The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 09:30, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
MOTIONS
Member for Bowman
Ms MURPHY (Dunkley) (09:31): I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Dunkley from moving the following motion immediately:
That the House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the member for Bowman stated on 27 March that he would step down from all parliamentary roles, effective immediately, but has not relinquished his chairmanship of the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, which gives him extra salary;
(b) the Prime Minister has refused to respond appropriately to allegations made against the member for Bowman by forcing him to step down from his chairmanship;
(c) coalition members have now voted 12 times to keep the member for Bowman as chair of the committee, including coalition members of that committee;
(d) by voting to keep the member for Bowman as chair of this committee, the Prime Minister and everyone who sits behind him in this House is endorsing the member for Bowman's behaviour;
(2) and therefore calls on the Prime Minister to discharge the member for Bowman from the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training immediately.
This is outrageous leadership—
The SPEAKER: I'll ask the member for Dunkley to resume her seat. I feared we would start to run into this problem. There was a problem I raised yesterday, which was not an issue with the motion itself, but we are now running into the same-motion rule. I've read yesterday's motion, and it was almost word for word. In fact, three elements of it have been repeated. The House has already made a determination on that matter. The same-motion rule is about the substance of the proposition. Merely substituting a word or adding another sentence in, of itself, does not change the substance of the decision that the House has now made several times. I'm raising that point right now. There was only one element that was added to that motion. In fact, if I look at yesterday's motion, part A was not in; part B was in, word for word; part D of yesterday's was in, word for word; and No. 2 in this motion was word for word. The only addition was a reference to the Prime Minister, which has also been in the other motions. I think the House has already decided these matters in substance. I'm not saying motions can't be moved, but the same motion—almost identical—cannot be continuously moved, because the House has determined the matter.
Mr Burke: Just to the point of order for clarification, because the ruling on this matter is not, I think, something that we've previously had during your speakership: when points of order have been taken with respect to the same question rule, your ruling has consistently been that the question would have to be absolutely identical for the same question rule to apply.
The SPEAKER: Yes.
Mr Burke: If I take it that the ruling being made today is that, for the same question rule, the ruling is that it would have to be absolutely identical whereas, for the same motion rule, you look at it in a more general way—if that's the advice to the House—we will obviously work within that ruling. But there are, as you would appreciate, a number of ways that this matter can be dealt with, and the matter will continue to be dealt with every day. If there is a ruling that says that the way that we deal with that gets scripted in a form, then it will happen. But I don't want to create any impression that the issue is going to go away, because it won't.
The SPEAKER: I just say to the Manager of Opposition Business that it's certainly not my place to advise whether a matter before the House should go away or not go away. That is absolutely none of my business. I want to be absolutely clear on that. I want to make it clear to the House, in that vein, that motions can certainly be moved; it's just that an identical motion or indeed a similar motion in substance that the House has made a decision on cannot continually be moved.
The Manager of Opposition Business does raise a very good question, and that is the difference between questions and motions. Certainly the approach and, indeed, the standing order, on questions is very specific. I suppose the difference here goes back to some of Speaker Sneddon's rulings, which is that, when it comes to a motion, it really is detaining the House and asking them to decide a question—albeit, I have to say that these questions have been decided by the House determining by a majority vote that the speakers be no further heard et cetera, but that is a decision—and, once they have decided that, to continually pursue the same motion in substance detains the House. Obviously with questions it's a specific period of time and there's a different approach. But, in saying that I won't accept this motion, I want to make it very clear to the House that's not saying that I will not accept any motion on the substance of the issue; it just really needs to be a motion asking the House to make a decision on something different, not merely repeating what was said yesterday. The member for Monash?
Mr Broadbent: Mr Speaker, just a question: did you actually rule then?
The SPEAKER: Yes, I have so ruled. That's why I have not called for a seconder. I want to make it very clear to everyone that I have ruled in that light.
COMMITTEES
Selection Committee
Report
The SPEAKER (09:37): I now present report No. 32 of the Selection Committee, relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members' business on Wednesday 2 June 2021. The report will be printed in today's Hansard and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's Notice Paper. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.
The report read as follows—
Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business
1. The Committee met in private session on Tuesday, 25 May 2021.
2. The Committee deliberated on items of private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 25 May 2021, and determined the order of precedence and times on Wednesday, 2 June 2021, as follows:
Items for Federation Chamber (10.30 am to 1 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Notices
1 Ms Vamvakinou: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) recent violence in Israel and the Palestinian territories has resulted in the deaths of at least 222 Palestinians in Gaza, including 63 children, and 12 Israelis, including two children;
(b) a ceasefire was declared on 20 May 2021; and
(c) according to the United Nations, more than 74,000 Palestinians in Gaza were displaced from their homes during the conflict;
(2) recognises that the impact of this violence is far-reaching, and that many in the Australian community are hurting at this difficult time; and
(3) calls on the Government to ensure Australia is working constructively to support security and human rights in advance of a just and enduring two-state solution in the Middle East.
(Notice given 25 May 2021.)
Time allotted—35 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Ms Vamvakinou—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.
2 Mr Ramsey: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) 2021 marks 100 years since the discovery of insulin by Canadian surgeon Frederick Banting;
(b) Frederick Banting along with his colleagues Professor John McLeod, medical student Charles Best and researcher Dr James Collip, solved the problem of how extracted insulin could be used to treat a person with diabetes;
(c) insulin was first administered to a 14 year old boy, Leonard Thompson at the Toronto General Hospital—it was lifesaving for Leonard and for millions of others diagnosed with diabetes over the ensuing years; and
(d) for their discovery, Banting and McLeod won the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine in 1923 and shared their prize money with Best and Collip;
(2) recognises that:
(a) diabetes is a serious and complex metabolic disease that affects the lives of many Australians;
(b) more than 1.4 million Australians currently have diabetes and are registered with the National Diabetes Services Scheme (NDSS); and
(c) Australians like Anna Moresby, who was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes as a child during World War 2, can live long and productive lives because of the discovery of insulin—Anna has just received a Kellion Victory Medal for living with diabetes for 80 years; and
(3) acknowledges that:
(a) the Government has a long-standing commitment to the NDSS, established in 1987, which assists people with diabetes to self-manage their diabetes through provision of subsidised insulin pen needles and pump consumables, glucose monitoring strips, continuous glucose monitors and flash monitors, and important information, resources, education and support programs and other services;
(b) there has been strong bi-partisan support for the NDSS; and
(c) since its inception the NDSS supports all people with diabetes all over Australia, including children with type 1 diabetes and families, young adults, women with diabetes in pregnancy and over 450,000 people who currently use insulin to help manage their diabetes.
(Notice given 24 May 2021.)
Time allotted—35 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Ramsey—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.
3 Ms Owens: To move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges the almost 6 million Australian volunteers who contribute 600 million hours each year to help others through secular and faith-based volunteering organisations;
(2) notes that:
(a) in early 2020, two out of every three volunteers cut back their hours, including many older volunteers who had to self-isolate, leaving charities short by an estimated 12.2 million hours per week; and
(b) only around one in four volunteer organisations managed to get volunteer participation back to pre-pandemic levels of activity by the start of 2021;
(3) recognises that while volunteering organisations have been supporting much greater numbers of people in need with fewer resources during the coronavirus pandemic, there was nothing in the Government's latest budget for volunteers; and
(4) Calls on the Government to get behind our volunteer organisations and make sure they have the resources they need to continue their important work.
(Notice given 25 May 2021.)
Time allotted—40 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Ms Owens—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.
4 Mr Pearce: To move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges that Rotary Australia and New Zealand celebrates its centenary anniversary and first 100 years of service in 2021;
(2) recognises over 100 years, the strong trust, confidence and worldwide recognition developed through the actions of Rotarians in support of communities;
(3) notes:
(a) Rotary's important work partnering the Global Polio Eradication Initiative and its involvement in the End Trachoma project; and
(b) there are approximately 30,000 members who belong to one of the 1,052 charter Rotary clubs established throughout Australia; and
(4) congratulates Rotary on its participation in global initiatives that have fostered peace, changed the world, helped communities and families, and fundamentally made a measurable difference to the unique lives of millions.
(Notice given 24 May 2021.)
Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 1 pm.
Speech time limits—
Mr Pearce—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 (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Notices—continued
5 Ms Templeman: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes with dismay that suicide is the leading cause of death among Australians aged 15 to 24 years;
(2) recognises that young people's decision to access mental health care is fragile, and if they do not have a positive experience they may not make another attempt to seek help;
(3) further notes that youth-friendly mental health services are not available uniformly to young people; and
(4) calls on the Government to:
(a) increase access to effective mental health services and supports for young people across all stages of mental ill-health; and
(b) build a youth mental health workforce to meet the current and future needs.
(Notice given 25 May 2021.)
Time allotted—35 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Ms Templeman—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 K. J. Andrews: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the COVID-19 crisis has caused the cancellation or delay of flights and other travel for many Australians;
(b) many Australians have experienced considerable difficulty in obtaining the refund of monies paid for travel, accommodation and other tourist activities;
(c) while many travel agents have acted with integrity and fairness, some have not done so; and
(d) the COVID-19 crisis has exposed the absence of consumer protections for Australian travellers; and
(2) urges Australian governments to enact legislation that:
(a) provides consumers with a right to a refund if the service they paid for hasn't been fulfilled due to situations outside of human control;
(b) establishes mandatory trust accounts for all travel agents, including online travel agents;
(c) provides for transparent fee for service for all travel agents with no hidden costs; and
(d) ensures that supplier terms and conditions are provided to customers by travel agents.
(Notice given 12 May 2021.)
Time allotted—40 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr K. J. Andrews—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.
7 Ms Coker: To move:
That this House:
(1) recognise that under this Government, Australia has experienced near stagnant wage growth;
(2) notes that:
(a) low wages are a deliberate design feature of this Government's economic policy;
(b) the budget showed real wages for Australian workers are expected to fall under this Government;
(c) budget figures show that Australia is wealthier than we expected but there will be no meaningful benefit of that higher wealth to the wages and salaries of Australians; and
(d) while all Australians deserve a pay rise, women, especially suffer under this Government's wage-failure due to the enormous 13.4 per cent gender wage gap; and
(3) calls on the Government to put the Australian people at the centre of their economic decision making and get wages moving again, starting with an increase to the minimum wage.
(Notice given 25 May 2021.)
Time allotted—25 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Ms Coker—5 minutes.
Other 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.
Orders of the day
1 Defence industry : Resumption of debate (from 24 May 2021) on the motion of Mr Connelly—That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the Government's $270 billion investment in Australia's defence capability is creating thousands of jobs and opportunities for small businesses across Australia, particularly in the state of Western Australia;
(b) it is only because of the Government's continued investment that we are able to guarantee that the men and women of the Australian Defence Force receive the defence capabilities they need to keep Australians safe; and
(c) a key pillar of our economic recovery plan to get Australians in jobs is getting more Australian businesses in our defence industry to deliver the essential capability our Defence Force relies on; and
(2) recognises that because of the support measures the Government has introduced to help Australian defence:
(a) businesses remain in business and are recovering from COVID-19; and
(b) our defence industry is not only recovering, but thriving as we come back from the COVID-19 recession.
Time allotted—40 minutes.
Speech time limits—
All 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.
Notices—continued
8 Ms Steggall: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes:
(a) Australia's borders have been closed for over a year to both inbound and outbound travel as an emergency measure;
(b) the Government has not disclosed or provided any credible timeline or roadmap to reopen the borders;
(c) many Australian citizens are struggling with disconnection from family members, partners and loved ones overseas and unable to see one another;
(d) there has been no extension of travel exemptions to family members or visa holders despite repeated calls;
(e) many Australian business sectors, like tourism, entertainment, agriculture, universities and industry are pleading for a roadmap to safely reopen the borders; and
(f) communities and businesses are continually exposed to quarantine leakages and pay the price with lockdowns;
(2) calls on the Government to:
(a) double the capacity of national quarantine facilities using best practice purpose-built facilities such as Howard Springs;
(b) prioritise expenditure to accelerate the rollout of the vaccine with a goal of achieving vaccination of at least 80 per cent of the population before the end of the year; and
(c) establish a clear roadmap for safely reopening Australian borders and clearly communicate goals and timeframes by reporting back to this Parliament and the Australian people without delay.
(Notice given 25 May 2021.)
Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 7.30 pm.
Speech time limits—
Ms Steggall—5 minutes.
Other 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.
THE HON A. D. H. SMITH MP
Speaker of the House of Representatives
26 May 2021
BILLS
Fuel Security Bill 2021
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Taylor.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr TAYLOR (Hume—Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction) (09:39): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today the Morrison government is taking the next steps to lock in Australia's sovereign refining capability and our long-term fuel security to keep our economy moving. I'm pleased to introduce the Fuel Security Bill 2021 and the Fuel Security (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2021 to the House. These bills implement key measures to deliver the government's commitment to long-term fuel security, supporting Australia to keep the economy and critical services running. The government has worked closely with the fuel industry and users on the design of these bills. The Morrison government has secured agreement from the Ampol refinery in Brisbane and the Viva refinery in Geelong to operate at least until mid-2027. Passage of these bills is critical to ensuring this agreement can be realised. This will protect 1,250 workers employed at the refineries and create a further 1,750 construction jobs for the major infrastructure upgrades. This package will secure our fuel stocks, protect motorists from future high prices and value the fuel security services Australian refineries provide. It will be done through establishing a fuel security service payment to lock in our refineries and setting out the key parameters for the minimum stockholding obligation.
The bill addresses the need to safeguard against fuel disruptions and the need to ensure Australians have access to reliable energy, both of which are essential to our economic recovery. The economic impacts of COVID-19 have reminded us that we can't be complacent when it comes to national sovereignty and self-sufficiency. Due to reduced demand, the pandemic resulted in a surplus of fuel products, particularly jet fuel, with demand dropping by over 80 per cent. Refineries faced challenges in reducing the production of petrol and jet fuel whilst maintaining diesel production. While Australia's fuel supplies have remained secure and affordable through the pandemic, we know we need to shield Australians from potential shocks in the future and enhance our national security in the process. Our economy relies heavily on energy from liquid fuels, and this will continue to grow. Growth is likely to be driven by increased demand for road and rail freight, agriculture and mining, and we want to see those industries continue to grow and prosper as they have in recent years. Diesel is our most important transport fuel, and Australians use more diesel than electricity. It is also the critical fuel source during an emergency, powering the trucks that move our food, our pharmaceuticals and our emergency services vehicles.
The bill will protect our ability to produce these vital fuels during an emergency. In a worst-case scenario, even if imports are disrupted, our refineries are able to provide the fuel needed to run our critical services through processing of Australian crude out of places like the Bass Strait and Cooper basins. We cannot be in a situation where we don't have this capacity in extreme circumstances. The minimum stockholding obligation will also safeguard levels of petrol and jet fuel and see a 40 per cent increase in our diesel stocks. This will provide certainty for consumers that extra stocks are at hand. Together, the fuel security services payment and the minimum stockholding obligation will secure our supplies into the future. These measures will also assist Australia's commitment to meeting our obligation as a member of the International Energy Agency.
Firstly to the minimum stockholding obligation, which will guarantee a baseline level of key transport stocks at all times. The obligation will see Australia's jet fuel, petrol and diesel stocks maintained at 2018-19 average consumption levels at the very least. The first stage commences on 1 July 2022. Diesel stocks will then be increased by 40 per cent from July 2024. This is due to the critical importance of diesel. It's the most important and versatile fuel needed to protect us during a disruption. Our farmers, our emergency services, our truckies, our industry all rely on diesel to keep moving.
The bill builds on our previous announcement to fund the construction of a significant new domestic fuel storage capacity through the government's $200 million Boosting Australia's Diesel Storage Program. The program supports the implementation of the minimum stockholding obligation by providing co-funding for the construction of the additional storage capacity that will be required by these measures. We will continue to work with industry over the rest of the year as we draft the subordinate legislation to support the implementation of the minimum stock holding obligation in readiness for 2022.
The bill also ensures the future of our local refineries and that will protect jobs, our economy and our ability to refine domestic crude oil in times of emergency. Viva and Ampol have agreed to remain in operation until at least mid-2027, contingent on this legislation being enacted. The government remains disappointed with the decisions of BP and ExxonMobil to close their refineries and the impacts this will have on their workers and their local communities. The government made clear its intention to support in September last year, with both BP's and Exxon's decisions coming after this initial announcement. Both Exxon and BP made clear that these decisions were based on commercial factors and were not a reflection of local policy settings. As Frederic Baudry, the head of BP Australia, said:
There is no amount of cash the government could have offered to us, given our own economic situation and strategy, that would have made this viable.
And at the time Nathan Fay, the chairman of ExxonMobil Australia, said:
We extend our thanks to the federal government for the significant support offered to Altona and other refineries. Our decision to convert our facility … is not a reflection of those efforts.
For Viva and Ampol, to put it very simply, without the ongoing support guaranteed through this bill, it is likely those remaining refineries of Viva and Ampol would have closed within the next five years. This would mean Australia would be 100 per cent dependent on overseas supply chains to meet our fuel needs. The retention of the refineries will also result in over 1,000 direct jobs being secured. If they had not been retained, we would have lost over 1,000 jobs and investment, of course, would have been taken out of local communities.
Locking in our refineries is a matter of national security, of Australia's sovereignty, our self-sufficiency at critical times and our resilience as a nation. The government is introducing this bill because we believe the role of our domestic refineries in our energy system is critical to our nation.
The fuel security service payment detailed in the bill will provide refineries an assurance that when times are tough they will be supported in the form of a payment which will limit their downside risk. To protect the taxpayer, the government will not be paying the refineries when they're making profits. In exchange for this variable level of support, domestic refineries will commit to remaining open in Australia until at least 30 June 2027, protecting Australian jobs and livelihoods as well as our fuel security. This can be extended to mid-2030.
Separately, they'll also be supported to bring forward major infrastructure upgrades to produce low-sulphur fuels from 2027, which was the original date, back now to 2024. We've brought it forward three years. The passage of the bill will ensure that the payments can commence from 1 July 2021, and the government's temporary production payment will cease at the end of June this year, so it's essential there is certainty for refineries as to this timing.
The bill enacts the commitments we announced as part of our 2020 fuel security package, which will see Australia safely through future disruptions. These measures will be overseen by a comprehensive regulatory framework that's to be implemented by the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources. The minor bill will also amend four existing acts to reduce the regulatory burden on entities covered by the main bill. This will ensure the integrity and efficient implementation of the minimum stock holding obligation and production payments in an appropriate manner.
This package is supported by industry as well as the refineries. The businesses that keep our economy running understand the importance of fuel security and refineries. The Australian Trucking Association, for instance, has noted that this package is a big win for every road user. The Australian Automobile Association and the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries have both welcomed the package, understanding the range of benefits it brings. The benefit of jobs and investment into our regions is also clear, with the AWU secretary Dan Walton saying of our package, 'It will save thousands of jobs, both directly at the refineries and indirectly for jobs supported in the community.'
Fuel is crucial across the economy, and this package will secure the future for all fuel-dependant industries—our truckies, our tradies, our farmers, our commuters, our miners—and of course, everyone who travels in Australia. Without the government's package supported by this bill, we will most likely lose our refining capacity and, with it, the jobs and national security that it brings. We all rely on fuel. We all need fuel security and that's why the government is committed to protecting it. I commend these bills to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Fuel Security (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2021
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by MrTaylor.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr TAYLOR (Hume—Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction) (09:51): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr TAYLOR: I'm pleased to introduce the Fuel Security (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2021. The primary purpose of this bill is to make necessary amendments to existing legislation to support the implementation of the main bill. The bill amends four existing acts to reduce the regulatory burden on entities covered by the scheme in the main bill, and ensure the integrity and the efficient implementation of the proposed measures. The bill also includes transitional provisions to support the main bill. It ensures that applications for the fuel security services payment cannot be made until the minister has made the rules required to assess the applications. It also ensures that the minimum stock-holding obligation does not commence until 1 July 2022, to ensure regulated entities have sufficient time to prepare. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Water Legislation Amendment (Inspector-General of Water Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2021
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Pitt.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr PITT (Hinkler—Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia) (09:53):
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr PITT: In September 2020, the government announced its intention to create the Inspector-General of Water Compliance. Today, on behalf of the government, I'm very proud to introduce this bill. Water is a shared responsibility and water in the Murray-Darling Basin is a finite resource. Water is essential for the health and wellbeing of the Basin's 2.2 million regional and rural people. Water is essential to support our national economy, and the Basin contributes $24 billion in agricultural earnings and $8 billion in tourism dollars in a normal year. Water is essential for the natural environment in the Basin, including the 16 internationally significant wetlands and the endangered species that inhabit them.
To ensure a healthy working Basin, water management is a shared responsibility between the Commonwealth and Basin states. That's why we have a Basin Plan, an agreement between all Basin jurisdictions that we will manage its finite resources in a sustainable way. In developing this bill, the Australian government has worked closely with Basin states to ensure the bill will have their support before it commences. I thank them for their constructive engagement.
Establishing the statutory position of Inspector-General of Water Compliance is the keystone of this bill. This role will combine compliance and enforcement powers currently held by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority with the assurance role of the current interim inspector-general. In this role, the inspector-general will listen to the concerns of Basin communities to ensure that their voices are heard when it comes to water compliance. The inspector-general will also undertake audits, inquiries and reports in a transparent manner. The inspector-general will also work with other Basin states to develop more consistent standards and guidelines.
Compliance is at the heart of a fair water-sharing system. All participants need to know that they are being held to the same standard and that they are playing by the same rules. This bill strengthens compliance by enhancing the existing offences and the penalty regime under the Water Act. This includes strengthening penalties for water theft and water-trading offences. Importantly, this bill recognises that the states are the primary and frontline managers for water compliance. This does not change.
What this bill does is enable the Commonwealth to step in and take enforcement action on water theft if a basin state is unwilling or unable to do so. The inspector-general will work closely with basin enforcement agencies to develop complementary compliance and enforcement policies, and we will ensure independence. The inspector-general will be operationally independent. That is, the bill ensures that the inspector-general is at arms-length from government and has the freedom to choose how to pursue basin compliance. Ethical walls will separate the new regulator from the department's water-purchasing and policy programs, and the inspector-general will be truly independent, with its own work plan and budget and the ability to enter into its own contracts and appoint its own authorised compliance officers.
The inspector-general will work closely with the state authorities in developing these guidelines and standards. This will include careful consideration of input from basin states, such as the relevant state standards and policies. Through the development of standards and guidelines, the inspector-general will seek to improve consistency across the basin. The guidelines and standards will clearly articulate to basin state regulators, communities and other stakeholders what constitutes best practice for basin water management. The standards and guidelines will provide the inspector-general with a framework to evaluate the performance of basin jurisdictions, including the Commonwealth, in delivering the Basin Plan.
Our government is delivering stronger compliance, greater accountability and strength and integrity through this bill. This bill will enable the inspector-general to work across the whole basin, all one million square kilometres of it, to improve trust, strengthen compliance and increase transparency. It is what the community expects us to do.
Debate adjourned.
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Titles Administration and Other Measures) Bill 2021
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Pitt.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr PITT (Hinkler—Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia) (09:58): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Titles Administration and Other Measures) Bill 2021 amends the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006.
Australia's offshore oil and gas industry has supported Australia's energy security and economy for over 50 years. It has delivered enormous benefits in the form of export earnings, employment and investment.
There are particular points in the life cycle of an industry when regulatory frameworks and practices need to adapt to changing circumstances.
For Australia, that time is now. We need to be positioned to respond to future decommissioning challenges with effective regulatory oversight and robust safety nets to strengthen protections for the taxpayer, workers and the environment.
In the coming decades, there will be a number of offshore projects which have exhausted their reserves and require decommissioning. This is a normal part of the resource development life cycle.
During this time, new projects will continue to be developed such as the Scarborough, Browse and Barossa gas projects and the Dorado oil project.
As the industry continues to mature, large companies may move to divest their mature assets to focus on areas of new production potential. Australia can expect to see new entrants to the industry who bring a fresh perspective and a different risk profile.
