sydney to ensure they can create more local jobs. We're also incentivising businesses to take on young people, because we know that young people have been particularly impacted by the pandemic. The $4 billion JobMaker hiring credit is expected to support almost half a million young Australians. Love Beans is a small local business on High Street in Penrith that launched their espresso bar at the beginning of the pandemic. While it's been tough for Tamara, Greg and the team, they've worked hard and they've been resilient, and they've taken on two more young Australians, and now they have five employees under 35. These are the types of aspirational small businesses that we know will create jobs, and that's why we're getting behind them to lead our economic recovery.
I'm passionate about making sure kids in Lindsay have access to pathways that will equip them with the skills to take on the jobs of the future. Recently, I visited Grant Engineered, a welding and fabrication company based in Penrith. Grant Engineered is a fast-growing company in the truck and trailer industry, with over 20 years of experience. Their work ranges from aluminium and steel fabrication to fuel tank modifications and even custom-made Live Floor rigid bodies and trailers. I met Grant and the team and was so proud to see that they have taken on four apprentices. We need to make it easier for businesses like Grant Engineered to employ more people and take on more apprentices. That's why we're investing over $1.2 billion for the Boosting Apprenticeship Commencements wage subsidy, which will support our next generation of skilled workers, like the apprentices at Grant Engineered. This will support 100,000 new apprentices, with the potential to lead young Australians in Lindsay into the jobs of the future, in emerging industries. The Boosting Apprenticeship Commencements wage subsidy comes on top of the government's $2.8 billion Supporting Apprentices and Trainees package, which is now expected to support 90,000 employers to keep around 180,000 apprentices and trainees in employment and training. This means that more people in Lindsay will have the opportunity to gain the skills and experience they need for an exciting career, which could take them into the industries coming to Western Sydney, including advanced manufacturing, defence, space and more.
For many of these emerging industries, science, technology, engineering and maths will play a key role. We're taking action to increase the number of women in these fields, because our workforce can only reach its full potential when we back women to reach their full potential. In this budget, we have made critical investments to support women in STEM, including $10 million to expand the Women in STEM and Entrepreneurship grants program funding to an additional 50 projects to remove barriers and increase participation. We're also investing $35.9 million to expand the Boosting Female Founders Initiative, designed to address some of the challenges experienced by women taking their startups to the next level. The data shows that in many cases women only raise half the capital compared to startups founded by men, and even when they get the finance the terms can be less favourable. Improving access to early stage capital for female entrepreneurs will help them grow their startups, create jobs and contribute to our economic recovery.
Sparking an interest in a job in STEM can start at an early age. At Jamison High School in Lindsay, the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology and I witnessed Girls in STEM in action, as the students took part in activities with drones and four-wheel drive challenges. As part of this budget, we're investing $900,000 to expand the Girls in STEM toolkit as well as $27.3 million to improve STEM skills in early learners and school students through a range of STEM programs.
As part of the budget, we've also delivered the second Women's Economic Security Statement. This includes $2 million to extent the Women in STEM Ambassador initiative, an integral part of our efforts to remove the barriers and open opportunities for women and girls in STEM. We're also making sure these opportunities are available across our country with $1 billion to fund research at Australian universities to drive the discovery of new products, ideas and innovations to power our recovery from the coronavirus pandemic, and with $40 million to fund universities to embark on important projects in their local communities that collaborate with industry. Importantly, this collaboration happens with industry to drive projects in the national interest.
This is about supporting families and businesses to get through the pandemic, rebuilding our economy and creating jobs. We have delivered targeted support with 90 per cent of the spending committed in response to the crisis occurring over the next two years. Reaffirming its AAA credit rating today, Australia remains one of only nine countries around the world to hold a AAA credit rating from all three major credit rating agencies. We entered the crisis in a position of strength, thanks to the Morrison government's strong economic management. Now we're delivering the support that businesses need to get back to their best and to create more local jobs. Australians can have the confidence in our economy recovery plan, and the response shows they do. This month consumer confidence has increased 11.9 per cent—the largest increase in a budget month on record since the series began in 1974.
Creating local jobs is part of my plan for Lindsay, is part of the Morrison government's plan for our economic recovery, and is what this budget is all about. We will achieve this by putting businesses at the centre of this plan, enabling them to do what they do best. For GPC Electronics in Jamisontown, it's creating advanced electronic systems, like the tactical edge servers for the Army's Boxer combat renaissance vehicles. For Pran and Jitesh at the Kuisine Company at Emu Plains, its providing delicious meals to supermarket chains, health services and Meals on Wheels. For Alan and the team at Nepean Swim and Fitness, it means getting more local kids and families through the door so they can learn to stay safe and get fit and have fun in the pool or at the beach, which will be so important this summer. And for all the hardworking aspirational manufacturers, small and family businesses, this budget means they have the support they need so they can continue to create jobs. I look forward to seeing small and family businesses taking advantage of the Morrison government's support in delivering and leading our economic recovery and creating more local jobs. Thank you.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It being past 7.30 pm the debate is interrupted. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:33