The recent liquidation of a company operating an oil-producing asset in Australian waters demonstrates the importance of the regime being able to recognise and adapt to different risk profiles of the offshore industry.
This bill ensures that companies operating in Australia's offshore oil and gas regulatory regime are capable, competent and responsible in managing their offshore projects. It ensures decommissioning remains the responsibility of the businesses involved in the oil and gas development, protecting the Australian taxpayer and the environment.
This bill makes necessary changes to implement aspects of the Australian government's enhanced offshore and gas decommissioning framework.
The bill also gives effect to the relevant recommendations of the independent review into the circumstances leading to the liquidation of Northern Oil and Gas Australia, known as the Walker review.
This bill confirms this government's commitment to have the world's most advanced, innovative and successful offshore oil and gas sector, which delivers sustained prosperity and social development for all Australians.
The bill amends the act to ensure government oversight and scrutiny of transactions involving a change of control of a petroleum or greenhouse gas titleholder through a merger or takeover.
While this type of transaction is not currently captured by the act, it may result in a new entity ultimately obtaining control of the titleholder and may impact the titleholder's ability to finance and meet and meet its obligations.
Failure to obtain regulatory approval for this type of corporate transaction could now result in a significant civil penalty. This approach is consistent with similar regimes across the Commonwealth and will be a deterrent for corporate misconduct.
Contravening the requirement to obtain approval is also grounds for cancellation of the title.
With an estimated $60 billion in anticipated decommissioning liabilities falling due over the next 30 years, the government needs to ensure it can call upon former titleholders to decommission and remediate the area in the unlikely event that the current titleholder is unable to do so.
The bill expands current directions powers to enable any former titleholder or 'related person' to carry out decommissioning activities—known as trailing liability.
As the act stands now, only an immediate former titleholder can be directed to decommission and remediate an area.
Although this is an action of last resort, which should only be used when all other safeguards have been exhausted, it reduces risk.
It reduces the environmental, health and safety risks associated with the potential abandonment of assets and infrastructure. It reduces the associated risk that the financial obligations of decommissioning will be left to Australian taxpayers.
It also sets the expectation that sellers will undertake appropriate due diligence before selling assets, titles and infrastructure, so they can avoid being called back to decommission and remediate title areas.
Trailing liability is a feature of comparable mature offshore oil and gas regimes which are considered leading-practice jurisdictions.
The bill also increases the regulatory scrutiny of entities at key decision points and expands the types of information that can be requested by the decision-maker.
This ensures the government is better equipped to 'screen' applicants, reducing the risk that an entity that does not meet the financial and technical capability requirements will undertake petroleum or greenhouse gas activities in Australian waters including decommissioning.
It also provides for amendments to improve the administration of petroleum and greenhouse gas titles, including enabling electronic lodgement of applications and documents.
This bill demonstrates this government's ongoing commitment to having a globally recognised oil and gas sector, which continues to deliver significant employment and economic activity.
It ensures we strike the right balance between investment and managing a maturing industry.
It delivers a strong and effective regulatory framework for offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas activities.
I commend the bill to the chamber.
Debate adjourned.
MOTIONS
Member for Bowman
Ms MURPHY (Dunkley) (10:03): I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Dunkley from moving the following motion immediately—That this House:
(1) notes:
(a) the Member for Bowman has reneged on his commitment to resign from all parliamentary positions, and the Prime Minister has failed to force him to do so; and
(b) by refusing to act, the Prime Minister is tacitly endorsing the Member for Bowman's behaviour; and
(2) therefore, calls on the Prime Minister to explain to the House why he has not discharged the Member for Bowman from the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training.
This government will be judged on its actions, not its words, because its words mean nothing. No-one on that side of the chamber has acted on their—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): The minister, on a point of order?
Mr Evans: In light of the Speaker's ruling less than half an hour ago, I'd ask you to consider whether this motion had been considered already by this House. I would contend that, while this motion uses different words, it's still substantially the same issue as that which has been already determined by this House on a number of occasions.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don't think so. The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order?
Mr Burke: To the point of order: I'd invite those opposite to name a single occasion when the House has considered whether or not the Prime Minister should make a statement to the House on this issue, which is what this motion calls for. If you can name what day the House has resolved that then by all means do so.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business is correct. It is substantially different to what was released earlier in the last one, so I'll allow the member for Dunkley to continue.
Ms MURPHY: From backbencher to backbencher and minister to minister, you decried the member for Bowman's actions. But you won't put actions behind your words, because you can't be trusted.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Dunkley will resume her seat.
Mr EVANS (Brisbane—Assistant Minister for Waste Reduction and Environmental Management) (10:05): Deputy Speaker, given your determination, I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the member for Dunkley be no further heard.
The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?
The House divided. [10:09]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Ms McBAIN (Eden-Monaro) (10:13): I second the motion. This is indefensible and shameful. The Australian public deserve better.
The SPEAKER: The member for Eden-Monaro will resume her seat. The minister has the call.
Mr EVANS (Brisbane—Assistant Minister for Waste Reduction and Environmental Management) (10:12): I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER (10:14): The question is that the member be no longer heard. Just while I await the tellers to complete the count, I remind all members, as I did last night, of my statement about the sitting arrangements—member for Hughes, this is directed at you. It is important that you sit in your own seat. In the case of the crossbench, there are specific seats allocated to you. Don't bother moving now. But I just want to be very clear: it's important people sit in their seat. It's not my decision; it's the health advice that we all need to follow.
The House divided. [10:14]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (10:15): The question now is that the motion moved by the member for Dunkley be disagreed to.
The House divided. [10:16]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Amendment Bill 2021
First Reading
Bill presented by Mr Pitt.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr PITT (Hinkler—Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia) (10:20): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Amendment Bill 2021 amends the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Regulatory Levies Act 2003.
This bill accompanies the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Titles Administration and Other Measures) Bill 2021 and enables the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority to expand existing cost recovery arrangements to former titleholders and related persons when a direction is issued.
I commend the bill to the chamber.
Debate adjourned.
Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 4) Bill 2021
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Sukkar.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Treasurer, Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness, Social and Community Housing) (10:21):
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill contains a number of important measures which are designed to achieve the following:
incentivise employers to retrain and reskill redundant employees;
encourage greenfields minerals exploration;
protect older Australians and people with a disability from financial abuse and exploitation;
support ASIC to proactively address consumer harm;
ensure that New Zealand maintains its primary taxing right in respect of New Zealand sporting teams; and, importantly,
deliver tax relief to around 10.2 million taxpayers.
In particular, schedule 1 to the bill will introduce an exemption from fringe benefits tax for employer provided retraining and reskilling benefits provided to redundant, or soon to be redundant employees where the training is not related to the employee's current employment. This change will apply from 2 October 2020.
This will incentivise employers to retrain and reskill redundant (or soon to be redundant) employees so that they are better prepared to transition to their next career. This incentive supports the government's skills reform agenda and current programs and assistance for education and training.
Schedule 2 to the bill extends the Junior Minerals Exploration Incentive for a further four years from 2021-22 to 2024-25, with a minor amendment to allow unused exploration credits to be redistributed a year earlier than under current settings.
The Junior Minerals Exploration Incentive provides a tax incentive for new investment in junior exploration companies that are undertaking greenfields minerals exploration in Australia. Eligible companies can create exploration credits by giving up a portion of their tax losses relating to exploration expenditure, which can then be distributed to new investors as a refundable tax offset or a franking credit.
Greenfields minerals exploration underpins the Australian resources sector by finding new mineral deposits and ensuring a strong investment pipeline of new projects that will support our economy into the future. It's a high-risk activity that can involve large upfront costs and long time frames before any return on that exploration is made.
In conjunction with Australia's broader support for resources development, the Junior Minerals Exploration Incentive will help to open up new opportunities for the sector into the future.
Schedule 3 to the bill provides a targeted capital gains tax exemption for granny flat arrangements where there is a formal written agreement in place.
Capital gains tax consequences are currently an impediment to the creation of formal and legally enforceable granny flat arrangements. When faced with a potentially significant capital gains tax liability, families often opt for informal arrangements, which can then lead to financial abuse and exploitation—for example, following a family or relationship breakdown.
The changes mean that capital gains tax will not apply to the creation, variation or termination of a formal written granny flat arrangement providing accommodation for older Australians or people with a disability. The measure encourages the take-up of formal agreements between families, reducing the risk of abuse to vulnerable Australians.
Schedule 4 to the bill makes some technical amendments to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission's product intervention power so that it can continue to proactively address consumer harm caused by financial and credit products.
This schedule ensures that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission can make a product intervention order which imposes conditions relating to the costs (fees, charges or other considerations) of a financial or credit product to a consumer, where the product is suspected to cause significant consumer detriment.
The Legislative and Governance Forum on Corporations was notified of the measure, as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002 and the National Credit Law Agreement 2009.
Schedule 5 to the bill ensures that New Zealand maintains its primary taxing right under the Convention between Australia and New Zealand for the Avoidance of Double Taxation with Respect to Taxes on Income and Fringe Benefits and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion (the convention). This is in respect of New Zealand sporting teams and support staff that spend an extended period of time in Australia to participate in league sporting competitions because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Due to the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, in order to compete in league competitions in Australia, members of New Zealand sporting teams and support staff may have been required to spend more than 183 days in Australia in a 12-month period. This has led to Australian income tax and fringe benefits tax liabilities which normally would not arise in non-COVID circumstances.
The measure ensures that the convention operates as intended in this situation by relinquishing the Australian taxing right that has arisen due to COVID-19. This applies quite strictly to income years 2020-21 and 2021-22 only.
Finally, schedule 6 to the bill delivers tax relief to low- and middle-income earners to support household incomes and create jobs as the economy recovers.
Importantly, it retains the low- and middle-income tax offset in 2021-22. The low- and middle-income tax offset is worth up to $1,080 for individuals and $2,160 for dual-income households, which is paid on assessment after taxpayers lodge their tax return.
It is estimated that around 10.2 million taxpayers will benefit from retaining the low- and middle-income tax offset in the 2021-22 income year, with the majority of the benefits delivered to those earning less than $90,000.
This is on top of the $25.1 billion in tax relief flowing to households in the 2021-22 income year, which was announced in previous budgets.
Retaining the low- and middle-income tax offset will ultimately put more money in taxpayers' pockets, allowing them to spend more and strengthen the economic recovery.
Full details of the measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
TARIFF PROPOSALS
Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 3) 2021
Mr WOOD (La Trobe—Assistant Minister for Customs, Community Safety and Multicultural Affairs) (10:29): I move:
Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 3) 2021.
Today I table Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 3) 2021. This proposal provides for a tariff concession for prescribed goods for use in the testing, quality control, manufacture, evaluation or engineering development of motor vehicles designed or engineered in Australia or components for inclusion in such motor vehicles imported by automotive services providers who have previously registered. This tariff concession continues the concessional treatment previously provided under item 39 of schedule 4 to the Customs Tariff Act 1995, the Customs Tariff Act.
Under item 39, eligible importers will be required to be registered under the Automotive Transformation Scheme Act 2009. The Automotive Transformation Scheme, the ATS, closed at the end of 2020, and all registrations held by registered automotive service providers ended on 31 March 2021. The new concessional item ensures that previously registered automotive service providers can continue to access the tariff concession and are not disadvantaged by any additional regulatory burden.
It will support continued research and development in the sector and support high-wage domestic employment. Under this concessional item, prescribed goods imported for use in the testing, quality control, manufacturing, evaluation, engineering and development of motor vehicles designed or engineered in Australia, or components for inclusion in such motor vehicles, will be eligible for a free rate of customs duty. To continue to support efficiencies in trade processes and the competitiveness of businesses operating in Australia, this proposal inserts new item 39A into the Customs Tariff Act. New item 39A commenced on 1 April 2021 and will operate until 30 June 2025.
Debate adjourned.
BILLS
Financial Regulator Assessment Authority Bill 2021
Financial Regulator Assessment Authority (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2021
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (10:31): Before the debate on the Financial Regulator Assessment Authority Bill 2021 and the Financial Regulator Assessment Authority (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2021 was adjourned, I was talking about the impact of the royal commission and how that has led to the bills before the House today. I'd also like to take this opportunity, before I continue with my remarks, to formally move the second reading amendment which has been circulated in my name. 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 notes that the Government has taken too long to address misconduct in the financial sector, particularly in response to the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation, and Financial Services Industry".
When the banking royal commission formally broke through the Prime Minister's web of spin and deception, it revealed that David Murray's warnings about the need for a regulatory oversight body were spot on. It revealed, in the case of ASIC and APRA, corporate cops that were hesitant to enforce the law—regulators who were aiming to achieve compliance through negotiation and persuasion rather than through the strict letter of the law. Litigation was the last resort, not something that was considered as a first resort. A cosy culture prone to capture by the banks, the insurers, the superannuation funds and the regulator community was put ahead of the interests of those whom the laws were intended to protect. This culture enabled much of the misconduct that the banking royal commission revealed: fees for no service, charging dead people fees for products, selling vulnerable people products that they couldn't afford and didn't need, conflicts of interest that were never disclosed and a system of remuneration that encouraged rorts and rip-offs.
As we debate this bill today, we ask members to ask themselves some simple questions: How many Australian families have suffered in the eight years since David Murray made that recommendation—a recommendation that was ignored—to government? How many years have passed since he first rang the alarm bells about the culture and the potential for culture in ASIC and APRA? How many farmers were forced off their land while the government dithered and dallied? How many families have been forced into financial hardship as a result? How many parents struggled to provide for their children while the bank took more and more out of their pay cheques? How many elderly Australians were consigned to poverty, losing their life savings to dodgy schemes that should never have been sold to them? Ten thousand Australians made a submission to the banking royal commission. That's 10,000 Australians whose lives were impacted, but we know the number is much more than that.
The Financial Regulator Assessment Authority that this legislation will establish should have been established eight years ago. It will bring extra scrutiny and accountability to our financial regulators. It will serve as an early warning system for any government with an interest in effective regulation. It will keep the financial cops on the beat honest. These are necessary and valuable steps. However, there remains reason for concern. The royal commission shone a spotlight on the culture that existed within the regulator of client service, of stakeholder management, a culture that had emerged over many years, a culture where the regulator community failed to fear the regulators. This culture thrives when the regulator community believes that it will have a political backstop here in Canberra, and it's quite clear that the banks, the superannuation funds, the insurers, the financial advisors—the bad ones—had every reason to believe that this was true. Scott Morrison himself, as Treasurer, and the Morrison government voted 27 times. They gave the banks, the insurers and the super funds every reason to believe that they had a political protector here in Canberra. They argued against the need and they neglected its oversight. So it is little surprise at all that the regulators, taking a signal from the government, adopted the culture that was exposed by the royal commission.
We have reason to be concerned that a culture that was exposed and saw a reaction from the regulators in the immediate aftermath of the royal commission is falling back to that bad old days that were exposed by the royal commission. Evidence abounds—the government's jawboning of ASIC, for example, with the responsible lending laws and its proposition to remove responsibility for responsible lending laws from ASIC and transfer it to APRA, a completely inappropriate regulator for this particular part of the law.
There was the failure to prosecute, the failure to ensure rectification of all of the reported breaches between 2013 and 2018 and the failure of the oversight committees to do anything about it. I want to point out the Standing Committee on Economics and the House PJC committee as sterling examples of this, and we have every reason to believe that that culture continues. Under the chairmanship of the member for Goldstein, as an example, the Economics Committee has neglected its statutory responsibility and has—
Mr Tim Wilson interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Goldstein will withdraw that remark.
Mr STEPHEN JONES: engaged in a vanity exercise instead of looking at the real issues that parliament—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have two choices: withdraw it or leave. What do you want to do? The member will resume his seat. The member for Goldstein will withdraw.
Mr Tim Wilson: I will withdraw the comment.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member for Goldstein. The member for Whitlam in continuation.
Mr STEPHEN JONES: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Let me cite a few examples of where the economics committee has neglected its responsibility to this parliament and to the consumers of financial services in this country. For several years now, the banking community, mortgage brokers, have complained to this parliament, to the government and to others that the reasonable intent of the responsible lending laws has been distorted by the regulatory guidance that has been produced by the Australian Securities and Investment Committee. A chair of the economics committee that has a responsibility for oversighting these regulatory authorities might say, 'This is something that we should be inquiring into. We should bring the regulators before the committee and ensure that the regulatory guidance in implementing the legislation is, indeed, what parliament intended.' It has not happened.
An economics committee that was performing its functions might be looking at the caseload that has been brought forward by the royal commission and be keeping the regulators on their toes by ensuring that these matters were being properly prosecuted. It has neglected this responsibility. And, when they do turn their gaze towards the regulated community, they do it in an entirely biased way that singles out one section of the industry, because of their political bias, and neglects another section of the industry. It is quite clear that, instead of fulfilling their responsibilities—responsibilities delegated to committees by acts of parliament—they have abused the responsibilities that these committee have.
It is exactly for this reason that the royal commission has said that we need to put in place another layer of oversight for these regulators. These regulators are actually some of the most overseen bodies in the Australian Commonwealth. They have oversights in place by parliamentary committees. They have oversights in place by Senate committees and by two House committees. They have oversights in place through the Ombudsman's office and through the Audit Office. They are highly regulated and oversighted by committees. But there has been a failure—particularly the failure in this place since 2013, under the stewardship of successive chairs of both committees—in their duty to ensure that the regulators are kept on their toes. That's one of the reasons that there has been a need to bring this bill before the House—to ensure the regulators are doing their job.
We support the legislation. We think it is a step in the right direction. But it serves as a warning to those who have the honour of serving on those important parliamentary oversight committees to ensure that they do the job that the parliament has delegated to them—that they do the job of ensuring that the regulators are properly overseen—and that they don't abuse their role on these committees in going off on frolics and vanity exercises for politically motivated purposes. I commend the bill and the second reading amendment to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): Is the amendment seconded?
Mr Conroy: I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The original question was that the bill be now read a second time. To this, the member for Whitlam 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. I also remind the House that it's been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this bill and the Financial Regulator Assessment Authority (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2021. The question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. I call the member for Goldstein.
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (10:43): If ASIC and APRA are the police, who will police the police? The answer is: the Financial Regulator Assessment Authority, which will be added to the list, in addition to the House Economics Committee, which currently oversees ASIC and APRA—and does, I might say, an outstanding job. I say that because it is important to make sure that there is proper pressure on regulators to do their job.
You may not be aware, Deputy Speaker, but the way these committees work is we have regular inquiries into the annual reports of ASIC and APRA, we have references of inquiries—on which we then issue reports—and then there is the opportunity for members of the government and the opposition to ask ASIC, APRA, the ACCC and the Reserve Bank questions. So, while the member for Whitlam argues that we are not carrying out our role, because he wants to score some cheap, pathetic, poor-landing argument, the reality is that we've actually held lots of inquiries and we've actually delivered lots of reports—and, frankly, some of them have been scathing, particularly the committee's report on ASIC late last year. But, of course, he's also condemning the members of the opposition. If he's saying that the committee isn't doing its work, he's saying that the opposition aren't asking the questions, either.
I'll rise in defence of the deputy chair, the member for Fraser and even the member for Dunkley in saying that they do ask APRA and ASIC questions. They do drive forward issues that are important to the committee. They do make sure substantive issues are on the agenda. They may not always be the questions that I would ask, but that's the point of the parliamentary committees. So, member for Whitlam, I will defend the right of opposition members to continue to do their role. He thinks it's some sort of cheap slight at me or the coalition members of the committee. I can assure you that's not the case and, of course, we have the Marxist member for Melbourne on the committee too.
At every point ASIC and APRA have seen oversight. We have given scrutiny to their work and we will continue to do so. But prior to my elevation to chair of the House Economics Committee, APRA and ASIC were scrutinised and criticised by the Hayne royal commission. There was a recommendation for a financial regulator assessment authority to be established. I have to say that I question the merit of this because I think there's outstanding parliamentary oversight, but we're here nonetheless and we took it to the last election. I actually think ASIC and APRA are moving in the right direction. I do believe there was a legitimate reason for criticism of them and whether they were doing their roles. But we've actually seen that, since the House Economics Committee in this term of parliament has been pursuing issues and making recommendations to them, they are taking up those recommendations.
We, through a series of questions during our inquiry, asked questions about things like insider trading within superannuation funds throughout the first-half of last year, particularly in that period around the start of the COVID-19 pandemic when there was no re-evaluation of unlisted assets, but there was in reflections of the price of equities. We discovered that a number of directors and funds had engaged in forms of insider trading, where money was moved between different accounts and funds to manipulate the market, seemingly to the benefit of the few. Of course, we have sent that to ASIC and APRA, and ASIC and APRA, following our hearings, are now investigating it, and I encourage them to do so. But these matters wouldn't be done if the House Economics Committee wasn't on the ball and focused on all of the issues.
The member for Whitlam is expert at one thing. He's expert at running interference for the fund manager mates and funds that he likes and demonising their competition. That's how he operates at every step of the way. I can understand he's very angry with ASIC right now. They have launched investigations into REST, the major superannuation fund, for its conduct, and are pursuing it in the courts. I can understand the member for Whitlam is very angry with ASIC because of a similar pursuit of Statewide Super. It's entirely reasonable, when you have so much of the financial interests of the party you represent and the power it seeks to control in the structures of our superannuation system and particularly in industry super funds. When the regulators turn their attention to the misconduct that they engage in and that you benefit from, it's hardly a surprise that you don't like the regulators. But that's why they have to be independent from government. If you ever saw the Labor Party on this side of the chamber and the regulators weren't independent, we know that the regulators would be used and manipulated, not through the persuasion of argument or evidence but to pursue bloody minded agendas in the interests of the Labor Party at the expense of the community.
The House Economics Committee has found many other things throughout this term of parliament, let alone what we discovered in the last term of parliament, while the Labor Party shouted down and hounded down anybody who said, 'Yes, I'm going to be pushed below the poverty line if there's a retiree tax introduced with the removal of refundable franking credits.' Before the last election, the Labor Party said that it wouldn't have that impact, that people would be exempt and it would only hit those who were well off. Yet we found time and time again that single mothers and retirees and people with disabilities who got additional assistance from their deceased parents relied on refundable franking credits to be able to survive and to have an income. The only response of the Labor opposition at that time was to shout and hound down anybody who dared tell the truth.
Make no mistake, during my chairmanship I made no apology that I was going to give those people a voice come hell or high water, and we did. Funnily enough, there are a lot of people affected that Labor wanted to turn a blind eye to, and, funnily enough, it did have a mild impact on how they voted, because they were going to have a third of their income removed overnight if there were a Labor government elected.
I do understand why the Labor Party has a big problem with that, because their ultimate objective is to empower themselves at the expense of Australians, and, when Australians are empowered, they can stand up to those people who want to rob them of their future. I make no apology for doing that, and all of the criticisms targeted at the committee and myself, as chair, and anybody else: bring it on, because we will stand proud and firm and back the Australian people against vested interests. And it does not matter who they are, what type of super fund they are, what type of bank they are, what type of regulator they are or whether they're members of the Australian Labor Party, because that is who we are. We are on the side of Australians today, tomorrow and as part of securing Australia's recovery.
The Labor Party, of course, would also be angry with the operations and the oversight the Economics Committee has provided of ASIC and APRA, because we exposed other misconduct in the banking sector. It wasn't just up to the Hayne royal commission. Frankly, Commissioner Hayne had a blind spot to a lot of the issues that this House committee has consistently exposed in the superannuation funds in addition to the millions of dollars that they're spending on advertising and needless marketing in a compulsory system, the $400-odd million that it has spent over the past five years that didn't get any criticism or any comment, let alone the money that is laundered by super funds through their own fund, called IFM Investors, paying bonuses of up to $36 million to individual fund managers. If a bank did that, members of the Labor Party on the other side of this chamber would be screaming that this is Australian shareholders and deposits and that that deserves to be condemned and held accountable. But, when it's the industry super funds, it's let rip—take the money out of average Australians bank accounts and funnel it and launder it through to the profit-making of their mates, and it is wrong. We will call it out, we will investigate it and we will never stop until we get to the bottom of it. And, whatever interference the Labor Party wants to run, let them do it, because it only exposes their commitment to stand by themselves at the expense of Australians.
My hope is that this new body, the Financial Regulator Assessment Authority, might start to make sure that ASIC and APRA do the same, because it shouldn't just be up to a very active chair and committee to make sure that ASIC and APRA do their job and follow through and get the evidence and hold financial institutions to account. My hope is that this body will make sure that they are the police that polices the police.
It isn't just those examples which I've outlined earlier. As I outlined earlier, we have our regular hearings with the big four major banks as well as small banks, which are coming up shortly. But we also held hearings into small banks like ME Bank, which used to be owned by industry super funds, and through our consistent focus on their various forms of conduct have identified things like there were serious and systemic breaches of the banking code. We also identified where they were adjusting people's balances and not giving people forward notice in return.
The Labor Party, of course, didn't like those hearings—we just need to make it clear. Why? Because ME Bank was owned by their industry fund mates and, as a consequence, it devalued its sale price and ultimately led to the former CEO Jamie McPhee to have to resign. This is scandalous—the intricate relationship between the Labor Party and these funds—and that's why they don't like the regulators, that's why they don't like oversight bodies, that's why they don't like the economics committee, because at every point we have kept the focus where it should belong, in making sure misconduct is focused on, a bright light is shone in the dark crevices and we ask the questions that they don't want to ask. My hope is that maybe one day they'll start to put the Australian people first in their decision-making. My hope is that one day the Labor Party might understand, about decisions made by financial institutions, whatever their financial relationships and power relationships with them are, how critical it is to get these types of laws and this type of accountability and oversight right—because there are very serious issues that were not covered in the Hayne royal commission. There are many examples of questionable conduct which we have identified and continue to identify that leads to legislative change.
Let's not ignore the fact that we had industry super funds taking money out of low-balance inactive accounts, which they were legally—legally—obliged to give over to the Australian Taxation Office to conserve people's balances, and they were rolling them into a fund that they owned called AUSfund. And, when they rolled that money, those low-balance inactive accounts that often represented the super savings of some of the poorest and lower income Australians were reactivated so the super funds could mine them for fees and insurance premiums that underwrote the balances and bonuses of fund managers. It literally took the economics committee to expose this deception, this manipulation, this misconduct, which has now led to a change in the law. If we want to talk about fees for no service, there is absolutely misconduct by the retail service sector and the banking sector. They got up to this behaviour and should be held to account and are being held to account.
But, funnily enough, when it comes to the industry super sector doing the same thing, the position of the Labor Party is not just to turn a blind eye, though they did—they weren't the ones that asked questions about how low-income Australians were being ripped off by industry super funds; that was up to the coalition members—but to then run interference to try and stop this misconduct being highlighted. They tried to run interference to try and keep people's hands in the tills and in the pockets of low-income Australians to deny them their super savings. It's no surprise that Labor would take this approach. At every point, they have prioritised super interests ahead of Australians and their ambitions to be empowered and financially secure.
We see that not just in these issues of misconduct in the superannuation sector; it's in Labor's very philosophy of prioritising superannuation over homeownership. You saw it in the opposition leader's budget speech the other night. In a choice between empowered owners or indentured renters, he wants a nation of indentured renters, of people who have large superannuation balances while they're working, so his fund manager mates can fiddle with them at the expense of the realisation of empowered Australians of owning their own home.
There can be no mistake about which side I am on: home first, super second. Homeownership is the most important financial decision that Australians can make. The second most important is their retirement savings. To prioritise their second most important in favour of their first is a form of economic social engineering designed only for one benefit, and it ain't Australians. It's designed to prioritise the interests of super funds, at the expense of Australians, and I won't stand idly by. It should be home first, super second.
Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (10:58): No contribution from the member for Goldstein is complete without a mention of the 'Wilson first, Australians second' campaign he's been running. Unable to persuade his own parliamentary colleagues, he continues to come in here with fluff and bluster, saying that Australians can't get a government that will actually deal with housing affordability and what they need is to be poorer in retirement. The member for Goldstein wants Australians to rip money out of their retirement savings, to lose the compounding returns and to increase the pressure on the age pension, which of course will be paid by future generations of taxpayers, all because he is part of a government that has overseen the homeownership rate fall to 60-year lows.
The measure before the House is largely uncontroversial. It flows out of a recommendation of the Hayne royal commission. The royal commission report referred to 'shortcomings' of the regulators. Let me quote from a larger slab of the report, taking into account some of the concerns that led to the regulators:
… the answer seems to be greed—the pursuit of short term profit at the expense of basic standards of honesty.
… … …
From the executive suite to the front line, staff were measured and rewarded by reference to profit and sales.
It goes on to say:
When misconduct was revealed, it either went unpunished or the consequences did not meet the seriousness of what had been done. The conduct regulator, ASIC, rarely went to court to seek public denunciation of and punishment for misconduct. The prudential regulator, APRA, never went to court. Much more often than not, when misconduct was revealed, little happened beyond apology from the entity, a drawn out remediation program and protracted negotiation with ASIC of a media release, an infringement notice, or an enforceable undertaking that acknowledged no more than that ASIC had reasonable 'concerns' about the entity's conduct. Infringement notices imposed penalties that were immaterial for the large banks. Enforceable undertakings might require a 'community benefit payment', but the amount was far less than the penalty that ASIC could properly have asked a court to impose.
As a result of that, ASIC is now under a range of oversight mechanisms. These include two parliamentary committees—the House Economics Committee, of which I am the deputy chair; and the Senate Corporations and Financial Services Committee, where Senator Deb O'Neill does vital work in keeping ASIC and APRA to account—ministerial oversight, audits by the Australian National Audit Office, established public governance frameworks and so on.
This bill, the Financial Regulator Assessment Authority Bill 2021, adds a further layer of assessment, which is in the form of a new statutory body consisting of three part-time members and the Secretary to the Treasury. It will provide a biennial assessment to the minister on the effectiveness and capability of ASIC and APRA, which will be subsequently tabled in parliament. It's not a watchdog with any great level of teeth. As the member for Goldstein has so articulately put, we have the House Economics Committee, who are, in his words, 'the police that polices the police that police'. I'm not sure that one will go on a bumper sticker. I don't think it gives much credit to the real police themselves. But it is certainly true that the House Economics Committee was the committee to which Commissioner Shipton announced that he was stepping down temporarily, which ultimately became his resignation, regarding issues surrounding expenses. The House Economics Committee has also overseen the major banks.
Curiously, in our oversight of the major banks, it's been the Liberals that have said that they don't want the major banks to face more scrutiny. The member for Mackellar thinks that scrutiny by this parliament of major banks' CEOs is a 'complete and utter waste of time'. That's what the member for Mackellar, Mr Falinski, says. That's despite the fact that the Hayne royal commission report revealed within the financial sector a culture of greed, activities including terrorist financing and money laundering for drug gangs and a range of misconduct which hurt thousands of Australian families. So that is why the Hayne royal commission was so essential. It's why the Liberals were so wrong to campaign against it for 18 months. But, having campaigned against it for 18 months and voted against it more than 20 times, they're now attempting to water down the House Economics Committee's hearings with major banks' CEOs. They're like goldfish: they've forgotten already the lessons of the Hayne royal commission.
The Treasurer was quick to try and get a photo op with an unsmiling Commissioner Hayne. But, years later, his colleagues are attempting to wind back scrutiny of the major banks. Labor believe that's absolutely the wrong approach. We think there should be appropriate scrutiny of the major banks. We believed that the hearings with major banks shouldn't have been deferred during COVID at a time when the major banks were receiving unprecedented government assistance. It was pretty extraordinary that the government took it upon themselves to defer parliamentary committee scrutiny of major banks' CEOs. But that's the way they think. The way they think is that they will come down like a tonne of bricks on a welfare recipient who might have been overpaid a hundred dollars, but if it's parliamentary scrutiny for a major bank's CEO, they'll describe that as a complete and utter waste of time.
The second reading amendment refers to the government's failure to focus on misconduct in the financial sector. One form of this misconduct is proposals that are being put forward by this government. In late April, Treasury put forward proposals for proxy advisers to have to give their analysis to the firms that they're analysing five days in advance for so-called fact checking. This is despite the fact that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission in 2017 and in 2018 inquired into proxy advice and found no cause for concern and is despite the fact that their providing such advice beforehand is effectively taking the intellectual property of proxy advisers and handing it over to the people that they're attempting to monitor.
It is not as though we have seen undue influence at AGMs. If you're a board-endorsed director of an ASX 300 company, the average vote for your re-election is 96 per cent. There have been in recent years only six candidates for office who failed. Thirty-eight candidates have withdrawn their nominations. To a large extent, shareholders are voting to support the decision of boards. Proxy advisers provide the analysis which can inform investors. As Dean Paatsch of Ownership Matters has put it: 'Proxy advisers identify the problems, but shareholders sort out the solutions.' There hasn't been any identified problem with proxy advisers. No clients of the advisers have complained. Investors haven't claimed to have been misled or deceived. There haven't been systematic errors committed by proxy advisers. There haven't been meeting resolutions that failed because proxy advisers gave misleading advice. There's none of that. The real problem that this government has with proxy advisers is that they allow shareholders to have a better insight into how companies are run. It's no wonder that the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Institute of Company Directors have backed in the government's proposals for a crackdown on proxy advisers.
It's got to be said that perhaps this is some form of payback. The government, after all, has been scrutinised for the fact that it has given so much of the $100 billion JobKeeper scheme to firms with rising earnings. Some one-fifth of listed firms that received JobKeeper had their earnings go up last year rather than down. A program designed to stop firms from hitting the wall and workers from going into unemployment was instead used to fund executive bonuses for millionaire CEOs and dividends for billionaire shareholders. At least 11 Australian billionaires own shares in companies that received JobKeeper and paid out dividends. This is a way in which JobKeeper has become 'BillionaireKeeper'. The work that underpinned this overpayment to firms that didn't need it was done in part by proxy advisers. I acknowledge the work of Ownership Matters. Its important reports outlined first of all the extent to which JobKeeper was going to fund executive bonuses, a practice which was condemned by the head of the Business Council of Australia, condemned by the Australian Taxation Office, condemned by former Liberal Premier of Victoria Jeff Kennett and yet not condemned by the Prime Minister. When we asked the Prime Minister about this he said Labor was playing 'the politics of envy', as though a firm that takes corporate welfare and uses it to pay bonuses to millionaire CEOs is in some way entitled to do that. The very same Prime Minister who designed robodebt to illegally hound welfare recipients over a couple of hundred dollars turns a blind eye when firms get millions of dollars and use it to pay executive bonuses.
If it's true right across the program that a fifth of the money went to firms with rising earnings, we're talking about some $15 billion to $20 billion. How much is that, for Australians listening? That's $1,000 each for every Australian adult. We're talking about $1,000 of your taxes spent through the JobKeeper program to firms that didn't need it—firms like Premier Investments, firms like Harvey Norman, firms that have seen their earnings rise substantially during the pandemic. Within the car industry, we've seen dealers such as A.P. Eagers. We've seen hedge funds such as K2. We've seen the investment bank Moelis. We've seen a range of firms that didn't need corporate welfare putting their hands out and asking for it.
Meanwhile, plenty of businesses that were eligible chose not to claim the cash. I was speaking to an industry association yesterday. They said they did the numbers and worked out they were eligible but they felt that they weren't under any risk of closing, and so they didn't take JobKeeper. They felt that was the morally right thing to do. But another industry body, in a similar industry, got millions of dollars from the taxpayer. I've spoken to small-business owners who were doing it incredibly tough—travel agents in my electorate—who can't understand, for the life of them, why so much money was given to a firm like Premier Investments, paid out to a billionaire like Solomon Lew, at a time when they were having to lay off staff as a result of the pandemic. They say it's just not fair that the government ran JobKeeper in a way that would benefit millionaire CEOs and billionaire shareholders.
Some firms have done the right thing. Toyota, Domino's and Iluka are among the firms that have paid the money back. But too many firms have hung onto the cash. They've used that old shareholder theory of value, which should have hit its use-by date when the first Wall Street movie came out. They think that firms are just there for their shareholders and their executives. They don't realise that a modern firm should be there for its customers, for its workers and for the broader community. Firms that have recognised that have paid back JobKeeper money they don't need. Firms that haven't recognised that have taken cash they didn't need.
The Morrison government has done nothing to provide the public with a sense of transparency. I've asked the Treasurer how much of the money went to firms whose earnings rose. He won't answer. I've asked him how many of the firms that forecast that their earnings were going to fall actually saw their earnings rise. He won't answer that question. I've asked him how much of the money went to firms that paid out executive bonuses. He won't answer that question. I've asked the Treasurer how much of the JobKeeper cash went to firms that paid out huge dividends. He won't answer that question. That stands in stark contrast with New Zealand, where there is full transparency over their program. You can plug the name of a firm into the New Zealand website and find out who received their program. That's the thing about the Morrison government: they are as soft on the strong as they are hard on the vulnerable.
Dr ALLEN (Higgins) (11:13): I rise to support the Financial Regulator Assessment Authority Bill 2021 and the Financial Regulator Assessment Authority (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2021, which act in response to the Hayne Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry. Throughout the royal commission, we heard the complex and galling stories of failures of the Australian banking system. They were difficult stories for the public to hear, stories of ineptitude and corruption, stories of greed and failing to put the needs of customers above those of vested interests, stories of short-term profit put before the needs of customers. Commissioner Hayne highlighted widespread failures of governance and compliance in banks and other financial institutions that led to failures to detect and address misconduct internally, as well as failures to report misconduct to the regulators in a timely manner and, in some cases, failing to report it at all. That is not to say all the eggs in the financial markets are bad ones. Indeed, our banking and financial sector is one that we should celebrate for the most part as a stable, respected and trusted sector, which has helped us in our darkest hours, including through COVID-19 last year and into this year.
The Morrison government has listened to the concerns regarding these failures in the system, and these failures are not contested by either side of this House. These failures have resulted in terrible and heartbreaking stories that should never have happened, and the Morrison Government is acting. Indeed, we take our responsibilities in financial regulation with the utmost seriousness. The Morrison government has committed to accepting the findings of the royal commission and agreed to act on all 76 recommendations. The bill today acts in part to address those recommendations.
The royal commission considered that existing accountability mechanisms were not focused on how well the regulators performed against their statutory mandates. It also considered that some of the accountability mechanisms lacked strategic focus on regulator performance over time. That is why this bill facilitates the disclosure of sensitive, confidential and protected information from the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission to the Financial Regulator Assessment Authority.
The Morrison government's response to the royal commission, including through measures in this bill being debated today, builds on an earlier report in 2016 on ASIC, commissioned by then Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, the Honourable Kelly O'Dwyer—my predecessor as the member for Higgins. The task force chaired by Treasury observed five key themes in its assessment of ASIC. These themes cut across the main elements of the capability framework, governance and leadership, strategy and delivery, and drew together many of the observations highlighted throughout the report. As such, there were five main themes from the report on ASIC that were grouped as follows: first, that sound governance architecture was not well-used; second, it found the expectations gap was much greater than expected; third, it also found there was an opportunity to reorient for greater external focus; fourth, a cultural shift was needed to become less reactive and more strategic and confident; and finally, future-proofing and forward-looking approaches were needed to improve ASIC's capabilities. The bill today will help address these flaws in ASIC's capability to function effectively.
For Australians to have trust in banks, superannuation funds and the finance industry, the regulatory framework that governs the sector must be enforced by effective regulations. Indeed, recommendation 6.14 of the royal commission called for the establishment of a specialised expert authority to assess the effectiveness and capability of the regulators. It recommended that a new oversight authority for APRA and ASIC, independent of government, should be established by legislation to assess the effectiveness of each regulator in discharging its functions and meeting its statutory objects. The royal commission report recommended the authority should be comprised of three part-time members and staffed by a permanent secretariat. It should be required to report to the minister in respect of each regulator at least biannually.
It is worth noting APRA and ASIC are independent regulators responsible to the parliament. This independence is critical to their ability to fulfil their mandates and for them to have the confidence of the consumers who rely on them. Regulator independence is also important for maintaining the confidence of the market, including in the credibility of the regulators. That is why the Morrison government is today taking decisive action following the royal commission to enhance the power, funding and competency of regulatory authorities. Accepting the royal commission's recommendation, the Morrison government is responding through the introduction of this very legislation. This is congruent with the government's commitment to end misconduct within the finance sector. Indeed, we are acting on all of the other 75 recommendations contained within the royal commission's final report.
The Financial Sector Advisory Council will be disbanded given the establishment of this new body, and consideration will be given to streamlining other accountability mechanisms. As recommended in the royal commission report, the Financial Regulator Assessment Authority will comprise a panel of three independent and expert part-time members and an ex-officio member from the Department of Treasury. Further, this will be supported by a secretariat within the Treasury to ensure this newly created body fulfils its roles.
So that ASIC and APRA have operational independence and are not unreasonably impacted, the Financial Regulator Assessment Authority will not have the ability to direct, make, assess or comment on specific cases of the regulators' enforcement actions, regulatory decisions, complaints and like matters. The Financial Regulator Assessment Authority will be required to conduct biennial reviews to assess the effectiveness and capability of ASIC and APRA over time. The minister is also able to request ad hoc reports from the authority on any matter relating to the effectiveness and capability of ASIC and APRA. The introduction of the authority will help increase regulator accountability and oversight. Additionally, by having the authority review ASIC and APRA consistently over time, the authority will be able to provide strategic insights to help improve overall performance. Further improving our already strong and independent regulator will further improve market confidence, which is important as we secure our future in a post-COVID global economy.
As we continue to make inroads into enhancing transparency and accountability within the financial system, we are continuing to improve consumer outcomes and helping to restore trust. The importance of these objectives is heightened to ensure our economic security continues as we recover from COVID. I look forward to the government's appointment of the authority's panel members to further strengthen the regulatory regime. Australia needs its banking and financial sector, just as the reverse is true. But, equally, trust and respect between the Australian public and those who support the economy through banking and financial services are needed now more than ever.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (11:21): This bill, the Financial Regulator Assessment Authority Bill 2021, implements recommendations 6.13 and 6.14 of the financial services royal commission. The first of those recommendations is that the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission should be subject to quadrennial capability reviews, and the second recommendation, 6.14, is that a new authority should be established to assess the effectiveness and capability of the financial sector regulators. This bill implements those recommendations, but in a minimalist way.
A new statutory body will be established, consisting of three appointed part-time members as well as the secretary of Treasury as an ex-officio member. The authority will be responsible for providing a biennial assessment to the minister on the effectiveness and capability of ASIC and APRA, and these reports will be tabled in parliament. The new authority will have no grounds or authority to make directions in relation to the regulators or to advise on specific individual cases of the regulators' enforcement actions.
ASIC and APRA are already subject to a number of levels of oversight—through parliamentary committees, ministerial oversight, audits by the Australian National Audit Office, established public governance frameworks and the International Monetary Fund's Financial Sector Assessment Program. While this bill does implement 6.13 and 6.14 of the royal commission's recommendations, it's time that the Morrison government got on with some of the other important recommendations of the royal commission, particularly the ones that they seem to be ignoring, most notably recommendation No. 1, which relates to ensuring that responsible lending standards for Australian consumers are kept in place.
The government is going to ignore the No. 1 recommendation of the royal commission, which was to keep those protections in place to ensure that consumers couldn't be ripped off and taken for granted by the banks. Particularly in the lead-up to the global financial crisis, there was a lot of irresponsible lending going on, with banks lending for assets that were assessed to be of questionable value over time. When the wall came crashing down, it was Australian consumers and workers that suffered. It wasn't the banks themselves. They went on to continue to operate profitably. It was Australian workers that lost their homes. It was Australian consumers that were put out by the collapse of the financial system. And many of these recommendations in the royal commission were specifically to address that and to ensure that that cannot occur again in Australia. But it appears that this government is willing to ignore the No. 1 recommendation of that particular commission in relation to responsible lending laws.
It's also rather ironic that the government is once again taking an interest in ASIC and APRA in the wake of what occurred, particularly in the early days of this government, when the Abbott government cut funding to ASIC and that resulted in ASIC losing a number of people that had particular expertise in assessment of financial crime and prosecution of financial fraud and misconduct. Because of those cuts to the ASIC budget that occurred under the Abbott government, the regulator lost a lot of its expertise. That resulted in the claims that were being made by Australian consumers and whistleblowers that ASIC wasn't up to its job and wasn't doing its job properly. We saw that with the financial scandals that then began to be uncovered in this industry, most notably the first one that gained notoriety and attention, and that was the scandal that occurred in the CBA, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, in relation to their wealth management practices.
We had whistleblowers who were willing to risk their livelihoods, to risk their reputations, and blow the whistle on some very dodgy and, in some cases, very inappropriate practices and breaches of Australian financial laws that were going on at that time in the Commonwealth Bank. They were reported to ASIC on numerous occasions, yet ASIC did nothing about these reports. There were emails that were sent and there were phone calls that were made by people with extensive experience in the financial services industry blowing the whistle on some very dodgy practices indeed by financial planners at the Commonwealth Bank. These were reported to ASIC, yet ASIC did nothing. It took these whistleblowers having to go into the ASIC office, physically walking into the office to demand that they take their allegations seriously and have a look at them. It was only after those brave people took that action—most notably Mr Morris who was working at the Commonwealth Bank at the time—that ASIC finally investigated these issues. When they did, what they uncovered was truly shocking and completely exposed not only that bank but also most of the other big four banks in respect of their wealth management practices, and that opened the door.
Then we had the parliamentary inquiries that ensued. Again, the government had to be forced into them by Labor senators like Doug Cameron, who forced the government to investigate these issues through parliamentary inquiries. He was joined, I might add, by former Senator Williams, a Nationals senator, who was also quite brave in forcing the government that he was a member of to take this issue seriously. When we had those parliamentary inquiries, more people started to come forward and tell their stories. It became evident that this wasn't an issue that affected only tens of Australians, but it was an issue that affected hundreds of thousands of Australians. Then we had scandals in Comminsure. We had scandals in wealth management and the collapse of managed investment schemes. In every single one of them there was a consistent characteristic, and that is that it was working Australians that lost their lifesavings, lost their homes, had family members lose jobs, had mental health problems, had family members commit suicide. Yet not one of the executives of those organisations was ever prosecuted and went to jail. Can you believe it? Not one of them.
It was the same thing in the global financial crisis. Everything that happened in the United States and that spread throughout the world and collapsed the international economy—literally hundreds of millions of workers put out of work—all came out of Wall Street. Do you think any of those executives ever went to jail? One of them did! It's an absolute disgrace.
That was why Labor pushed so hard for the royal commission. That is why that royal commission was so important, because it uncovered what was going on across the industry in Australia and those shocking practices, not only in banking but in wealth management, in insurance, in managed investment schemes, in mortgage broking, in all of the financial services that Australians rely on a daily basis and, more importantly, that they establish a trust relationship with. They were found to be manipulated in all of those.
It took the royal commission to uncover on a wide-scale view what was going on, and that, unfortunately, came down to the fact that at the time ASIC was ill-equipped to deal with these investigations. ASIC had had its funding cut by the Abbott government. It had lost people that had that expertise that could have done that work, and, if they had have done it a lot earlier, a hell of a lot more Australians may have been able to keep their life savings and keep their homes and wouldn't have been put in the precarious financial situations that they eventually were put in because of the government's delayed reaction and inability to act on something that they knew for a very long time was a big issue in this country.
Let's not forget that Labor kept forcing the issue here in the nation's parliament, the place where we make decisions like that, by requesting the government hold a royal commission on 26 occasions, and on each occasion they voted against that recommendation. It wasn't until, unfortunately, the executives of the big four banks agreed and wrote to the Prime Minister at the time and said: 'Okay, we're copping it in public. The public relations exercise that we're going through at the moment is damaging our reputation. We'll agree to a royal commission. We want it done quickly so we can get it out of the way and get on with making money again.' That was the approach that the government took—it took the banks agreeing to it before they acted—and, yet, they try and claim in this place that they're on the side of workers, they try and claim in this place that they act for consumers. We should never forget they voted against that royal commission 26 times and it took them a hell of a long time to take these issues seriously, but only because they were coming from working people and they didn't like the fact that working people were saying bad things about people that were running our banking sector and, of course, the fact that they were willing to vote against this 26 times as they'd cut funding from APRA and they'd cut funding for ASIC—the bodies that were put in place and specifically have the role assigned by this parliament to look into financial fraud and misconduct in this country—so they didn't have the resources. It took those brave whistleblowers to force ASIC to take this issue seriously and blow the whistle, and that led to the opening up of what was going on and the financial services royal commission.
I'm quite proud of the role that Labor played in forcing the government's hand on this, because, once again, Labor was on the right side of history with this issue in backing those working people who'd lost their life savings and were asking for support from the government to look into what was going on. All of those people deserve the credit of this parliament and the Australian people for forcing this government's hands, and Labor was very proud to support them through the royal commission.
This bill is important. It does implement recommendations 6.13 and 6.14 of the royal commission. But, I say to those opposite: if you're fair dinkum about the royal commission recommendations, if you're fair dinkum about ensuring that this can't happen again in Australia, then don't water down our responsible lending laws, because if you do, again, you're going down that path of opening up the gate to financial misconduct and fraud. It may not happen immediately, but it's the thin end of the wedge. Over a period of time, when you relax laws like that—we saw what happened in the United States with the global financial crisis and the changes that were made by the Bush administration in relaxing responsible lending laws over there and allowing free rein in their markets. That was the beginning of the global financial crisis. I fear if we do the same here again it will be the beginning of another series of financial scandals in Australia that will develop, and the Australian people deserve better from their government when it comes to that.
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Chief Government Whip) (11:35): It's always a pleasure to follow the member for Kingsford Smith. The member for Kingsford Smith and I have served time on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services. We have spent many a long meeting discussing these issues and many more. There is much of what he had to say that I can agree with, but there is plenty that I would disagree with.
In essence, Financial Regulator Assessment Authority Bill 2021 reflects the necessity to ensure that our regulatory bodies have proper oversight. That's not to take away from the oversight role of the Parliamentary Join Committee on Corporations and Financial Services—and I know that Deputy Speaker Wallace is the chair of that committee. There is the work that we do in that space, along with other oversight bodies in this parliament and externally. But I have had the view for some time that better oversight of those regulators is required, because I've felt that they've moved into an area where, rather than focusing on enforcing the regulations and the laws that are already in place and ensuring they do that job properly, they have strayed into other areas, in terms of maybe seeking to set policy through regulatory guidance notes and other things. I'm pleased to see that we're seeking to put in place a level of oversight that hopefully, in time, sooner rather than later, will minimise that. Even in the last few committee hearings that we've had, there's been a much greater focus on what ASIC in particular—in our case—is doing to ensure that they're regulating and applying the regulation properly, and oversighting it properly, rather than getting involved in other areas.
This bill is just another one in a range of measures in relation to the Hayne royal commission that the government is putting in place. The government is committed to taking action on all 76 of those recommendations contained in that final report from the banking royal commission. Of the 76 recommendations for reform, 54 were directed to the government, 12 to the regulators and 10 to industry.
I come from a background in the banking and financial services industry, as many in this place well know. I do not for one minute condone in any way many of the activities and practices that were revealed in the royal commission. I actually think it's very sad. The vast majority of people in those industries are professionals at what they do, but a small minority of people were not, and a number of very large institutions should have known better, given their histories in this country—in particular, the Commonwealth Bank. It was formally set up in approximately 1912, I think, as the people's bank. AMP was set up as mutual society back in the 1800s and has a long history in this country. To see the Commonwealth Bank, our other big banks and AMP lose their way and lose focus on their history and what they were ultimately set up to do was a very sad day for this country. And I hope, through the outcomes of the royal commission, that our big financial institutions actually rediscover what their actual purpose is, and that is to provide a vital service for the Australian people. It is through serving the Australian people that they will be sustainable, long-term businesses. Yes, they're going to make a profit, but there is nothing wrong with businesses making a profit; they just need to do it ethically and responsibly.
Equally, where there are times when malfeasance occurs or practices that are not in accordance with the law occur and whistleblowers do take that step to blow the whistle on those activities and report them to our regulators, such as ASIC and APRA, it's critically important that our regulators do take action on those reports and that we don't have to resort again at some point in the future to another royal commission to deal with those issues, because the regulators haven't dealt with them. I think that's critically important. That's why I support this bill—because I think that having an additional lever of oversight outside of the existing parliamentary processes is critically important to ensure that our regulators operate in the best manner possible and are fit for purpose for the 21st century.
We all know that the financial services world, with the range of products, is getting more and more complex each and every day, and we need to make sure that our regulators are across that complexity and that they can provide advice back to government to amend the law as necessary to deal with that increasing complexity—not only the increasing complexity but also the variety of new products and new ways of people getting access to finance. We see many non-bank lenders now and we are seeing growth in the use of buy-now pay-later arrangements. We need to ensure that our regulators have the capacity and the focus to ensure this increasing myriad of options and systems across our financial services sector are properly regulated and are properly kept an eye on. Having something like the Financial Regulator Assessment Authority to oversight them to ensure that they're doing that properly and efficiently is, I think, going to be of great benefit to everybody in our community and across the nation. It will ensure that there is a level of confidence, both for ordinary consumers but also for our businesses, who generally have a much larger exposure to our banks through their finance facilities.
As part of this, it's also important to note that, from a government perspective, through a range of initiatives over the past 12 months to 18 months in attempting to support our business community through COVID-19, the government now actually has, the government and the Australian people have significant exposure, particularly on the lending side, to the activities of the banks and their lending standards. So for ASIC and APRA to be doing their jobs properly, and for that to be oversighted by the new body, is critically important.
I commend the work that the government is continuing to do to enact the recommendations of the Hayne royal commission to ensure that our financial system retains the stability, the transparency and, importantly, the confidence of the Australian community and consumers in being able to access funds when they require them, knowing that the advice that they're going to receive from professional advisers across the industry is there and available in a cost-effective manner for when they require it and, equally, that our regulators are doing the job that they're tasked with doing to ensure the regulations are being upheld and enforced for their benefit. I commend this bill in its unamended form to the House.
Mr HILL (Bruce) (11:44): Labor will support this bill, the Financial Regulator Assessment Authority Bill 2021, and I'll support this bill because the royal commission recommended it—that's what it boils down to. It puts in place quadrennial capability reviews and a new authority to assess the effectiveness and the capability of financial sector regulators. It does it in a minimalist way, though, it's fair to observe It's almost, you might say, like the government doesn't actually want to do it, but the royal commission said they should so they're kind of going along with it. There are three part-time members and the Secretary of the Treasury ex officio. I mean, the Secretary of the Treasury is probably a little bit busy to take this very seriously and put time into it, but, nevertheless, there it is.
The fact that the royal commission found it necessary to put in place these recommendations for a new authority to oversight financial regulators is a sad indictment of the government's failure to manage effectively the oversight of financial services and the economic regulators. To say they've had a laissez-faire approach to this in their eight years in government would be an understatement.
The financial regulators are already some of the most heavily oversighted parts of the public sector. They're oversighted by multiple ministers—cabinet, junior, outer ministry and assistant ministers—and multiple departments and agencies. The Australian National Audit Office pays regular and ongoing attention to their performance. Public governance frameworks and legislation apply across the board. The International Monetary Fund's Financial Sector Assessment Program also does a bit of this work. And there are multiple parliamentary committees. There's no shortage of oversight, already.
What is lacking is the political will of the government—of ministers and the backbenchers who comprise these committees—to actually do the job and take it seriously. This stuff requires focus and serious work. I acknowledge, Deputy Speaker Wallace, you've recently been appointed Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services. I was recently appointed as a member. The first two meetings have gone well. I'll give you a tick for that. People have participated. We've actually initiated a couple of inquiries, which, if they proceed, will double the amount of work the committee's done in this term of parliament. But this stuff really matters. It's not esoteric. It might be pretty dry. There's a lot of paper. But it really matters to the real economy, to oversight the capital markets and the whole financial services system and banking sector.
I want to call out the failure of the government and the parliament's committees with government majorities to actually do their job. The House Standing Committee on Economics, as we heard the member for Goldstein rabbit on about earlier, and the Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services are powerful committees. They're always described as such in the media. In fact, the Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services has one of those rare own-motion inquiry powers—it can actually go and initiate inquiries into anything without a reference from a minister or a house of parliament. That's a serious power and a serious responsibility. It's got formal responsibility to inquire into the activities of ASIC and the Takeovers Panel. It also has purview over the ASX, the ACCC, APRA and AUSTRAC. The committee is required to examine the annual reports of the Financial Reporting Council, the Australian Accounting Standards Board, Australian Auditing and Assurance Standards Board and the Companies Auditors Disciplinary Board, amongst others.
Under Labor, these committees did serious and important work. I'll give you an example. Under the former Labor chair of the joint committee, Bernie Ripoll, 10 years ago, they launched a serious inquiry into the collapse of Trio Capital that assessed the failure of the regulators in a very methodical way—a brutal way, some might say. They handed down a serious report into the regulatory system and the serious reforms that were needed to overhaul it, which were then implemented. Bernie Ripoll was also responsible for the Future of Financial Advice reforms—landmark reforms, as they were described and still are. Under this mob, though—little serious work. So far, in this term of parliament, the joint committee has handed down two reports—two reports in two years. In the last term, they handed down five in three years. In the term before, they handed down four in three years. Yet, in the last term of the Labor government, from 2010 to 2013, there were 21 reports in three years. This committee did serious work. It was taken seriously by Labor members. They did important landmark work which has stood the test of time. This mob, under the Liberals, have been failing to do their job on these committees, going off on ideological frolics and personal political vendettas.
One of the two reports that the committee's done this term was into litigation funding, an ideological pursuit by a bunch of extreme right-wing backbenchers—senators and members—trying to get their names in the paper. It was a politically motivated inquiry that was trying to make it harder for ordinary Australians to access justice in the courts. Their objective was to shut down public interest litigation and have a few little wrecks on the way through to weaken corporate regulation—weaken disclosure requirements. What did the stakeholders make of their work? They said it was a great day for the corporate cowboys to weaken disclosure of corporations. The committee's work got bagged by everyone, and that was only one of the two inquiries. It's no wonder, with that kind of work, that the royal commission said, 'We need some more oversight in this area.'
But then the member for Goldstein in the Economics Committee stood accused last term of misusing the committee, shamelessly, for political purposes and party political objectives. He was accused 'of improperly using a taxpayer funded inquiry into Labor policy'. He racked up more than $200,000 in travel bills, hotel bills, car bills and room hire bills to have a series of public hearings—better described as public circuses—around the country. They didn't actually have formal witnesses, like every other parliamentary committee I've been on; they were just free-for-alls, like an angry mob they whipped up, telling untruths about Labor policy. Worse than that, though, they colluded with private interests. His own relative Geoff Wilson founded a company that's managing $3 billion of funds, including two that the member for Goldstein had a personal interest in, which he didn't declare at the committee hearings. He was—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Wallace ): I'm just going to caution the member for Bruce to be very careful.
Mr HILL: I'm being very careful. I've researched this, and I had a look at exactly what was reported—what was referred to the privileges committee and the Speaker's report. This is all factual. It's a fair caution, and it's all factual.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Alright. The member for Bruce has the call.
Mr HILL: He stood accused of coordinating the committee's hearings, not doing serious work on the regulators but running a public circus around the country, having a crack at the Labor Party. He was not doing his job of examining government policy or looking where regulation could be improved; he was running a public circus on the taxpayer bill around the country, coordinating the committee's public hearings with a private company's meetings. He set up a dodgy website; this was all referred on. Initially, it was a personal website on his Liberal Party website, with the Commonwealth logo on top. If you wanted to register to come to the hearings, first you had to sign a petition and give your details, which were then mined and used for a Liberal Party database, because people got spammed. You had to sign the petition to be allowed to come to the hearing. Then there were the fundraisers that were held around the committee activities.
Deputy Speaker Wallace, I'll keep my words brief, because I know that you can't respond from the chair. It was the Deputy Speaker here who was handing out membership forms for the Liberal Party at the public hearings. This was referred to the Speaker. His report noted that the actions failed 'to conform with the conventions usually adopted by the Chair of the House Economics Committee' and specifically called the handing out of Liberal Party material as 'inappropriate'.
The member for Goldstein, of course, has a great advantage over most of us in this place; he really does. It's not his intellect or his judgement, his intelligence or his charm; he has no shame, because he's at it again this term with this nutty personal idea to use superannuation for housing. As everyone has said—serious economic commentators and even former Treasurer Joe Hockey—that's just like pouring petrol on the fire of current house prices. Putting more cash in people's pockets as they go to bid at an auction pushes up prices. It's all demand side. You don't make housing more affordable by making it more expensive. You may as well put a vacuum cleaner into your super account to suck the money into the pocket of the guy selling the house, because the only people who benefit from this policy—being driven by the Chair of the House Economics Committee running a political proposal instead of doing serious work oversighting the regulators—are people who already own houses. Let's be clear on that.
The member for Goldstein owns five properties. He's declared them on his register with his husband. It's not the people trying to get in the housing market who'd benefit as house prices go up. To his credit, the Treasurer said no. The member for Goldstein has been pushing this big idea, using the committee's time on this. He wrote to the Treasurer and said, 'I want to do an inquiry into this—have another circus to beat up Labor.' The Treasurer said, 'Yeah, but no. We won't be doing that.' He's not deterred, though. He was out this morning still pushing the idea and bagging his own government. Perhaps that's clever. It looks like he believes in something. Pushing demand-side measures through the House economics committee, not oversighting the regulators—hence the need for this bill and the royal commission's finding—is incredible hypocrisy whilst he's out actively opposing investments in housing by superannuation funds.
I make the point that we do support this bill. The royal commission found it necessary to recommend it. The government is doing it in a minimalist way. It's not really committed to it. But we have to call out the failure of government members, backbenchers, to take seriously the parliamentary committee processes. There has been a revolving door of chairs of the joint committee, and I do hope that through your chairmanship, Deputy Speaker Wallace, which has started out well from early signs—I'll reserve judgement—we see an acceleration in work and a degree of seriousness which has been lacking for eight years under this government. There have been two reports this term, four reports last term, five in the term before that and 21 under Labor, who took this issue seriously. We wouldn't need legislation like this, we wouldn't need more bureaucracy and more regulators and the royal commission wouldn't have been found necessary if government MPs had been doing their job and not running party political services misusing committees of the parliament, wasting taxpayer money.
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (11:56): I rise to speak on the Financial Regulator Assessment Authority Bill 2021. Can I say, having sat through the speech of the previous speaker, the member for Bruce, it makes me tired of this place. Personal attacks on other members: why can't we be debating ideas in this place rather than constantly sniping? It really does put this place to shame. What I want to do in my contribution is actually talk about some ideas.
This idea, which is going to be legislation now, of establishing a regulator for ASIC and APRA is very important. As we know, it was a recommendation of the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry, a royal commission that many of us in this place had the idea for and pushed for in different ways. It eventually took the then Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, kicking and screaming to the decision where he called that royal commission. Now there is hardly anyone who would say that that royal commission was a bad thing, or that the idea of doing it was a bad thing. It proved to be a good thing in coming up with recommendations that would clean up some of the unethical acts that we've seen in the banking sector and in looking at our regulators APRA and ASIC and what they were doing, or what they were not doing, to police banks and insurers.
I hope that this regulator is going to be on the ball in looking at what ASIC and APRA are doing and what they're still not doing. One of the things that have concerned me about ASIC and APRA is their drift into wokeness, their drift into politics, their drift into ideology, their drift into the extreme environmental movement. We now have ASIC and APRA, both, coordinating what essentially is not some government policy but some sort of quasi policy of theirs that they're pushing on banks, on companies and on insurers. What I talk about was reported earlier this in the Australian, on 18 January:
Corporate watchdog puts climate change warnings into action
An internal briefing document to the corporate regulator has shown the regulator putting its climate change warnings into action, revealing deep-dive surveillance of five of the nation’s biggest listed companies.
The document, prepared for internal eyes in August last year, came only two months after ASIC temporarily suspended its investigations in June on the back of the COVID-19 pandemic.
These deep-dive surveillances of five companies in the energy, real estate, materials, consumer staples and industrials sectors have seen corporate regulators examine climate-related disclosures in public documents released by the companies. These include annual reports from those five companies, and any sustainability, environmental or climate change reports or policies.
So what we have is ASIC doing deep dives on major companies in this country, not for some underhanded operations that they've been involved in, not for swindling mum-and-dad investors, not for maybe hostile takeovers or some manipulation of the share market or anything like that, not looking into big banks and their lending practices still, but the focus seems to be on climate change and climate change risk. Okay, we all have to be aware of risks, but what are the actions that ASIC wants to put in place here? It almost seems to me that what they're saying to company directors is, 'Get ready for a change of government policy,' which would only happen if the other side got into power and we have things like a carbon tax or, as they like to call it, 'the fixed price on carbon' or an emissions trading scheme. That's not policy at the moment and it will never be policy while we are in power, I would hope. But if the other side gets into power, yes, there could be a risk to business. But what business is that of a regulator, to be determining what might happen in the future based on politics? It is no business of ASIC. It is also no business of APRA, which is doing exactly the same thing.
I have had people in the insurance sector come to me saying, 'Look, yes, we are driving a bit of a green agenda; yes, we are walking away from some businesses based on the fact that they've got something to do with thermal coal.' But you know what's partly driving it? I'll tell you the three things they said was driving it. The first is activist shareholders; the second is major institutional investors, who are basically activist shareholders themselves; and the third is the regulators going outside of their remit and pushing this woke green ideology on to company directors and saying, 'You've got to do this.' Now, that is beyond the pale; it's not government policy to do it.
What the hell is going on in APRA? What the hell is going on in ASIC? These people need to get back to their core business. Their core business is policemen finding out whether there's white-collar crime going on, whether banks are doing the wrong thing, whether companies are doing the wrong thing, whether they're swindling customers, whether they're swindling investors, whether insurance companies are doing the wrong thing. I have to tell you, there's a plethora of examples still; there was a whole heap of them that weren't touched that the banking royal commission exposed. These people were twiddling their thumbs or had other digits up other places, not doing their core job; instead, focusing on this wokeness—ridiculous stuff. And to think that they're getting paid by the taxpayer to sit around and talk about, 'Oh, what climate change risks might emerge in the future?' and 'We should impose this on company directors,' when it's not government policy. It's not government policy at all. So I say to all those pinheads in APRA, to all those pinheads in ASIC: get back to your core job. I really do hope that the Financial Regulator Assessment Authority that's going to be established is going to have the courage to actually say that to these people in ASIC and APRA. They need to get back to their core business. They need to get back to being policemen for the business sector, for banks, for insurers, for the financial services sector, not being some ideological driver of environmental wokeness.
Dr MULINO (Fraser) (12:04): As earlier speakers on this side of the chamber have indicated, we will support the Financial Regulator Assessment Authority Bill 2021. But I think it's important to indicate the context in which we will support the bill. This is—I think everybody would agree—a minimalist response to a couple of recommendations arising from the Hayne royal commission. But we shouldn't forget that this is a drip-feed approach that we're getting from the government in response to that royal commission, a royal commission that they never wanted—which is reflected in the way that they're responding to it. Some years down the track, we've seen barely more than a third of the recommendations of that royal commission acted upon. We see dribs and drabs come into this chamber, when in fact, as earlier speakers on this side have indicated, some of the systemic issues that were highlighted by that royal commission remain unattended to. This is a sector that is absolutely critical to not just Australia's economic wellbeing but the wellbeing of so many vulnerable people. So we need to see much more urgency from those opposite when it comes to dealing with some of the substantive issues relating to that royal commission.
As earlier speakers on this side indicated, when we look at the specific issue being addressed here, the regulatory culture in relation to ASIC and APRA, the government had problems in that culture raised many years before the royal commission, by the Financial System Inquiry, and they sat on their hands for year after year. Then, when it was clear that there were issues in relation to regulatory culture but also in relation to abuses of many vulnerable people, it took many years to drag this government finally to implement a royal commission. The government voted over 25 times against a royal commission being held. They never wanted the royal commission. As I indicated earlier, we are seeing that reflected in the fact that, having had the royal commission recommendations handed to it, this government now is dragging its feet in responding to the royal commission recommendations.
The royal commission, when it was finally called—despite the government's hesitation and despite the government having voted against it over 25 times—received thousands and thousands of submissions from people who had been abused in so many ways by major actors in the financial services sector. We saw people who were receiving fees for no service. We saw conflicts of interest. We saw charges to dead people. As speakers in this debate have indicated, we saw many instances of inappropriate behaviour.
What we're seeing in this bill is that, having had all of that brought to light, there is too little urgency in fixing the system. This bill relates to recommendations 6.13 and 6.14. We're happy to support a mechanism that responds to those. Those recommendations related to the fact that APRA and ASIC should be subject to quadrennial capability reviews and that a new authority should be established to assess the effectiveness and capability of financial sector regulators. What we're seeing here is the establishment of the Financial Regulator Assessment Authority. It is a minimalist model that will create a statutory body consisting of three appointed part-time members and the Secretary of Treasury, as an ex officio member. It will be responsible for providing a biennial assessment to the minister on the effectiveness and capability of ASIC and APRA, and it will be supported by a secretariat of Treasury staff. Even though we might not have implemented it in precisely the way that it is being implemented, we do support an implementation rather than nothing. But I do want to stress, in providing context to these remarks, that this is yet another bill in this area which is belated and yet another bill which is too narrow in scope.
In supporting the establishment of the Financial Regulator Assessment Authority, it is also important to acknowledge that there are a number of existing oversight mechanisms, as earlier speakers have indicated. There are two prominent committees in the Australian parliament. There is ministerial oversight. There is oversight by the Australian National Audit Office. There are public governance frameworks. And there is oversight by the IMF Financial Sector Assessment Program. So it is going to be critical that the work of this new authority dovetails with and complements the work of existing oversight mechanisms.
This debate has prompted an assessment by a number of contributors to this debate as to the effectiveness of some of the parliamentary oversight of ASIC and APRA. I want to make a few observations on that as a member of the House Economics Committee. The chair of that committee spoke earlier, and it was a fascinating insight into his assessment of or his views on how that committee should operate. He stressed at the beginning of his comments that he defends the right of all members of the committee to ask whatever questions they wish. I would also defend the rights of committee members to ask whatever questions they wish. But I also say that committee members should be held to account for the questions they ask, for the emphasis they take and for, where it can be shown, the bias that they might show.
One could argue—and I would certainly say—that the chair's speech at times developed into a bit of a rant against the industry funds. He said early in his speech, 'I'm not biased.' But if one were to then read the following 10 minutes of the transcript, it would show his speech was on his allegation of crime after crime after crime by industry funds. One would be left after reading that speech thinking that the problems in the financial services sector were all about industry superannuation funds. It was a rather bizarre confluence: 'I'm not biased,' and then 10 minutes of focus on one single part of the financial services sector. Again, it's rather strange that that was the entire focus of his rant, given that the Hayne royal commission largely gave that sector a clean bill of health.
Here we are, as I indicated earlier, in a very belated way responding to recommendations arising from the Hayne royal commission. Here we are, years after that royal commission was handed down, with a government that's barely responded to a third of the recommendations of that royal commission. Here we have the chair of the economics committee, in response to an assertion that we as a committee aren't paying enough attention to the Hayne royal commission, spending 10 minutes of his speech in a rant about a part of the sector that got a clean bill of health. This is exactly what the deputy chair and I and other members of this committee have pointed out on occasions. We don't deny the member for Goldstein the right to ask whatever questions he wants. We don't deny that, where there are instances of bad behaviour in that sector, light should be shone on them. But it's a question of proportionality. It's a question of bias. It's a question of asking: 'Are we using our time and our resources to the best effect?' The entire focus of some members of the committee seems to be on one part of the financial services sector, almost to the exclusion of all others, and on pushing a particular highly misguided policy option.
As members on this side have pointed out, the committee is also being used at the moment as some kind of vehicle for what is sometimes described as 'housing first, super second', which is a nice bumper sticker. But it is really a demand-side policy flop, which I don't think any serious macroeconomist or housing expert has publicly come out to support. Here we have a committee where we have a royal commission with many recommendations yet to be implemented for the largest and most complex sector of our economy, and our committee seems to be focusing on a sector that got a clean bill of health from that royal commission. We seem to spend an inordinate amount of our time trying to support some policy with not a single economic expert backing it up. I might say, not only is not a single economic expert backing it up but not a single member of the frontbench of this government, not a single economic minister of this government, is backing it up. We have a chair desperately wanting us to hold an inquiry into something he's written a book about, but fortunately the government is not having a bar of it.
Let's look at some of the things that this committee—or, rather, government members of this committee—has spent barely any time on. Have they looked at the super guarantee increase in a way that balances the pros and cons? It's fortunate that the government has backed down on its threat of not following through on its election commitment to increase the superannuation guarantee, but I didn't see many members of the government on this committee holding the government to account on that side of things.
Let's look at the threat in terms of legislation, which we are going to discuss later today in this House, to exclude the consideration of administration fees from evaluating fund performance. Is that something government members looked at in detail? Is that something government members focused on? There was barely a word. The government members were focusing on the ills of industry super funds, but a deeply flawed bill which was going to exclude the consideration of admin fees—which would have had an extremely deleterious effect over the long run on members' final balances, particularly those on low incomes—got barely a mention by members of the government on the committee. Again, fortunately the government has backed down on that. There are other objectionable parts of that bill which we still need to see them back down on. Fortunately, they've backed down on it, but no thanks to the government members of that committee.
What about early release? Consideration of early release of super, which is a fundamental undermining of people preserving assets in super for their retirement, has barely been examined in detail by members of the government. To the extent that we've looked at early release, it has tended to be an attempt to back up vanity projects and policy thought bubbles, like removing massive amounts of funds for housing in a way that would do nothing other than drive up prices and have extremely damaging long-term consequences for people's retirement balances.
Let's look at the hearings themselves—and this is a point that has been made publicly by the deputy chair and backed up by other opposition members of the committee. The emphasis in hearings, in terms of the amount of time allocated to different parts of the financial services sector, has indicated a lack of appropriate priority to royal commission hotspots, to concerns raised by the royal commission, and to areas of concern in the financial sector that have arisen since the royal commission. We have seen a number of entities drawn into multiple lengthy hearings with very little connection to anything raised by the royal commission. For example, we've seen fund managers called in to give evidence if they have a relationship with industry funds, but no fund managers, no other actors in that part of the financial sector supply chain, in other parts of the sector. It's clearly an uneven and biased way in which to examine the sector.
Then there's the weight—the amount of time that is allocated. We've had lengthy hearings for multiple industry funds, who have been given a clear bill of health and who have very healthy returns, whereas one can only question the amount of time that has been allocated to funds who've had serious questions raised about their returns or other governance issues. When it comes to the big-picture issues, like ensuring that people get high returns over the long run and that they pay low fees relative to those returns, I would argue that there has not been an appropriate focus by the committee over the course of this term of parliament.
As the chair did, I defend everybody on the committee's right to ask whatever questions they want of members who come to public hearings and to ask whatever questions they want on notice. But I would say this: this bill raises a question about the effectiveness of parliamentary oversight. I think there is a real question mark as to whether or not our committees—the House Economics Committee, as an example—have been focusing on the issues that matter most for the welfare and financial security in retirement of ordinary Australians.
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (12:19): Thank you, member for Fraser. I say this quite sincerely: I am someone who loves finance. From a very early age, I was someone who got compound interest. I was someone who understood the important role that finance can play in a modern society. It has done more to set people free and improve the lives of the downtrodden and the vulnerable than any other invention in the history of humanity. When William Pitt was asked how did he win the Napoleonic Wars, most members of the House of Commons expected him to answer: 'Why? It was Horatio Nelson that won it for us.' He said, 'No, no, it was the government bond market, because without that I could not have been able to fund the war.'
In the state of Alabama in the United States, some technical laws that they introduced in the mid-1980s didn't allow credit bureaus to exist or do their work the way the modern credit bureaus do. The result of that was that it impoverished the very people who it was meant to protect. People on low incomes, people who didn't have assets and people from marginal communities found it impossible to get even small loans so that they could get out of the circumstances into which they found themselves or into which they were born. When they reformed their credit bureau laws and allowed credit bureaus to do the role and the work that they should do—that is, using computers and models to allow financial institutions to make assessments on what sort of financing people could do—they found a growth in capital, they found a growth in loans and they found that the rate of poverty declined absolutely and completely.
There are three types of market failure. The first type is unpriced externalities, where somehow you are getting something for free that is actually costing someone else a lot of money. It's best described as the free-rider effect. The second is asymmetric information, where people are basically buying a good from a seller who knows a lot more about what they're being sold than the buyer. And the third, of course, is regulatory failure.
I have listened to the Labor Party during this debate, and I have to say I've been appalled. Instead of using this as an opportunity to point out how we can use one of the greatest inventions in the history of humanity to further help those who are impoverished to be able to stand on their own two feet, how we can take people in marginal and vulnerable communities and give them the opportunity that all of us, or many of us, in this chamber got simply by right of birth and provide that to them, they have come in here to criticise those on this side, who hold their donors to account. If there is a bigger clown in this chamber than the member for Bruce, I don't know how that is possible.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Freelander ): I remind the member to use parliamentary language.
Mr FALINSKI: Indeed, Deputy Speaker, and I would hope that, as you were not in the chair at the time, that those rules and those standards are applied to all members of this chamber equally, because I cannot think of a speech that the member for Bruce has given recently where he has not managed to use unparliamentary language and criticised people who disagree with him, not because of their arguments, not because of what they are proposing to do, but rather simply because of who they are. Is that what the left wing of this country has been reduced to? He criticised the parliamentary joint committee for its reports since this term began and a critical report into litigation funders in Australia. I will only briefly take the time to tell the chamber what that report found. That report found that litigation funders in this country are driving a class action tsunami that is ripping off customers, investors, shareholders and ordinary Australians who have no opportunity or cannot possibly comprehend what they are signing up to.
We have seen a recent class action here—those on the other side should keep this in mind—and, when they won an award from an employer who gave them money simply to go away, they kept 97 per cent of the payout. Those who they sought or pretended to represent received less than three cents in every dollar, yet their funds—the ones that would answer our questions, I might add—are having returns of 580 per cent. In the old days, that would be called usury. Yet the Labor Party, the member for Bruce, comes into this chamber and defends them over ordinary Australians. It is absolutely beyond my capacity to comprehend how the Labor Party can possibly do that. They fought tooth and nail to protect the outrageous profits that are being earnt on the back of Australians who do not have any other way of seeking justice. They continue to support a class action legal industry that puts profit before justice.
The member for Bruce, I might add, failed to mention that Maurice Blackburn, on the very day that the Victorian government said they would allow contingency fees into the Victorian legal system, which have been recommended against by the ALRC, the Australian Law Reform Council, and by every credible body known to this House—we have seen the disaster of contingency fees in the United States, where more money is spent on class actions than on R&D and creating jobs. On the very day that the Victorian government ignored all that advice, this committee that the member for Bruce apparently derides was able to discover that the then Attorney-General of Victoria, Jill Hennessy, had a meeting with Maurice Blackburn, and on that very same day Maurice Blackburn donated $100,000 to the Labor Party. But of course it had nothing to do with that meeting! They gave it to federal Labor, not to state Labor! This is the work that parliamentary committees do. This is the work that those on that side want to shut down.
The member for Fraser, a person that I hold in the highest regard, makes the point that the Economics Committee has been undertaking an inquiry into the implementation of the Hayne royal commission's recommendations. What we've found in that inquiry is that the Hayne royal commission was deficient. It was deficient in its inquiry; let this chamber be in no doubt. It brought forward two industry funds for questioning. It never questioned IFM, another donor to the Labor Party. It never questioned Industry Super associations.
We asked APRA, 'How is it that Industry Super can be using members' money, when members were never asked whether they wanted to give that money to Industry Super—it was taken from them by force of legislation and industrial agreement—to pay journalists at the ABC?' The answer from APRA was that they didn't know, because Industry Super holdings were so complex that they had no oversight. The Hayne royal commission had two industry funds come before it who admitted that they had spent tens of millions of dollars on marketing to fund managers for no clear benefit to their members, but it just let the inquiry cease, stop. What we on the Economics Committee have found is a cartel that is using the money of Australians to probably advance the political interests of that body. But we don't know that, because our regulators have refused to do it. I'm not saying 'have not wanted to' or 'have been incapable of'; they have refused to do it. And the Labor Party wants to shut that discussion down.
The member for Bruce can't count, and he's on the PJC. He says the PJC has only brought down two reports. We've already doubled that. No, Member for Bruce, starting an inquiry is not the same as finishing one. If you continue to make the mistake of ignoring quality for quantity, then that is all I need to know about those opposite. The things that we have uncovered, the abuse that has been underscored—and isn't it funny; when you give all of this to a royal commission full of lawyers, what do they come out with? Apparently the answer is more lawyers, more inquiries, more regulators. Does anyone in this chamber seriously think that a group of public servants are going to hold another group of public servants to account better than the parliamentary committees in this place? Where were the Australian Law Reform Commission when litigation funders were getting returns on equity of 580 per cent? Where were they?
Where were they when there were litigation funders based in Singapore, Holland and Ireland? As the tax commissioner described them to the Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue, it's almost like a checklist of tax evasion. Where was ASIC when all of this was happening? I'll tell you what ASIC was doing. They were cheering them on! They weren't standing up for Australians. They were standing up for themselves.
And the Labor Party wants to shut down the parliamentary oversight committees or don't like the questions we're asking? Where were they on that side? Coming in here, outraged at the fact that ordinary Australians were seeking justice because of some wrong that has been done, who find themselves getting three cents in the dollar.
Let us have a moment to reflect on financial planners and what has happened to financial planners. As I say, we have one of the best financial sectors in the world. There are very few other places where unfunded liabilities, looking forward, are less than three per cent of GDP. We, in this place, have done that. But I assure you: regulators did not achieve that. We have one of the best payment systems in the world. That was not achieved by regulators. That was achieved by ordinary Australians going out there and having a go.
The buy-now pay-later sector in this country—those opposite want to shut it down. ASIC wants to shut it down—to kill it with a thousand cuts of inquiries, until it no longer exists. Only the parliamentary oversight committees have brought them to heel on the question that they cannot legislate and they cannot argue for more laws to shut down a service that is providing so much freedom for so many Australians and makes our nation a fairer one. If it were left, I'm sure, to a group of public servants, all that they would do is tick it off.
So we're implementing this Hayne royal commission recommendation. I'm sorry that it's taken us so long. There was this little thing called the global pandemic in the middle. But, in the meantime, Australians have found themselves with some of the world's best financial services and products.
But I would direct members to the interim report of the Hayne royal commission—that was the report not written by lawyers—which made the point that Australia has 4,000 mortgage products. An ordinary Australian trying to buy their first house has to navigate the 4,000 types of products that they can get. This, in behavioural economics, is called 'sludge'. This, in the legal community, is called an opportunity. What the report recommended was actually to get rid of the asymmetric information created by the endless number of recommendations for more regulation coming out of ASIC and make it easier for consumers to understand what the differences between the products were. What about that? What about actually saying to hardworking Australians: 'We're going to give you the opportunity to choose. We're not going to give it to litigation funders, to class-action lawyers and to more public servants.' Well, of course, that entire report got shredded before it made it into the final report of the Hayne royal commission. But we're implementing that report.
The same people who made these arguments said: 'No, no, no; we need to really put a lot of regulations in place around the mortgage market. We'll misname them "the responsible lending laws"'—which, as history has shown, were just the most irresponsible piece of legislation in the financial sector to come out of this chamber. People who got their loans before the responsible lending—or irresponsible lending—laws, actually have lower rates of credit default than those who got theirs under them. We now have banks that have to ask you if you can produce your Uber receipts; we now have banks who have to ask you how often you go to the hairdresser and if you get your hair coloured—because, apparently, that's the big difference! We have a royal commissioner who thinks that computers and algorithms and machine intelligence are not as good at determining someone's household expenditure as someone's own memory and that we should have banks that go through that over and over. (Time expired)
Ms HAMMOND (Curtin) (12:34): I rise following that very passionate speech from my colleague the member for Mackellar. I don't take his antipathy towards lawyers to heart or personally, and I do note and endorse the comments he made with respect to litigation funders, class action lawyers and financial advisers. Having served on the committee to which he referred, I know that significant and important work was undertaken by that committee highlighting a lot of issues, which the member for Mackellar eloquently and loudly stated in this chamber.
I'm pleased to speak in favour of the Financial Regulator Assessment Authority Bill 2021. In 2019 the government released its response to the banking royal commission. The government's response committed to taking action on all of the recommendations of the banking royal commission and made additional commitments to ensure that the issues identified by Commissioner Hayne were addressed. The royal commission report is lengthy, but among the many recommendations contained within it were a number related to ASIC and APRA. This bill gives effect to recommendations 6.13 and 6.14 of the report. Specifically, 6.13 recommended that APRA and ASIC be subject to at least quadrennial capability reviews, and 6.14 recommended the creation of a new authority to assess the effectiveness and capability of each regulator. The rationale behind these recommendations of the royal commission was that, while ASIC and APRA operate within complex accountability frameworks already, the regulators' effectiveness in delivering on their mandates is not subject to consistent and independent review over time.
The array of external assessment that ASIC and APRA are already subject to is outlined in the explanatory memorandum—and I understand that other speakers today have referred to it—but, just by way of recapping, those scrutiny levels include parliamentary committees. I've served on two of those committees. I was on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services and I'm currently sitting on the House Standing Committee on Economics. I'd hate to think that these committees don't serve a purpose, otherwise there's a lot of wasted time. In my view, these committees do serve a very useful purpose. They are public when they hold inquiries. Meetings are conducted with both ASIC and APRA. They are made public. It's an opportunity for the public to see two regulators being held formally to account. The same happens in Senate estimates when they're called to make representations and respond to questions. These committees do serve a purpose. But, as the financial services royal commission pointed out, while these committees do serve excellent purposes, there are some limitations in these bodies with respect to some of the oversight of a regulator that is required. For example, the level of expertise of parliamentarians is diverse and it's not necessarily all in financial services regulation, thank heavens, but, because of the diversity of the background of parliamentarians, their ability to drill down and grill both ASIC and APRA on specific and technical issues is limited.
Other areas of oversight include, obviously, ministerial oversight. ASIC and APRA both have to report annually against the government's Regulator Performance Framework. They are also bound by the public governance framework established by the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act, which includes requirements such as the publication of annual reports containing statements of performance. But I do note that this doesn't require that measures of effectiveness that are included in the corporate plan are assessed by any external third party. So, yes, they have to make the information available, but it currently is not assessed by an external third party.
Of course, these bodies are also subject to annual audits by the Australian National Audit Office. The Australian National Audit Office also has the ability to undertake ad hoc audits of other matters, but the key phrase here is 'ad hoc'. The ANAO has responsibilities over a wide range of organisations, so its capacity to spend any detailed time on particular organisations or to conduct more than ad hoc investigations is limited. The two bodies, ASIC and APRA, are also subject to the International Monetary Fund's Financial Sector Assessment Program, which reviews regulators on a five-yearly basis. Again, they serve a purpose, but their purpose and their role are quite limited in scope.
In short, the royal commission found that, while ASIC and APRA are currently subject to a lot of scrutiny, there are key gaps in the current level of scrutiny and accountability. Predominantly, the gap that was identified was with respect to how well the regulators performed against their statutory mandate. Is there anybody that is actually focusing strategically on their performance over a period of time?
In its response to the banking royal commission, and through this particular bill, the government is creating the Financial Regulator Assessment Authority. The FRAA will be a statutorily independent authority consisting of three appointed part-time members, including an independent chair, and the Secretary of the Department of Treasury as an ex-officio member. It will be supported with resources from the Department of Treasury. Under this bill, the FRAA will assess and report on the effectiveness and capability of ASIC and APRA over time. This is the gap that is currently not being addressed by any of the existing oversight mechanisms. Reports on each of ASIC and APRA will be produced either biennially or at the request of the responsible minister. The minister is also able to request additional ad hoc reports from the authority on any matter which relates to the effectiveness and capability of ASIC and/or APRA. The FRAA's role and activities are designed to complement and augment the existing external accountability mechanisms that apply to the regulators, not to duplicate them. Its reports will inform and improve the performance of the other accountability measures. So it is to sit alongside and booster and give a more holistic picture to ensure that all aspects of ASIC and APRA are being properly regulated.
The key thing that this comes down to—and I think it came out in the royal commission quite clearly—is that, for both consumers and financial service providers to have confidence in the financial sector, we need to have trust and confidence in our regulators. To have trust and confidence in our regulators, they must be independent in fact and they must be seen to be independent. Of course, they are ultimately accountable to the parliament, but they must in fact be independent bodies.
In setting up independent bodies, we have to ask the question: who regulating the regulators? Parliament has its role, as we saw before. We have got parliamentary committees and we have got ministers, but we need a level of expertise. The FRAA is being set up to provide that level of expertise in the oversight of our regulators. Our regulators perform an incredibly important function in our financial services sector, both nationally and internationally, in ensuring confidence in Australia and in our financial services. We must have efficient and effective regulators. The royal commission identified that that is perhaps something that we need to step up on, to make sure that we've got the capacity to address it. As to the governance structures of ASIC, by virtue of serving on a number of the committees, I do have questions about the current governance structure of ASIC. A body such as the FRAA, when established, will be able to actually look into the governance structure and make recommendations as to whether or not it is effective in carrying out the mandate of what ASIC is set up to do.
This particular bill, in setting up the FRAA, goes to a key plank of accountability, of integrity and of ensuring that our financial services system maintains that level of integrity and that level of confidence from people. Setting up this body will help to ensure that people dealing with our systems can be satisfied that we've got regulators who are effective, who are independent and who are doing the job that we need them to do.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts) (12:44): I would like to thank all members who have contributed to this debate. The government is committed to implementing its response to the Financial Services Royal Commission and is delivering on this. The Financial Regulator Assessment Authority Bill 2021 creates an authority which will be charged with assessing the effectiveness and capability of the Australian Securities and Investment Commission and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority.
The Financial Regulator Assessment Authority (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2021 facilitates the flow of confidential information between the regulators and the authority. By improving the accountability of ASIC and APRA, these bills will help to restore trust and confidence in Australia's financial system. I commend these bills to the House.
The SPEAKER: 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 immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
The House divided. [12:50]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (12:51): The question now is that this bill be now read a second time.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
The SPEAKER (12:53): I have received a message from His Excellency the Governor-General recommending in accordance with section 56 of the Constitution an appropriation for the purposes of this bill.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts) (12:54): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Financial Regulator Assessment Authority (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2021
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 FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts) (12:56): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 3) Bill 2021
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (12:56): I'm happy to be speaking on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 3) Bill 2021, which implements a number of minor Treasury law amendments and budget measures. I foreshadow that Labor will be supporting the bill. I also understand that there'll be a second reading amendment moved by the member for Indi. I've had the benefit of having a look at that amendment, and it makes a lot of sense. I foreshadow that Labor members will be supporting that amendment as well.
Mr Snowdon: Are you sure?
Mr STEPHEN JONES: Yes. The member for Lingiari is often hard to get over the line on this one, but I think party solidarity will get us there! As I was saying, the bill deals with a number of minor Treasury law amendments, most of them pretty straightforward. I'll go through and speak to each of the five schedules.
Schedule 1 increases the low-income threshold for the Medicare levy, changing the thresholds in line with changes to the consumer price index. This is obviously necessary to ensure that that income threshold keeps pace with cost-of-living increases, with a modest increase this year of some $400 that is nonetheless meaningful over the longer term. The changes cut across single households, pensioners, families and students and will keep the Medicare levy payment thresholds in line with inflation. We'll be supporting that.
Schedule 2 expands the objective of the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Act 2018, otherwise known and hereafter referred to as NHFIC, to allow NHFIC to assist eligible single parents with dependants. The stated purpose of this measure is to allow the government to implement its policies in relation to support for single parents entering the housing market. It's a modest proposal, and we're going to support it. But we don't for one moment pretend this is going to be a solution for the housing problem affecting Australia at large. On our assessment, this will benefit single mums—I think about 10,000 of them; there are about 100,000 mothers who fit the category—who are currently earning a salary somewhere between $80,000 and $120,000 a year, not rich by any stretch of the imagination if they've got a family that they're supporting. But I think all fair-mined people would have to acknowledge that it is a relatively small proportion of single mums who are seeking a housing solution who will be benefited by this. It's not a reason to oppose it, but it is a reason to say that we actually need to do a lot more than this.
Look at the problem that we have with homelessness and the problem that we have with housing affordability. Anybody who has been going to housing auctions in the last few months will have seen, week after week, young couples turning up only to have their hearts broken, as the house that they had their hearts set on purchasing will have sold for prices 10, 20, 30, 40 and sometimes even as much as 50 per cent above the indicative price. I was talking to a staff member—not of my office, but of this place—in recent weeks. They said a house they went to bid on went for over $100,000 above the advertised price, and this is not an isolated incident. Our great concern is that most of the policies that are emanating from this place, and from other parliaments as well, are actually making the problem worse, not better. They're putting more fuel on the fire and not doing anything with the supply side of things and not doing anything to level the playing field.
It's why we were vehement in our opposition to a proposition that was being peddled by some members opposite to raid superannuation to make payments to purchase a house. The problem with a policy like that is that it hurts somebody twice. It robs them of retirement savings, but it also means that that one-off and sustained effect will push housing prices up immeasurably. We don't need a crystal ball to work that out. We only need to talk to real estate agents around the country and ask them, 'What is the net impact of schemes like the HomeBuilder scheme on auction and housing prices around the country?' They'll all say: 'Well, it's great for us. Our commissions are bigger because the housing market is booming and the housing prices are going up. We love it. We're big advocates for it. We're the No. 1 fans, because it means as house prices go up our commissions go up.' And house prices are certainly going up: six per cent last month alone and a forecast for 10 per cent this year and another 10 per cent next year. That's a 20 per cent increase in a little under 18 months. As house prices go up, commissions go up—bully for them. I make no criticism of real estate agents, that's their business, but it does nothing to assist with housing affordability. In fact, it makes the problem worse.
It's why the member for Grayndler, the leader of the Labor Party, made the centrepiece of his budget-in-reply address housing and our housing affordability measure. It's not the whole answer, it's a part of it, and there will be more to come. But it is important to acknowledge that there is a group within our country for whom—due to whatever circumstances—private home ownership is either not currently within their grasp and not likely to be currently within their grasp or private home ownership is never likely to be within their grasp—because of income or other reasons. We can't throw these people on the scrap heap; we can't leave these people behind. We have to ensure that there is a housing solution for them, which is why I was so proud that the first instalment of our measure is 30,000 new homes.
And the great thing about that policy announcement is that it's a jobs policy as well. The 1-in-10 rule tells us that one in every 10 workers on a site—which would be funded and working to deliver these 30,000 new homes under Labor's policy—would be an apprentice. And what a damn good thing that is, because we've got a shortage of apprentices. We've actually got less apprentices working and less apprentices in training today than we had in 2013. The population has gone up and workforce has gone up, but apprenticeship numbers have plummeted. That is an indictment on this government playing catch-up. If you're struggling to get a sparky, a plumber or a chippie out to your house, or the prices you are paying seem extraordinary, it's because we've stopped training for a decade. And the lazy solution, which is to just bring people in from overseas—is lazy, indeed—is also robbing our kids of the opportunity to get a trade and get a start in life and perhaps some day start their own business. Which is why this policy, the Labor policy, is superior to what the government is proposing.
We don't oppose this, by the way. If we can help 10,000 single mums into a house—good! It's an important job to do, but it's not job done, which is why our policy goes much further than that, at not a cent to the taxpayer, by the way, which is a point that needs to be made. It's an investment and not a cent to the taxpayer because of the clever way that Labor's policies have been put together.
Schedule 3 of the bill is going to exempt eligible payments made by Australian governments to thalidomide survivors from income tax and social security and veterans entitlements income tax. It was an oversight when the payments were made and a good thing it is being fixed. The use of thalidomide in the 1950s and 1960s was a tragedy, an absolute tragedy. There are still people among us living with the disabilities and deformities that were a result of that failure in public health. So we welcome this provision, which will remove the eligible payments that they receive for the course of their thalidomide injuries from taxation and income tests for payments emanating from this parliament.
Schedule 4 is an interesting one. It is in a similar vein. Schedule 4 provides an income tax exemption for qualifying grants made to primary producers and small businesses affected by the February and March 2021 floods and storms. It's a small measure of assistance for those businesses, and Labor welcomes it, but it does give us the opportunity to make the point, and again remind the government, that they've been damned good at making announcements about these funds but damned lousy at getting the money out the door. There are still households, businesses and enterprises which have been promised lots in relief for bushfires and floods but to whom the money hasn't flowed. They see that the Prime Minister, who wouldn't hold a hose during the crisis, won't hold a pen to sign the cheque that he promised that they were going to get, and that, frankly, is not good enough. So we welcome this provision but remind the Prime Minister that making an announcement is not delivering an outcome. If press releases were going to deliver outcomes to flood- and fire-affected communities, they'd be cock-a-hoop by now, but they're not, because the press release hasn't been followed up by the money that was promised, and that's not good enough. It is too little, too late and not good enough.
I will deal with schedule 5, which includes several new additions to the list of deductible gift recipients under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. It is welcome to see the Alliance for Journalists' Freedom and the Judith Nielson Institute for Journalism and Ideas on the list, because on this side of the House we see the importance of independent journalism and quality journalism free from government interference—an important point. The media serves as a guardian of our democracy. It keeps us all honest in this place. Too often we see the government using, for example, the power of the purse string in relation to the ABC and SBS as a means by which to silence critics within those media organisations or the power of the pulpit to attempt to jawbone and silence critics from other media outlets. To their credit, the majority of journalists don't cower to this sort of pressure, but it doesn't stop those on the other side day after day—they've got glass jaws, and that's the problem. They're always the first on the front foot to go out to level a criticism, but they're the first to grab the box of tissues when somebody levels a criticism at them, and there is no bigger glass jaw in this place than that worn by the Prime Minister. So we welcome the fact that DGR status has been granted to both the Alliance for Journalists' Freedom and the Judith Nielson Institute for Journalism and Ideas. Good, tick. But, if you really want to do something to support independent journalism in this country, get out of the game of revenge politics, punishing the ABC for quality and independent journalism, and stop using the pulpit and the forums available to you to badger, harass and discredit those who write articles about us which from time to time we might find uncomfortable. That's the best thing you could do for quality journalism in this country.
I also note that the Andy Thomas Space Foundation has been granted DGR status. For those in this place who don't know, Andy Thomas is an Australian hero. He was our first Australian astronaut, selected by NASA in 1992 to become a member of the Astronaut Corps. During his four space flights, he spent over 177 days in space. If you think being in lockdown during COVID was a restriction on your movement, just picture 177 days in a small capsule, floating outside the orbit of Earth. But what a contribution he made, undertaking vital scientific experiments, visiting the Russian Space Station, Mir, before it was deorbited, back in 1999. A foundation set up in his honour is a good thing, and listing it, as a recognition of the importance of the space industry and space science to Australia's future, is a great thing. It enjoys our support. Hear, hear!
The Great Synagogue Foundation is another new entry on the DGR list. They preserve the historic Great Synagogue in Sydney. It's a cornerstone of Australian Jewish history and the community in Sydney and more broadly in New South Wales. It should be supported. Another important Jewish institution, the Sydney Chevra Kadisha, has been listed. This is the organisation which provides assistance, financial and otherwise, for funeral arrangements for Sydney's Jewish community. I also want to welcome the listing of the RAS Foundation, which is a charity supporting regional and agricultural communities, as well as Youthsafe, a charity providing training and support for young persons' safety.
These are all worthy of DGR listing. Of course, there's a long list of other organisations that seem to always miss the government's list, and we'd call on the government, the next time it has the opportunity to bring one of these Treasury laws amendments bills before the House, to be a bit more balanced in the organisations that it brings forward. We support each and every one of these, but we'd like to see more worthy organisations added to the list. With those comments made, and a pre-emptive congratulatory message to the member for Indi for her excellent second reading amendment, which I've had the benefit of perusing, I commend both the legislation and the amendment to the House.
Dr ALLEN (Higgins) (13:13): I rise to support the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 3) Bill 2021. This bill contains diverse amendments which are important to everyday Australians. These amendments may sound small individually, but let me assure you that, together, these amendments will deliver some really important outcomes for countless Australians. They address issues as diverse as ensuring affordable and accessible health care, ensuring women can more easily access affordable housing, and helping right the wrongs of those who have suffered from medical injustices in the past.
The Morrison government's commitment to providing accessible and affordable health care to all Australians is unwavering. That's why schedule 1 in this bill seeks to increase the Medicare levy low-income thresholds for singles, families, seniors and pensioners for the 2020-21 income year and future income years, in line with movements in the consumer price index. Doing this will ensure that low-income households who did not pay the Medicare levy in 2019-20 generally will not begin to pay for it in 2020-21, if their income has increased in line with or below the consumer price index. The Medicare levy low-income thresholds ensure the people who pay no personal income tax because of the tax-free threshold and structural offsets, such as the low-income tax offset or the seniors and pensioners tax offset, generally do not incur the Medicare levy.
We all know Medicare has never been stronger than under the Morrison government and never more than for those who do not have the financial means to pay for out-of-pocket costs. That is why I'm proud that this government continues to invest in Medicare bulk-billing and, as a result, GP bulk-billing rates have continued to rise to record highs. Last year, 89.3 per cent of all GP visits were bulk-billed—that is to say, almost nine out of 10 visits to the GP were provided with no out-of-pocket costs to the patient. As I said, Medicare has never been stronger than under this government. We've seen that through last year with COVID and we see that again this year. I'm proud that the changes made by this bill will help ensure that those on low or no incomes will continue to be able to access the healthcare they need, where and when they need it.
This bill is not only about ensuring we protect the incomes of singles, families, seniors and pensioners but also about making changes to ensure women's long-term safety and economic security. This is a fundamental priority for the Morrison government. Indeed, our approach is underpinned by the values of dignity, respect, equality and justice. As part of the budget handed down a fortnight ago, we're investing $3.4 billion in new measures to improve outcomes for women to rectify the significant gender divide that is an everyday reality for Australian women and girls. Fundamental in our response is the Family Home Guarantee, which is aimed at single parents with dependents to build a new home or purchase an existing home with a deposit as little as two per cent. This important amendment in this legislation recognises that the home is instrumental in providing a strong foundation for social, emotional and economic wellbeing. Everyone deserves a safe place to call home. By offering a helping hand to single parents, the vast majority of whom are women, and their children, we can give families the best possible start to life. Regardless of whether the parent is a first homebuyer or previously owned a home, eligible single parents can apply after 1 July this year for one of the 10,000 Family Home Guarantees which will be made available over the next four consecutive financial years. As a result, we are providing for those who have previously been locked out of the housing market, struggling as a single parent to save enough for a deposit while paying rent and often starting their lives anew if they've been through marriage breakdown. In conjunction with the Morrison government's cabinet women's task force and a host of other initiatives, this is just one way, albeit a very important one, we are creating further opportunities for women to fulfil their potential. There has never been a stronger voice for women in an Australian government than there is now.
The bill before us today also recognises the plight of victims of thalidomide, acknowledging the grave suffering caused by circumstances beyond their control that have resulted in a lifetime of pain and hardship. As a former paediatrician, I have seen the plight of thalidomide sufferers. It has been a dreadful period in the history of medicine. Thalidomide was said to relieve everything from anxiety to morning sickness for pregnant women. But what led to what is now undoubtedly known as history's greatest pharmaceutical scandal, through no fault of their own and unknowingly, mothers consumed this drug, resulting in approximately 10,000 babies born with severe defects in the 1950s and 1960s. I acknowledge that the fight for justice from survivors and their families has been too long and too hard; therefore, I welcome the national apology that will take place later this year that recognises the plight of victims of thalidomide and understands they have suffered from circumstances beyond their control, resulting in a lifetime of pain and hardship. I also welcome the construction of a site of national recognition for thalidomide survivors and their families. This is another important step in acknowledging the suffering experienced following this medical disaster. The Morrison government is taking further action in recognition of Australia's thalidomide survivors who have suffered so terribly. The 2021 budget measure includes payments to survivors in recognition of their suffering and increased cost of living due to disability, with the annual payments due to commence in the first half of the next financial year. The government is also providing ongoing support in the form of the Health Care Assistance Fund and the Extraordinary Assistance Fund to support survivors with healthcare costs and daily living expenses. Of course, further additional support is also being provided through funding other relevant services, such as the NDIS. These actions, I know, will be welcomed by the families and friends of thalidomide survivors as well as, of course, by survivors themselves.
I'd now like to turn to schedule 4 of this bill, which acknowledges the devastating impact on several communities across Australia of the most recent fires, floods and storms that have devastated properties and livelihoods. One of the changes within this bill is to qualifying grants. These grants are activated as a category D measure under the joint Commonwealth-state Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements 2018. They include small business recovery grants of up to $50,000 and primary producer recovery grants of up to $75,000. These grants can be life-changing to those flood and storm affected communities. We know that, following COVID, so many people have dealt with so much, and it can be easy to forget that there are so many communities around Australia that are rebuilding after what was an incredibly difficult period of their lives. The Morrison government understands small business. It understands that small businesses are the lifeblood of the economy, and the amendments in this bill ensure that the government continues to support and continually reassess the needs of disaster affected communities as they continue in their recovery. More information regarding these grants and other disaster assistance measures is available on the Disaster Assist website, and I encourage all affected Australians to access this website or contact their local member of parliament.
The final schedule of this bill, schedule 5, amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to expand the list of not-for-profits to benefit from tax deductable gift status. The list will now include, amongst others, very worthy organisations that support Australians, including Youthsafe, the Judith Neilson Institute for Journalism and Ideas and the Trustee for the Great Synagogue Foundation. The drafting of redistribution boundaries sees a welcome change for me in the population mix of the electorate of Higgins. If confirmed in July, and despite objections from Labor, including from the member for McNamara, the Jewish population in my electorate will rise from around three per cent to up to 12 per cent. As a committed supporter of Israel, I really welcome this redistribution, and I do hope that the community will support the redistribution going through. The organisations that will benefit from the changes in this legislation—in addition to the ones I've named, there are five more—will find that tax deductions will be applied to donations of $2 or more.
I'm particularly pleased about the benefits that will flow from this new listing to the Centre for Entrepreneurial Research and Innovation. The Centre for Entrepreneurial Research and Innovation, CERI, is a registered charity that aims to work with universities and research institutes to promote entrepreneurialism and the commercialisation of research and innovative ideas. CERI is a social enterprise for start-ups. It's focused on the people behind innovation. As an incubator, its programs have been designed to educate and empower early-stage entrepreneurs, PhD students and visionaries. Through education, mentorship, industry exposure and access to an extensive network of experts and like minded people, their mission is to enable the leaders and industries of the future. I have been to many cities in Australia and I'm very pleased that there are many incubator organisations like this that are flourishing across Australia. These sorts of programs are going to be important to our future, so I really am encouraged by the fact that the CERI program includes: a female founders network; customer development masterclasses, which will help to define the customer value proposition for new start-ups; and a CEO-in-residence program.
As Australia emerges from COVID, these programs are more important than ever to ensure we emerge as a smarter, not just stronger, economy. Innovation was seen through COVID. Who can forget the word of 2020 'pivot'? But now we need to capitalise on our ability to pivot. We are, after all, a country of enormous resilience and enormous resourcefulness. But we need to capitalise on the emerging capability as a country, and I welcome supporting organisations like CERI to enable that capability right across Australia.
In summary, this bill before us is diverse in its amendments but united in its intentions. Those intentions are the care and responsibility of helping change the lives of those less fortunate Australians for the better. It's about enabling others. It's about helping ensure the government is there for the people of Australia in their time of need—that government is not just by the people; it's for the people. I am proud of these proposed amendments and I commend this bill to the House.
Mr CLARE (Blaxland) (13:26): I rise to support the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 3) Bill 2021. I specifically want to talk about the Family Home Guarantee, which is part of schedule 2 of this bill. The Labor Party support this, but we support it like you would support a bucket of water in a drought: we'll take it, but it's not enough to fix the problem. It's not enough to make a really big difference. It's not enough to fix the housing affordability problem that we all know exists in this country.
There are one million single-parent families right across Australia, and a lot of them could do with this sort of help to buy a home. According to this legislation, this help will be provided to 10,000 single-parent families over four years—in other words, roughly 2,500 a year over four years. That's what the government's press release says. That's what Budget Paper No. 2 says. It's also what the explanatory memorandum to this bill says. It says, 'Up to 10,000 guarantees expected to be issued.' My question to the government, to the minister who's introduced the legislation, is: Is that it? Is 10,000 a hard cap? What if more than 10,000 people want to access this scheme? Will they be able to or not? It's not clear from this legislation whether they would be turned away.
The First Home Loan Deposit Scheme Guarantee has a hard cap. This is modelled on that scheme. Will this be a hard cap as well? If it is and if there are more single-parent families who want to access this scheme to buy a home, then they'll miss out, or at least their chances of buying a home will be delayed for another year or another year after that—and there are a million of them. Single-parent families do need a leg-up, a bit of extra help, to buy a home. I think we all get that. It's universally supported by members of this House. If there are a million of them in Australia, if this scheme is only going to help 2,500 a year over the next four years, a lot are going to miss out.
There's another group of Aussies who need help and who don't get help out of this scheme as well. Think about single-parent families where there are no dependent kids. I'm talking about single-parent families where the kids have left home. They might have gone to university, Mum and Dad might have got divorced or the family may have broken up for whatever reason. The fastest-growing group of homeless Aussies at the moment are older women, aged 65-74—people my mum's age or my aunty's age. I think we all know people in that sort of situation. When they get divorced and they split the assets, often it is the case that a lot of women don't have enough money to buy a house again and end up renting for the rest of their life and living on the pension. If you're renting and living off the pension, that's a recipe for poverty. This scheme doesn't do anything to help them.
If this scheme is going to help single parents, then it's also really important that they get the price cap right that this scheme will operate under. The legislation allows people to get access to this guarantee as long as they buy a home under a certain price. To get access to the scheme, you have to buy a house that's less than a certain level—and that's fair enough. You want to make sure that you're helping people on modest incomes. You want to make sure that you're helping people who are buying the sort of home that they can afford. But you also want to make sure that there are homes for them to buy. That's the critical thing. And the problem is, at least from what we've seen in Launceston recently, that there aren't.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Jakamarra, Mr Nelson
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (13:30): On Monday I had the honour, along with Senator Patrick Dodson, of attending the funeral of a compelling and outstanding Warlpiri leader, Jakamarra Nelson, a person whom I had the privilege to know and who was my friend—a mate. He was 77, and his life was driven by his identity as a Warlpiri man and an acknowledged leader. He spent most of his adult life as a warrior for First Nations people in the recognition for justice, land rights, self-determination and a voice to parliament. How disappointed he would be today, four years on from the Uluru Statement of the Heart, which simply and modestly asked for a constitutionally enshrined voice to parliament, a national process for agreement making and truth-telling, a desire for a secure voice that cannot just be abolished by the government, as the Howard government did with ATSIC. Jakamarra would be angered, saddened, but not surprised by this government's failure to meet these very modest requests.
What is it that the government is afraid of? Why can't they finally come to terms with our national obligation to just do the right thing? Commit to holding a referendum on a voice. Set up a makarrata commission, a process for truth-telling and decision-making. It is well beyond the time for action. There is nothing to be afraid of. Act now and you will have our support. Fail to act and, whatever you think, history will condemn you.
Rural and Regional Australia: Media
Mr DRUM (Nicholls—Chief Nationals Whip) (13:31): This week we learnt that WIN News will axe its weeknight bulletin in Shepparton. Also, Ballarat, Bendigo and Gippsland will lose their nightly news in favour of a statewide bulletin. Even in Queensland, even more regional services are being wrapped up into a statewide bulletin. This is a major slap in the face for regional and rural communities, who are too often treated as second-class citizens by city-centric companies. People have commented that this is another arrow in the heart of regional Victoria and that we need and deserve a quality and diverse independent news source.
As a keen consumer of local news, to me this loss of yet another regional media outlet is such a major blow. Fewer stories from the Goulburn Valley will be told, and less light will be shed on these important issues. Many of Australia's top television reporters cut their teeth on WIN, and, with inevitable job losses across the network, it is a major blow for young journalists.
WIN Corporation received federal government funding of almost $4.5 million in August last year which was dependent on WIN maintaining or increasing its production and distribution of public interest journalism in regional Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic phase. It can easily be argued that WIN has not upheld their end of this agreement. This is terribly disappointing for regional Australia, and I think that agreement needs to be looked at.
Uluru Statement from the Heart
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (13:33): It's been four years since Indigenous Australians came together to deliver the Uluru Statement from the Heart—four whole years. So today in this place, in respect, it is not my words but theirs, from the Uluru Statement from the Heart:
Proportionally, we are the most incarcerated people on the planet. We are not an innately criminal people. Our children are alienated from their families at unprecedented rates. This cannot be because we have no love for them. And our youth languish in detention in obscene numbers. They should be our hope for the future.
These dimensions of our crisis tell plainly the structural nature of our problem. This is the torment of our powerlessness.
We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country. When we have power over our destiny our children will flourish. They will walk in two worlds and their culture will be a gift to their country.
We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution.
Makarrata is the culmination of our agenda: the coming together after a struggle. It captures our aspirations for a fair and truthful relationship with the people of Australia and a better future for our children based on justice and self-determination.
It finishes with this:
In 1967 we were counted, in 2017 we seek to be heard. We leave base camp and start our trek across this vast country. We invite you to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future.
It is four years, and with extraordinary patience they still wait.
Rotary Far North Queensland Field Day
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (13:34): It's fantastic to be in a position to see a major event like the Rotary Far North Queensland Field Day going ahead as planned. The past year has been like no other. We have faced many challenges and continue to do so, but together as a community we've met those challenges head-on. Agriculture has always been a major pillar of our economy, especially up in my neck of the woods. It's played a critical role in our national recovery from this pandemic and will continue to play a critical role moving forward. That's why I have no doubt that next week's Rotary Far North Queensland Field Day is shaping up to be the biggest and best yet. The event will see up to 600 exhibitors, and an anticipated 10,000 people will pass through the gate each day over the course of the three-day event. This will result in a much-needed boost to the economy of our entire region. I want to acknowledge the work of the Atherton and Mareeba Rotary Clubs in making this event the success it has always been and will continue to be in the years to come. However, this event wouldn't be possible without the hard work and dedication of the amazing people behind the scenes who volunteer their time to ensure that the event is a success. To those people and the so many others who have been working so hard to help shape this magnificent event, I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation for their effort. It's greatly appreciated, and I have no doubt the 2021 Rotary Far North Queensland Field Day is going to be an outstanding success.
National Sorry Day
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (13:36): It's been four years since the Uluru Statement from the Heart was drafted and delivered, and what we've seen from this government, from those opposite, is nothing. It's been four years of postponing making a decision on what is a very modest ask—that we acknowledge the truth and the history of our country and give the world's oldest continuing culture a voice. But there's still no sign of a referendum on constitutional recognition of First Nations Australians—no action, no leadership. The seat of Solomon, which I represent, is on Larrakia land, and my friend Richie Fejo is the Chairman of the Larrakia Nation Aboriginal Corporation. His father is Larrakia, but his mother, Nanna Nungala Fejo, is a member of the stolen generation, taken from her family and her tribe in Tennant Creek. Her story was told by Kevin Rudd in his apology back in 2008, in this place, when there was action and leadership. Her story was told, and today is National Sorry Day, so I want to continue telling the story. First Nations Territorians are dying whilst waiting for compensation for the abuses that they suffered while in the Commonwealth's enforced care, in places such as the Retta Dixon Home in Darwin, in my electorate. They deserve a lot more than just sorry; they deserve some compensation, and Australia needs to do better now.
Pittwater Natural Heritage Association
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (13:38): Marita Macrae is the President of the Pittwater Natural Heritage Association, which strives to protect and preserve Pittwater's natural heritage. In my electorate of Mackellar we are extremely lucky—not just lucky but extremely lucky—to be surrounded by beautiful bushland as well as our magnificent coastal areas. It is not lost on me that, without organisations such as Pittwater Natural Heritage Association, our natural surroundings might not be around in the same way that I and generations before me have enjoyed. I hope, for my daughter's sake and the sake of every future generation to come, that they will be able to enjoy the beautiful natural surroundings of Pittwater. For this reason, the work that the PNHA is doing is absolutely crucial. The association raises awareness on issues such as native tree canopy; plant selections for gardens that will live in harmony with nearby bushland and provide habitat for native animals and birds; weed infestation; and keeping our waterways healthy, amongst many other critical issues in and around Pittwater. Marita and her team do an excellent job of advocating on these issues, helping to raise awareness within the community and, more importantly, doing something about it. I take this opportunity to commend Marita and her team and all their hard work with the Pittwater Natural Heritage Association. Mackellar needs people like Marita. Australia needs people like Marita and organisations such as this to ensure our natural beauty thrives.
National Sorry Day
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (13:39): Today is National Sorry Day and the beginning of Reconciliation Week. It's also the fourth anniversary of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. Four years ago, over 250 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people met at the foot of Uluru in Central Australia on the country of the Anangu peoples. The majority resolved in the Uluru Statement from the Heart to call for the establishment of a First Nations voice in the Australian parliament and in the Australian Constitution, and a makarrata commission to supervise a process of agreement making and truth-telling between governments and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
Today the Uluru Statement from the Heart has been awarded the Sydney Peace Prize for 2021. The judging panel called the Uluru statement a 'powerful and historic offering of peace' that was crucial to 'the healing within our nation'. Yet, here we are, four years later, and the Morrison Liberal government continues to place the utterly reasonable aspirations of the Uluru statement in the too-hard basket, just kicking that can down the road yet again.
The theme for Reconciliation Week is 'More than a word. Reconciliation takes action'. So I say to the Prime Minister and his government: it's time to take action to address the systemic issues that we've known for a long time like deaths in custody, the incarceration rates of kids and the rate of forced removal of children, which are shockingly high. It's time to take action to implement the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full. (Time expired)
Member for Boothby
Ms FLINT (Boothby—Government Whip) (13:41): When I announced that I would retire from federal parliament at the next election, I could never have anticipated the response my decision attracted. I have been humbled and somewhat overwhelmed by the outpouring of kindness and support from my local community and from so many people from around Australia. The beautiful cards, letters, flowers, gifts, emails, phone calls, text messages and visits from locals, all with such kind messages of encouragement and support, have been incredible.
I am so proud to have represented our community since late 2015, and I am so grateful to all of those who have reached out, popped into my office or taken the time to write. Many more have added their voices and support and kind words as I've spoken about the difficult experiences I've had here during my time in federal parliament. To all of those who have contacted me, I will be forever grateful for your incredibly kind support. As a member of parliament you sometimes forget how many very good and decent people there are in our community when you have been constantly subjected to the noisy and aggressive views of those less kind. So, today, I say a most sincere thank you to everyone who has contacted me to offer support. It has been an honour and a privilege to represent our local community in Boothby and to have served in the federal parliament over the past two terms. My sincere thanks to everyone who has offered their kindness and support along the way, but, most especially, this year.
Mayo Electorate: Business
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (13:42): The COVID-19 pandemic has certainly brought its challenges, and it is so important to note when it also presents opportunity and to pay homage to those who seize it. Producer and songwriter Tristen Bird, son of South Australian music icon Dean Bird, returned home to South Australia after 15 years on the Melbourne music scene and is now based on the Fleurieu Peninsula. Tristen's productions are regularly aired on Australian radio through the ABC and on community radio. Tristen has respected Australia, showcasing in Nashville at the AMERICANAFEST music conference and the Sounds Australia live music export program.
I recently visited Tristen's new recording studio, Palomino Sound Recorders, thoughtfully located in the old Myponga Market building, and it's co-located with so many other cool businesses, including Valley of Yore cafe. It is a truly exciting place. Tristen shared with me that it wouldn't have been possible to establish a studio of this standard anywhere else. His coming home has represented and presented so many opportunities, and I look forward to seeing his plans for expansion and for live music events to come to fruition. Many talented sons and daughters of Mayo have returned home where they have seized opportunities, and I welcome them with open arms and thank them for their investment in our community.
Moore Electorate: Sorrento Bowling Club
Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore) (13:44): Sorrento Bowling Club is one of the largest bowling clubs in Western Australia, with a membership base of 750 members. The club is located at Percy Doyle Reserve at Duncraig and currently features five high-standard lawn greens. Over the past six to seven years, the club has won numerous club-of-the-year awards, which is testament to the professionalism with which the organisation is managed. The club has recently received approval for the construction of a synthetic green. It aims to commence construction in early- to mid-2022. The club is required to put $180,000 towards the total cost of the project. On behalf of the Sorrento Bowling Club, I make a strong case for a federal funding contribution towards the cost of installing a synthetic green. This has many advantages for the club and its members, including environmental water saving, lower maintenance costs and the ability to be utilised in a variety of weather conditions. I call upon the Minister for Sport to favourably consider the application as part of the next round of sports infrastructure funding.
National Sorry Day
Ms KEARNEY (Cooper) (13:45): Today is National Sorry Day, marking 24 years since the Bringing them home report. We reflect on and grieve the profound harm done to stolen generations and their families. Saying sorry is important, but we must match our words with deeds. It has now been four years since the release of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, in which First Nations people called for a constitutionally enshrined voice to parliament and a makarrata commission to deliver agreement-making and truth-telling. There were three clear asks—voice, treaty and truth—yet four years later the government continues to place these very reasonable aspirations in the too-hard basket, kicking the can down the road. It's not good enough. Only First Nations people truly know and understand the suffering that has been endured since the colonisation of this ancient land.
I am lucky enough to be in the same party as Senators Pat Dodson and Malarndirri McCarthy and the member for Barton, Linda Burney, who have guided Labor's position on these issues. Labor is the only party which has fully committed to the Uluru statement. In the 1930s, the Aboriginal activist William Cooper—the namesake for my electorate—wrote to the King, asking that Aboriginal people be given a voice. Today, 85 years later, the fight is still on to achieve that.
Budget
Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne) (13:47): In this year's budget it was announced that, from July this year, brewers and distillers in Australia will be able to claim a refund of 60 per cent of the excise they pay, up to an annual cap of $350,000. It is a great advance. It means that Australian owned brewers and distillers will benefit and continue to grow and employ more people. I recently visited the Farmer's Wife Distillery, in the small village of Allworth, in the Lyne electorate. Kylie and Gavin Sepos produce a boutique, hand-crafted, world-award-winning gin flavoured by botanicals from Australian native plants. I was excited to hear that the business is doing so well and to see that they have plans to construct a bigger distillery and cafe along The Bucketts Way.
Helen and David Black from the Coastal Brewing Company in Forster are so excited because it will allow them to expand as well, and David—known as Jimmy Cox—and Haley from the Tin Shed Brewery in Dungog said this rebate will allow them to hire a full-time brewer. This is a really great initiative supporting the growth of Australian industry. Supply chain is all important, and that includes breweries. They are big employers in regional Australia, and I'm so glad the Liberal and National government is doing things to help small business grow in regional Australia.
National Sorry Day
Ms PAYNE (Canberra) (13:48): Today is National Sorry Day and also marks four years since the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The statement represents the coming together of First Nations people from all around the country. Addressing the Australian public, it calls for three things: voice, treaty and truth. Voice—a voice to this parliament, enshrined in our Constitution. Treaty, or makarrata—the coming together after a struggle, culminating in a makarrata commission established to oversee agreement-making between First Nations and governments. Truth—telling the truth about the history of this country. It is incredibly disappointing that we have seen no progress from the Morrison government on implementing this statement. They have essentially ruled out the constitutional reform that is necessary.
Self-determination, a voice to parliament, is the first step in beginning to address the intergenerational trauma and the disadvantage that is lived by First Nations people in this country. The statement points to First Nations Australians being the most incarcerated people on the planet and the fact that, today, their children are alienated from their families at unprecedented rates. The statement says:
These dimensions of our crisis tell plainly the structural nature of our problem. This is the torment of our powerlessness.
In 1967, the referendum meant that first Nations people were counted, but today they are still asking to be heard. I'm proud that the Labor Party is committed to implementing the statement in full. (Time expired)
Edwards, Hon. Sir Llewellyn Roy (Llew), AC
Mr HAMILTON (Groom) (13:50): I speak on the passing of Sir Llew Edwards. Sir Llew was an inspiration to so many young kids who grew up in Ipswich in the 1980s—kids like me. A Liberal MP holding the usually strong Labor seat of Ipswich did not at all seem out of place due to the extremes of his competence and his humility. He graduated from the Ipswich Grammar School in 1951 and was the absolute model of public service to which so many of us 'Ippy' boys aspired. Thanks to his influence, the school today has provided the LNP no fewer than four sitting parliamentarians—two in this place and two in the Queensland Parliament, including his great nephew Sam O'Connor. His legacy lives on in our public service.
I'm also proud to be one of the nearly 90,000 UQ graduates who upon our graduation from UQ shook his hand as chancellor. It was a duty he fondly remembered as one of the great thrills of his life, and it's indeed a moment that I fondly recall as one of the great thrills of mine. He was a giant upon whose shoulders so many people now stand. He was a Liberal Party leader for Queensland, a deputy premier, a Treasurer of Queensland, a chairman of World Expo 88 and, in 2010, named a Queensland Great. He made the world very much a better place.
Australian Constitution
Uluru Statement from the Heart
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (13:51): Tomorrow, it will be 54 years since Australians were asked to right wrongs. They did. Over 90 per cent of Australians voted yes in the 1967 referendum to amend the Constitution to allow the Commonwealth to make special laws relating to First Nations people. Only eight out of 44 referendums have been successful, and the '67 referendum question to right wrongs was the most successful ever. The Australian people did the right thing, and more than 90 per cent of them voted yes. More than 90 per cent of Australians wanted to right wrongs. That amendment to the Constitution has been enormously significant to First Nations people and to all Australians. It allowed this parliament to enact the Native Title Act in 1993. It allowed Australians to recognise, as Paul Keating said at Redfern, that it was 'we who did the dispossessing'. Keating also said, 'We failed to make the most basic human response and enter into their hearts and minds.' Sadly, we're still failing on that measure.
The modest request in the Uluru Statement from the Heart four years ago was for a voice to parliament. Today is Sorry Day. It's time we really entered the hearts and minds of First Nations people by having a voice to parliament. Australians will do the right thing. We want to right the wrongs, but it takes a government with courage and conviction. Sadly, that is not the government that we currently have. A pea heart in a husk just won't cut it.
Breast Cancer
Endersby, Ms Frances
Ms HAMMOND (Curtin) (13:52): Earlier this month, I joined 80 women and men at the North Cottesloe Surf Life Saving Club to listen to three incredible women speak and raise awareness about breast health. It was also an opportunity to support the Harry Perkins Institute through the Walk for Women's Cancer. Established in 1998, the institute recently made headlines through the discovery of a gene that causes one of the deadliest forms of breast cancer. This is a significant breakthrough which will save thousands of lives. At the club, we heard from Dr Jenny Rogers, a GP from my electorate; and Dr Anita Bourke, a dual trained nuclear physician and senior breast radiologist. These two expert speakers were joined by a young woman—the organiser of the event, in fact—called Frances Endersby.
Frances—or Frannie, as we like to call her—works in my electorate office. Frannie was diagnosed in July last year with breast cancer—a triple-positive invasive ductal. At the time, Frannie was 32. It was inspiring to watch the Frannie we know and love courageously and positively navigate the new world her diagnosis brought upon her. I'm pleased to report that Frannie is now well and is devoting her considerable energy to raising our awareness of women's health. She's also rocking a fantastic pixie haircut as her hair grows back!
Australian Constitution
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs) (13:54): The Uluru Statement from the Heart is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Australia to put right one of our greatest wrongs, the lack of proper recognition in our Constitution of our original inhabitants. As Labor leader Anthony Albanese said at Uluru last month: 'With grace, patience and unadorned power, the statement’s authors mapped out the path forward for us as a nation.' Sadly, the government has rejected this path, using excuses that my colleague Senator Patrick Dodson, a key figure in that historic agreement, has described as 'a cop out from people not prepared to face the truth of our settlement narrative'.
So let me state clearly: Labor supports the Uluru Statement from the Heart. If this Prime Minister is not prepared to work with Labor on bringing about proper constitutional recognition of our First Peoples, then Labor in government will implement the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full. We will move to place a voice to parliament in our national Constitution and establish processes for truth telling and treaty through the creation of a makarrata commission. The Uluru Statement from the Heart is an extraordinary act of generosity, friendship and reconciliation. For the sake of all of our people, it is a gift we must accept in that same spirit for the benefit of all our people.
Perth Football Club
Mr IRONS (Swan) (13:55): The Perth Football Club, in my electorate of Swan, announced a new partnership with Hungry Jacks, with the full funding of a new community engagement manager. The club has several community development programs that address areas such as youth leadership and Indigenous engagement through their football based programs. This new role allows the Perth Football Club to coordinate and deliver these programs and continue to expand the club's reach within the metropolitan and regional zones. The funding of this new role is a significant step forward in their community engagement and enables them to (1) deliver the Macmahon schools programs to the primary and high school students in their zones, (2) deliver regional satellite training programs located in three major country towns, Northam, Moora and Mingenew, (3) deliver a regional education program, (4) work with the Aboriginal engagement officer, and (5) continue to build a relationship with the town of Victoria Park. Perth are pleased to announce the appointment of Fraser McInnes to this role. Fraser has previous experience in community engagement during his time as a player at the West Coast Eagles. Fraser views the role with great importance as giving back to the local community. Targeting disserviced youth within their zones by using football to engage and reach these groups is a key outcome that the football club wants to achieve. Congratulations to the Perth Demons and to Fraser McInnes in his new role, and congratulations to the Perth Demons for beating the South Fremantle Bulldogs unexpectedly last Saturday.
Australian Constitution
Ms BURNEY (Barton) (13:57): It has been 13 years since the apology to the stolen generations in this very chamber. Today is 26 May. It is Sorry Day, and it is four years—four long years—since the Uluru delegates issued a kind, generous and inclusive statement to all of us as Australians. It said:
We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution.
… … …
We seek a Makarrata Commission to supervise a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations and truth-telling about our history.
The incarceration of our people, the separation of families and the systemic social and economic exclusion of First Peoples diminish us all as a nation. Labor is committed to this statement in full, and the hand of bipartisanship to those on that side of the House still remains. A referendum is not beyond us as a nation, and the poor excuse, 'It might fail,' is just that, an absolute excuse. It will not fail if there is bipartisanship and the argument is made properly about the Uluru statement.
Beachside Country Festival
Mr CONAGHAN (Cowper) (13:58): The last 15 months has been very tough for many industries. One that has been hardest hit is the arts and entertainment industry, but it's coming back, and it's coming back through this government's $200 million RISE Fund. Another $25 million has already rolled out the door, supporting 66 arts and entertainment projects. So it was great to be able to pick up the phone and speak to Simon Luke of Sand Events in Port Macquarie and tell him that he'd been successful in securing $240,000 from the RISE Fund to bring the country to the beach. Beachside Country will bring top Australian and international musicians to Port Macquarie and also to Sandstone Point in Queensland, creating an energetic country music festival with food, trucks, street art and all kinds of performances at iconic beachside locations. Simon knows how to put on a show. He started Festival of the Sun 16 years ago and since then has produced over 30 festivals and worked with over a thousand artists and crew and, importantly, has created job opportunities for the arts and entertainment— (Time expired)
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 43 the time for members' statements has concluded.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
COVID-19
Mr MARLES (Corio—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:00): My question is to the Prime Minister. The current Melbourne COVID outbreak has been linked to a man who caught the virus while in hotel quarantine in South Australia. If the Prime Minister had fulfilled his responsibility for creating a safe national purpose-built quarantine system, wouldn't Australians be safer today?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:00): I think that is an outrageous slur to put on the South Australian government for the way they have acted, as indeed all states and territories have acted consistent with the national cabinet decision of March a year ago, where together the Commonwealth and the states have worked together to put in place a system of quarantine administering state public health orders that has had a 99.99 per cent effectiveness rate.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
Mr MORRISON: The Leader of the Opposition says it is 'going well'. I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to name the one country in the world today—
Mr Albanese: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The SPEAKER: No. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The SPEAKER: No, you won't. The Prime Minister can ask the Leader of the Opposition to answer as many questions as he wants, but that is not how question time works. The Prime Minister has the call.
Mr MORRISON: that has a quarantine effectiveness rate greater than 99.99 per cent? There is not one. If I had said to this House more than one year ago that, working together with the states and territories, we were putting in place such a regime which would have achieved that a level of effectiveness then they wouldn't have believed me and they probably would have opposed it, because what we have seen from the Labor Party throughout the pandemic, dragged great kicking and screaming on every occasion—
Mr Giles interjecting—
Mr Robert interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat! The Prime Minister resume his seat. The members for Scullin and Fadden will leave under standing order 94(a). The Prime Minister has the call.
The members for Scullin and Fadden then left the chamber.
Mr MORRISON: As the government has worked together with the states and territories to fight this virus, all the Labor Party have been interested in doing is fighting us and now they fight amongst themselves. What we will continue to do is have more than 1,000 ADF personnel out supporting this arrangement, half a billion dollars supporting the national resilience facility put in place in the Northern Territory, as recommended by the quarantine systems review conducted for national cabinet.
Even today, I was speaking to the acting Premier in Victoria about working together now on what I think is a very comprehensive proposal that was received from the Victorian government only weeks ago. Unlike those opposite, I'm not going to attack the states;—
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my right!
Mr MORRISON: I am going to thank the states for the great job they are doing. I am going to thank those people who are—
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Members will cease interjecting. The level of interjections is ridiculously high, and you don't need to be terribly experienced to know this is a very bad time to interject. As I said yesterday, when every member on one side is interjecting, I will certainly take action and I will take action against those I notice have behaved poorly in the past or who are behaving poorly today. The Prime Minister has the call.
Mr MORRISON: It seems I woke up the sleepwalkers over there! That's what it seems. We're going to keep working with states and territories to ensure that not only the quarantine systems we put in place in partnership but the contact tracing work that has been done, especially by the states and territories—
Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lyons will leave under 94(a).
The member for Lyons then left the chamber.
Mr MORRISON: I commend the Victorian state government for the work that they are doing, even now, to ensure that they are tracking down all of these cases through the systems that have particularly been— (Time expired)
Economy
Mr YOUNG (Longman) (14:04): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister please update the House on how the Morrison government's economic planning is delivering lower taxes and more reliable and affordable energy for Australian businesses and workers to create more jobs and continue driving our recovery from the pandemic? Is the Prime Minister aware of any alternate policies.
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:05): I thank the member for Longman for his questions. I was very pleased to be with him last week visiting a very innovative small business—
Mr Burns interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Macnamara will leave under 94(a).
The member for Macnamara then left the chamber.
Mr MORRISON: that are not only putting Australians in jobs but also helping their employees get into their own homes. Lower taxes is making that possible. Lower taxes—whether it is lower taxes for the employees who are working in these business or particular investment incentives that are ensuring that businesses can put the investment in through the instant expensing write-offs that are in place, the research and development tax concessions or the new patent box arrangement, which will significantly lower the investment in new medical technologies that not only save lives but also employ a lot of Australians and achieve significant earnings for this country—are creating jobs and creating investment. It's all part of Australia's recovery plan that was set out by the Treasurer in the budget.
But there's another important component of that, and that is ensuring that we are reducing electricity prices, putting downward pressure on electricity prices, and ensuring that businesses in this country—and particularly in regional areas in the heavy industries of this country—can get access to the affordable and reliable energy they need to keep people in jobs. And we're doing that at the same time as seeing emissions reduce by 19 per cent since 2006. Like economies, such as Canada, have had a zero per cent reduction in emissions. Here in Australia we have achieved a 19 per cent reduction in emissions since 2005.
But we want to keep making things in this country, as we are. We want to keep producing aluminium, whether it is up in Gladstone or down in Portland or up in Tomago. We want to keep making steel, whether it is in Whyalla or other places. We are doing that by ensuring that they get the affordable and reliable energy they need, not just now but also into the future. That's why $76.9 million was put into the Reliability and Emergency Reserve Trader scheme in Portland—to keep the Portland aluminium smelter open. It's why we've invested through Snowy-Hydro into the Kurri Kurri gas plant—opposed by those opposite. We get a yea from the member for Hunter, we get a nay from the member for McMahon and we get a maybe from the member for Geelong and from the member for Corio—they are all over the place on this—and, when it comes to the Leader of the Opposition, who knows what he thinks! The Kurri Kurri plant is supporting jobs in the Hunter. It is supported by those on this side and it is opposed by the sleepwalkers on that side in the Labor Party.
Then there is the ARENA CEFC initiative, which will see more invested in carbon capture and sequestration on soil carbon, on lower emissions technologies and on hydrogen. That is opposed by members opposite, by the sleepwalkers opposite, who have their eyes closed to the needs of regional heavy industry business. (Time expired)
COVID 19: Vaccination
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (14:08): My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, how many of the Victorians infected in the latest COVID-19 outbreak were vaccinated?
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Aged Care) (14:08): I am happy to seek that information from the Victorian government.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left!
Mr HUNT: We actually don't have access to the personal details of individuals under the confidentiality—
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my right!
Mr HUNT: It's a legal matter. But, having said that, I am happy to say that Australia has just had a record vaccination day—which I am sure will be welcomed by those on the opposition benches.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr HUNT: So 104,000 Australians—almost 3.8 million Australian all up—have now been vaccinated. That is good news for Australia. What that shows is that, as we have expanded access to vaccination, everybody over the age of 50—
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Minister for Health will pause for a second. I'm issuing a general warning. If members want to continue interjecting, I'll eject them. There's no point in me repeating myself over and over again. I'm going to be unusually succinct. If anyone doesn't understand what I'm saying, feel free to approach the chair. Members on both sides.
Mr HUNT: Everybody over the age of 50 has access to vaccination in Australia, and we are seeing those numbers increase both in our general practice—
Mr Watts interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Gellibrand will excuse himself from the House under the provisions of standing order 94(a).
The member for Gellibrand then left the chamber.
Mr HUNT: where, between the general practice and the aged-care vaccinations, we've seen over 60,000 vaccinations in the last 24 hours, and through the state system, where we have seen approximately 40,000 vaccinations. Those two systems are working together. What that means is that more Australians are being vaccinated every day. Three weeks ago was a record week. Two weeks ago was another record. Last week was a record. This week we've already seen a record daily number of vaccinations—
Ms Madeleine King interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Brand will excuse herself from the House under the provisions of standing order 94(a). I'm just making very clear to the House, members might be happy to behave in an unparliamentary way every single question time. I'm not prepared for that to continue. I'm making it very clear.
The member for Gellibrand then left the chamber.
Mr HUNT: of 104,000 vaccinations, but very significantly that includes two other critical figures. In our aged-care population, 95 per cent of facilities have already been vaccinated, and that includes 15 out of 15 in the local government area of Whittlesea, which have all had second doses. It also includes the fact that, as of today, 50 per cent of the over-seventies around Australia have been vaccinated. That is a fundamental and important protection because, as we expand our ability to be vaccinated, we start with the most vulnerable. We then work our way through, and what we see is that those in aged care have a 95 per cent vaccination facility— (Time expired)
Regional Australia
Dr WEBSTER (Mallee) (14:12): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House how the Morrison-McCormack government's economic recovery plan is creating jobs and driving growth in regional Australia?
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development and Leader of the Nationals) (14:12): The member for Mallee represents an electorate in regional Victoria in which the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program is having such a benefit. Indeed, the dozen councils in her electorate, just like the councils throughout each and every member's electorate, are receiving valuable funds under the LRCI program. In the member for Mallee's electorate, it is $73.5 million. That is substantial. That is getting jobs on the ground, workers on site, construction happening, and making such a difference. I visited Mallee last week and one of the projects that I saw was in the small town of Warracknabeal: population, 2,400. The local community, through Woodbine, a disability residential facility, has contributed $1.3 million to build a new disability accommodation centre. Through the Building Better Regions Fund, we contributed a further $1.2 million to build a new facility and refurbish the old one. The new facility will provide a fit-for-purpose accommodation unit for five people with acute disabilities. The project will support half a dozen jobs through construction and create a further 3.5 FTE jobs ongoing. They're not big numbers but they make such a difference to a small town, such a difference to the local community.
I also visited Mildura, where the Mildura South Regional Sporting Precinct has to be seen to be believed. It is one of the best sporting precinct—albeit not finished yet, but it's well on the way—in regional Australia. While you may laugh, but it's only a couple of months away. In only a couple of months it will be open and I look forward to going down there for the opening. When you look at that facility—last time I visited the site it was just a dusty old paddock, but, under the Liberals and Nationals, we've converted that, with the help of the local community and the local council, into a magnificent sporting precinct, comprising two full-sized football ovals with 500-lux light towers to AFL standard, a two-storey stadium with six indoor netball and basketball courts and more to come.
You know, when we invest in regional programs, we put it into the regions—unlike Labor. When they were in, it was Watson that got funding under a regional program! It's meant for country areas, it's not meant for the former member for Lalor's electorate; it's meant for the regions. That's why we support these important regional programs.
Daniel MacLeod, a director of local firm Building Solutions, said that the project had been an amazing opportunity for builders in his firm to use their skills to employ more apprentices. That's local delivery. (Time expired)
COVID-19
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:15): My question is to the Prime Minister. How many more outbreaks does there have to be until the Prime Minister understands that he needs to do his job and deliver a safe, national, purpose-built quarantine system and fix his bungled vaccine rollout?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:16): Well, there you see it, Mr Speaker—the bipartisan display in the fight against the virus! That's what we've seen from the Labor Party, all the way through this, at every opportunity, when they're tested: they'd rather fight the Liberal Party—fight those Tories! That is the reason the Leader of the Labor Party came here. He didn't come here to work together to get solutions. He just came here to fight and fight the Tories. Fighting the Tories isn't going to fight the virus. That's what this government is doing. Under this government, working with the states and territories, 30,000 deaths have been avoided in this country when you compare it to the average of OECD countries around the world. There are more people in jobs today than there were before the pandemic. The Leader of the Labor Party may want to play politics with the pandemic. He may want to—
Mr Frydenberg interjecting—
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Treasurer will cease interjecting. I remind the House again that I've issued a general warning. The Prime Minister has been answering the question for exactly a minute. It was a very specific question. He's entitled to a short preamble. Can I say, he's had a long preamble and he needs to bring himself to the specifics of the question.
Mr MORRISON: Half a billion dollars invested in the national resilience facility for quarantine in the Northern Territory—that was the recommendation of the Halton review that went to national cabinet, commissioned by national cabinet, to supplement the support that is being provided in the exercise of public health orders at a state level, as agreed by the national cabinet, to fight this pandemic. We're working to the plan that the states and territories and the Commonwealth agreed as part of the national cabinet. The Leader of the Labor Party opposed the national cabinet. Then he said he wanted to be on it. Then he opposed it again and said it was useless. This is a Leader of the Labor Party who hasn't sought to help—
The SPEAKER: Can I just say to the Prime Minister—
Mr MORRISON: the government fight the virus—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order?
Mr Burke: A point of order on direct relevance: what the Prime Minister is saying now is neither relevant nor true.
The SPEAKER: I'll just say to the Prime Minister: he needs to be relevant to the question. He's had a preamble, and he doesn't get a closing statement. He's had the preamble. I'm making myself very clear.
Mr MORRISON: Mr Speaker, I was making direct reference to the quarantine system put in place by the government, with the states and territories, as part of the national cabinet—
The SPEAKER: Okay, I'm going to say to the Prime Minister—he can pause—he had done that, and he'd moved on. And I'm asking you to return to the question.
Mr MORRISON: I'm happy to do that, Mr Speaker—
The SPEAKER: I don't care whether you're happy or not.
Mr MORRISON: Okay.
The SPEAKER: You need to return to the question.
Mr MORRISON: Half a billion invested in the national resilience facility, putting in place support to go with a further system around the country, done with the states and territories, that has delivered a 99.99 per cent effectiveness rate for quarantine in this country. That is just a simple fact. That is the system that this country has put in place. They are the facts of the effectiveness of the system run by our states and territories, together with the Commonwealth. Those opposite may want to talk it down. Those opposite may want to undermine public confidence, whether it's in the vaccine program or in the quarantine system—
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will pause. The member for Isaacs will leave under standing order 94(a).
The member for Isaacs then left the chamber.
Mr MORRISON: Those opposite seek to play politics with the pandemic, as they have done right from the outset.
Disability Services
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (14:19): My question is the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Briony has incomplete quadriplegia following an accident two years ago that broke her neck. Briony receives limited funding to help with showering and toileting. No funded rehabilitation or funded regular care or respite is funded. If Briony had been 64 when she broke her neck, she would have an NDIS package and support tailored to her needs. But Briony was 66. Minister, how is this not age discrimination, and when will the government agree to recommendation 72 of the aged-care royal commission report calling for equity for older Australians with a disability?
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Aged Care) (14:20): I want to thank the member for Mayo. I understand the circumstances of Briony and her family, and I want firstly to thank and acknowledge her support and her care, and the difficulties that they face.
Part of our response to the royal commission has been to invest very specifically in the needs of those with greater distress. We have done this through a combination of investments—without knowing Briony's particular circumstances, and I would be happy to work after this question on that—whether that is within home care or within residential. Within home care, there has been a $7.2 billion investment, and that home care includes 80,000 packages and also an uplift in the amount of funds that are available specifically for respite. That may well be able to assist in Briony's particular circumstances—again, without knowing the particular conditions.
Secondly, there are our investments in residential care. Residential care, of course, drove much of the reasoning behind the Prime Minister calling the first ever royal commission into aged care in Australia. In residential care, we have approximately $7.8 billion of investment, and that investment includes $7.2 billion which goes directly to an uplift in the $10-a-day basic daily fee, and that's then followed by increased support services, as we adopt the new funding mechanism going forward.
What does that mean, though, for Briony? That means that there are more funds for better care. Specifically, what we are able to do, as part of that, is to make sure that there is greater inreach by doctors. There's over $300 million to provide a doubling of the Aged Care Access Incentive, which will bring more doctors into more aged-care homes. That will provide, in particular, better and deeper coverage for those with complex needs. This is also accompanied by the fact that we have bonuses for nurses of $2,700 and $3,700 a year to make sure that we have higher retention and higher entry into the system of qualified nurses. Together, that combination of funding, whether it's in home care or whether it's in residential care, will operate to take care of not just everybody but in particular those with higher complexity needs. One of the challenges which has driven the royal commission and has driven the response to the royal commission has been the need to focus on those with higher complexities, such as Briony.
Economy
Dr MARTIN (Reid) (14:23): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer remind the House how Australian families and businesses, like those in my electorate of Reid, are benefiting from the Morrison government's proven record of delivering tax cuts and generating new jobs? Is the minister aware of any alternatives?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Treasurer) (14:23): I thank the member for Reid for her question. I acknowledge her experience as a psychologist before coming to this place and her strong advocacy on mental health issues. I had the opportunity to join the member for Reid in her electorate recently to visit a small business, a family owned business, Cabelo Coffee, that is using our immediate expensing provisions to expand its production line, buy a new roaster and employ new people—exactly what this budget is designed to do. This is a budget that is designed to create more jobs and to lower taxes. There is the extension of the low and middle income tax offset, to support another 10 million taxpayers with tax relief; the extension of the immediate expensing provisions; and the extension of the loss carry-back provisions for another year. As well, there is the commercialisation of research and development, with a patent box for the medical and biotech industries.
I am asked if there are any alternative policies. We know that the Labor Party is hopelessly divided and confused.
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
Mr FRYDENBERG: I take the interjection from the twelfth man of politics, the member for Rankin: always carrying the drinks, never trusted with the new ball! He can't even get a question up during budget week! Now, the reality is the Labor Party is hopelessly divided when it comes to tax policy. You've got the member for Corio out there, effectively supporting stage 3, saying he does not want to get in the way of anyone and a tax cut. Then you've got the member for Rankin out there talking down the tax cuts because we know—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order?
Mr Albanese: Yes. It goes to relevance. I refer to your previous ruling, where you encouraged people on this side of the House to stay within standing orders, and you're quite right that they should. But, when government ministers can't go one minute on their issues without—just then—spending over 2½ minutes sledging the opposition, then you will get unruly behaviour, Mr Speaker. You will get that. This is question time, not sledge time.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my right and left! The Treasurer was asked about alternative policies; that does open the question up—and I agree that the manner in which these questions are answered can prompt unruly behaviour, no matter how unparliamentary that is. What I do ask of ministers is that, if they're asked about alternative policies, they have to actually refer to them, not give a political speech or a character assessment of the individuals. It's policies they've been asked about. So you'll need to stick to the policies.
Mr FRYDENBERG: The policy that we're interested in is the legislated stage 3 of our tax plan, which will help support more than 12 million taxpayers. The member for Corio seems to be speaking in favour of our stage 3 tax cuts. The member for Rankin, always in favour of higher taxes and, indeed, the co-architect of $387 million in higher taxes, is talking it down. But the Leader of the Opposition, in his dressing gown, in his sleep, in his slippers, is sleepwalking towards the cliff! He's sleepwalking towards the cliff, aided and abetted by the member for Maribyrnong! He doesn't know what he really thinks. He does not know what he really thinks! The reality is—
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I'm just saying to the Treasurer—there are a number of points I'm trying to make as clearly as I can. One is that I'm not going to keep tolerating the level of interjections. I think I've made that clear today. The other thing I'm not going to tolerate is rulings being acknowledged and then, frankly, ignored. I've asked the Treasurer to stick to alternative policies. If he wants to give a general character assessment of those opposite, he'll need to find another time to do it throughout the parliamentary day, no matter how much he's scripted it beforehand. The Treasurer has the call.
Mr FRYDENBERG: The reality is we have legislated tax cuts for more than 12 million Australians. The Leader of the Opposition does not know if he's in support of our stage 3 of the legislated tax policies—policies that are designed to create more jobs, policies that are designed to lower taxes, policies that are designed to encourage aspiration, policies that are designed to reward effort. We on this side of the House stand for lower taxes. We on this side of the House stand for more jobs. Those on the other side of the House stand for higher taxes— (Time expired)
COVID-19: Quarantine
Mr BUTLER (Hindmarsh—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (14:28): My question is to the Prime Minister, and I'll refer to his previous answer in relation to quarantine. Back in March, the Prime Minister announced that the capacity of the only national quarantine facility in Australia, at Howard Springs in the NT, would increase from 850 to 2,000 places by April-May. It's now 26 May. Why hasn't the Prime Minister delivered on that announcement, putting Australians at risk?
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Aged Care) (14:29): I'm delighted to address quarantine in Australia. As many would be aware, in the last day there were over 500,000 cases worldwide of COVID-19; there were over 11,000 lives lost to COVID-19. What we know in Australia is that our single most significant prevention against this global pandemic, our first ring of containment against this global influx, is our border protection and our quarantine system. The element that the Commonwealth has put in place as part of that is the national resilience centre. The transfer of responsibility is underway between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory. I should note that the Northern Territory has actually requested that it take responsibility for the facility at Howard Springs—the opposite policy to that, which is being proposed by the opposition. But that's okay, we're working directly with Chief Minister Gunner on that front.
At this point, what we're seeing is that that capacity is being expanded. We have already brought home two flights recently from India, and we have seen a far lower rate of positivity. We had a 13 per cent rate of positivity amongst arrivals from India. We then paused those flights. We put in place rapid antigen testing, PCR testing, which was overseen by Qantas, and what we have seen is that the result of that is we have two changes in capacity, not just the number of beds that have increased but the capacity of the system to deal with positive cases, because the second great limit is high levels of cases. We saw significant opposition and criticism to our actions to prevent the influx of cases from India from those on the other side. What we have seen is the Leader of the Opposition playing with the idea of importing positive cases to Australia—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The minister for health will resume his seat. The minister for health will resume his seat. I have now asked the minister for health to resume his seat for the third time! The minister for health can resume his seat, full stop. I'm not going to be ignored. We'll go to the next question. I asked him three times to resume his seat.
Energy
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (14:31): My question as to the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. Can the minister inform the House how the Morrison government is investing in technology to create jobs, support Australian industry and manufacturing and drive down our emissions, and is the minister aware of any alternative policies?
Mr TAYLOR (Hume—Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction) (14:31): I thank the member for Robertson for her question. As someone who previously worked in the telecommunications sector, she knows how important new technology is to creating jobs, and that includes in her electorate on the Central Coast and includes businesses like Star Scientific that we recently saw—world-beating technology from Australia using hydrogen in a world-beating way to produce heat and electricity, right there on the Central Coast.
Our Technology Investment Roadmap is all about driving $80 billion of combined public and private sector investment in clean technologies and low emissions technologies—160,000 jobs over the coming decade. And ARENA is central to that plan. We've given ARENA an additional $1.4 billion of baseline funding—
Opposition members interjecting—
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The members for Sydney and McMahon—the minister has the call.
Mr TAYLOR: We've given ARENA another $1.4 billion of baseline funding, but on top of that—
Ms Coker interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Member for Corangamite can leave under standing order 94(a). I can't make it any more clear.
Mr TAYLOR: On top of that, we've committed $192 million to additional programs, including investments in electric vehicle charging, hydrogen refuelling, microgrids for regional Australia, $20 million for new technologies for heavy vehicles and $47 million for energy efficiency in heavy industries—1,400 jobs from those programs. That new funding hasn't just been supported by ARENA; it has been supported by 20 different organisations, including the Business Council of Australia, the Ai Group, the National Farmers Federation, ClimateWorks and the Investor Group on Climate Change. But, sadly, it hasn't been supported by the Labor Party—not by the Labor Party—because yesterday the member for McMahon sought to out-green the Greens by opposing 1,400 jobs. But these are jobs for clean technologies!
Just last week he opposed 1,800 new jobs in the Hunter Valley, and he has committed Labor to opposing investment in electric vehicle charging, regional renewable energy and energy efficiency. In a few short months, the member for McMahon has been able to achieve what it took seven long years and three election losses for the member for Hindmarsh to achieve, and that is a deeply divided Labor Party that is turning its back on the workers of Australia. (Time expired)
COVID-19: Vaccination
Mr BUTLER (Hindmarsh—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (14:34): My question is to the Prime Minister again. According to the front page of today's Herald Sun, the Prime Minister's COVID vaccine rollout is so slow that Australia is ranked 113th in the world. The Prime Minister promised Australians last year we would be at the front of the queue. Prime Minister, isn't it true that we're so far back we can't even see the front of the queue?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:35): I don't know what world those sleepwalkers opposite are living in, but I know every Australian is very happy to be living in Australia during the course of this pandemic. I don't know Australians who want to go and take up residence and live in a COVID environment, whether it be in Europe, the United States, the UK or anywhere else. I know that Australians, because they approach me every time when I go out into regional Australia or the suburbs and cities of this country, know here in this country they're living a life in this country during COVID like few are anywhere else in the world. They know the reality—that the government of this country has worked together with other governments at a state and territory level to ensure that this country has enjoyed a safety from this pandemic and an economic recovery like few, if any, other countries in the world. Those opposite may want to retreat into whingeing, complaining and undermining the government as we fight of the virus and they focus on the politics, but I think Australians will form the same view that the Member for Paterson has. She said that Labor 'sound like we are whingeing and people don't like it'.
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order?
Mr MORRISON: I've concluded my answer, Mr Speaker.
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister is indicating he's concluded his answer. I will make the point I was about to make anyway—that is, when it comes to relevance, which I presume was the standing order the Leader of the Opposition was rising on, when a question has a number of elements, including a really flippant element at the end of the question that certainly could be argued on a strict sense to be outside the standing orders, my option is to rule the question out of order or allow a lot of tolerance in the answer. That's why I did on that occasion. So, for those framing the questions, you just need to bear that in mind.
Waste and Recycling Industry
Mrs McINTOSH (Lindsay) (14:37): My question is to the Minister for the Environment. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government is boosting the circular economy and the thousands of Australian jobs that go with it as part of our economic recovery plan? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies?
Ms LEY (Farrer—Minister for the Environment) (14:37): Can I thank the member for Lindsay for her question. The Morrison government's recycling agenda is about protecting the environment and creating jobs. Australians want to be confident in their recycling—that everything is collected and recycled into something new with value, not wasted in landfill or shipped overseas. That's why this government is leading a billion-dollar transformation of the waste and recycling industry through legislation, investment and its purchasing power. This transformation will protect our environment, divert more than 10 million tonnes of resources from landfill and create more than 10,000 new Australian jobs. Last year we established the Recycling Modernisation Fund—a three-way partnership between the Commonwealth, states and territories, and industries—to make sure we've got the recycling capacity for the future. The way industry has stepped up has been incredible. Last month I was pleased to officially open BINGO Industries's $100 million state-of-the-art materials processing centre—
Mr Bowen: Really?
The SPEAKER: The member for McMahon can leave understanding order 94(a).
Ms LEY: in Western Sydney.
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for McMahon is about to be named unless he leaves immediately.
The member for McMahon then left the chamber.
The SPEAKER: For those expressing surprise, you must have short memories, and by that I mean less than 10 minutes from when I mentioned the member for McMahon. The minister has the call.
Ms LEY: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is the largest recycling facility of its type in the world. And, as BINGO have said, they've been encouraged to invest in master recycling assets because of government policy that supports the development of a sustainable domestic recycling industry. The construction of this project has created 400 jobs. It will generate 200 jobs once operational, and it will achieve a 90 per cent recovery rate from landfill, which is incredible.
Last week I was in the electorate of the member for Mallee, and we visited Integrated Recycling, a company that takes plastic like vine covers and poly pipe and turns it into railway sleepers that have been approved for use by Metro Trains and V/Line. Not only are these sleepers more sustainable than concrete or timber; they actually outlast them. The Minister for Defence Industry delivered Defence's first recycled road, at RAAF Base Point Cook in 2020. The project consumed 600 kilos of waste plastics and 210 tonnes of concrete waste rubble as sub-base material. It demonstrates our determination to support our recycling agenda through government procurement. Construction, demolition and commercial industrial waste are the next phase of a very busy waste agenda for this government, but they are all about protecting the environment, creating jobs and growing the economy.
Members of Parliament: Staff
Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat) (14:40): My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that, when he tabled his chief of staff's excuse for a report yesterday, no-one had told Ms Higgins it was coming, no-one had told—
The SPEAKER: I will give the member for Ballarat an opportunity to rephrase the question.
Ms CATHERINE KING: Can the Prime Minister confirm that, when he tabled his chief of staff's report yesterday, no-one had told Ms Higgins it was coming, no-one had told Ms Higgins what it said, no-one had told Ms Higgins it would be tabled and no-one had told Ms Higgins it would repeat the smear that led to the report in the first place? Doesn't Ms Higgins deserve better than—
The SPEAKER: The member's time has concluded. The Prime Minister can answer the questions that were asked within the 30 seconds.
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:41): These were serious allegations. They were taken seriously. There was a proper investigation undertaken by my chief of staff. Those opposite yesterday were seeking to criticise the government for not being transparent about the release of the report. We released the report. If we release the report, they are critical. If we don't release the report, they are critical. We released the report in the interests of full transparency. I have not made any comment on the contents of the report or repeated any of the matters in that report. It is there tabled for the benefit of all members—for them to be able to read and have available to them. At the time of tabling the report, my chief of staff also contacted Ms Higgins and ensured that she had a copy of that. We reached out to ensure that she received the report at the same time it was being tabled.
Defence Industry
Mr THOMPSON (Herbert) (14:42): My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. Will the minister inform the House on how the Morrison government's record investment in Australia's defence industry is creating jobs and strengthening Australian manufacturing, including in my home state of Queensland? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Ms PRICE (Durack—Minister for Defence Industry) (14:42): I thank the member for Herbert for his question and his outstanding support for local defence industries in Queensland. I also acknowledge his service to his nation.
I say to the men and women of the ADF: this government has your back. In Queensland we're building 211 next-generation vehicles at Rheinmetall's new facility, for our Army. This is a truly national program, creating 1,450 jobs right across the nation. In Western Sydney, Thomas Global Systems is delivering the trainer system for these Boxer vehicles. Melbourne based Cablex will deliver the cabling for these vehicles, and Tectonica will deliver the night-fighting capabilities for the Boxer vehicles. Still in Queensland, in the electorate of the good member for Forde—another defence industry champion—Holmwood Highgate has secured an additional $30 million Defence contract to deliver water and fuel containers for our Army vehicles, supporting 150 important jobs for this proud family owned business.
All of this is possible because of our government's $270 billion investment in our defence capability. Not only are we delivering thousands of jobs and opportunities for defence industry right across the country; we're also building at home what we need in order to defend our nation, unlike those opposite, who shamefully gutted $18 billion from their defence budget—cutting capability, cutting jobs and, very shamefully, risking the defence of our nation at the same time. But our plan is pretty clear. We're building ships in Adelaide and Henderson, we're building armoured vehicles in Queensland and we're delivering world-class facilities and infrastructure.
This government's record speaks for itself. We are getting on with the job of delivering for our men and women in uniform. But, shamefully, we know that this isn't a priority for those opposite. The Leader of the Opposition failed to mention the defence of our nation in his budget reply speech. And just ask the member for Paterson. We know what she says. She says that her party is sleepwalking off a cliff. So you don't need our opinion.
The SPEAKER: The minister will pause. The minister was asked about alternative policies. She wasn't asked about criticisms of what those opposite have said, because that is outside the standing orders. So you will need to stick to policies that have been put forward by someone else—that is, an alternative—and if that happens to be the opposition, which it almost always is, you'll need to say what those alternatives are.
Ms PRICE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think the Australian public and men and women in uniform know what we stand for. We stand on our record—unlike those opposite who are too busy fighting amongst themselves.
Parliament House: Staff
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney) (14:46): My question is to the Prime Minister. Why did the report prepared by the Prime Minister's chief of staff blame journalists for smearing Brittany Higgins loved ones? Does he seriously expect this House to believe journalists, not his own office, were at fault? Why won't the Prime Minister ever accept responsibility?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:46): The report from my chief of staff was tabled yesterday, and I don't expect the way that was represented by the member in asking that question.
Taxation
Ms LIU (Chisholm) (14:46): My question is to the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government's research and development tax incentives are helping Australian businesses to innovate and create jobs as part of Australia's economic recovery plan? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Industry, Science and Technology) (14:46): I thank the member for Chisholm for her question. I know that she, like the government, is backing business. She knows that the government is committed to policies that help fantastic Australian businesses to grow the economy and create jobs as we come out of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The member asked about the government's research and development tax incentive. That provides around $2 billion per year in support of research and development, and it applies to a range of businesses across manufacturing, agriculture, health care and a variety of scientific fields. One of those businesses is in the member for Chisholm's electorate. It's a great business called RayGen. They are using the R&D tax incentive to change the way that solar energy is captured and stored. Richard Payne, the chief executive officer of that great company, said this about the government's tax incentive policy:
The R&D tax incentive enables us to be able to employ very highly skilled individuals to develop our core technology which needs extensive R&D to prove itself out in a commercial environment.
That's a great example of how that policy is having a practical on-the-ground effect—backing business, innovating and creating new jobs. Of course, part of this is about unlocking the private sector investment that creates the path for a business to deliver onto the world stage. We are now also investing a further $2 billion over the forward estimates in the R&D tax incentive. That will see the cap removed on refunds. It lifts the rate and it further rewards businesses that invest the most in R&D.
Further, and very importantly, the R&D tax incentive is supported and complemented by a range of other policies: the $1.5 billion Modern Manufacturing Strategy in high-value areas of manufacturing, where Australia has a clear competitive strength on emerging priorities; tax incentives for early-stage investment, which has seen about $630 million invested in innovative companies; the patent box, which was announced in this year's budget, with lower taxes for income derived from medical and biotech patents; and the $600 million Entrepreneurs Program. That has helped 20,000 businesses innovate and commercialise. Of those individual businesses, on average, each business has created four new jobs and generated over $1.5 million extra revenue for that business. When you look at it, that is a very comprehensive suite of policies that is driving innovation, research and development and growing business.
I'm asked about alternatives: are there any alternative policies? Well, there are certainly not any new alternative policies; there are a few old alternative policies. There is, of course, Startup Year, which is a six-year-old alternative policy from the member for Maribyrnong that was reannounced. The other policies are basically $387 billion worth of taxes on the economy from the last election which were rejected but never dumped. So you've got the government with new, innovative policies for innovation, and nothing— (Time expired)
Superannuation
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (14:50): My question is to the Treasurer. The Treasurer has introduced a law which allows government to take control of Australian superannuation investments and cancel those investments that it does not like. Resources, energy, infrastructure and agricultural investments are at risk. When will the government admit that it has got this wrong and abandon its plan to treat workers' superannuation moneys as if they were Liberal Party funds?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Treasurer) (14:51): When will those opposite understand that superannuation belongs to the people who put it there! It belongs to the people who put it there. It doesn't belong to the fund managers. It doesn't belong to the unions. And it doesn't belong to the honourable member.
The reality is: this legislation before the parliament will help put an extra $17 billion in the pockets of people who have superannuation. That's because it's going to provide more choice. That's because it's going to provide more competition. That's because it's going to allow Australians to go online and see the performance of their super fund, both in terms of fees charged and the performance of the fund. We're getting rid of duplicate, unnecessary, unwanted accounts, as was recommended by the Productivity Commission. It might surprise those opposite to know that Australians spend more than $30 billion a year—
The SPEAKER: The Treasurer will resume his seat.
Mr FRYDENBERG: Oh!
The SPEAKER: I say to the Treasurer: people are entitled to take points of order. I mean, it is actually a right under the standing orders. They're entitled to take a point of order. The member for Whitlam on a point of order.
Mr Stephen Jones: On relevance, Speaker: I asked the Treasurer about the power he wants to give himself to cancel workers' superannuation investments.
The SPEAKER: The member for Whitlam will resume his seat.
Mr Stephen Jones: He hasn't mentioned it yet!
The SPEAKER: And if the member for Whitlam's complaining about the content of the Treasurer's answer, he might look to the last part of his question that opened it up to wide political debate. So, if you can't help yourself on that front, I sort of can't help you as much in reining in the Treasurer. The Treasurer has the call.
Mr FRYDENBERG: The honourable member needs to understand that this legislation helps protect the interests of Australians with superannuation, by giving them more choice, by giving them more competition—
Mr Tim Wilson interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Treasurer will pause. The member for Goldstein will leave under standing order 94(a).
The member for Goldstein then left the chamber.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: And members on my left might join him. You can have an alternative debate outside the chamber.
Mr FRYDENBERG: It's no coincidence that the member for Whitlam sought an interjection when I was explaining to the House that Australians spend more than $30 billion on super fees—more than their household electricity and gas bills—and we are seeking to reduce those fees for Australians.
This bill will remove the need for duplicate accounts. It will establish a best-financial-interests duty. It will give more choice, so Australians can get to compare the performance of their funds, in terms of fees charged as well as the return on those funds. It builds on other important superannuation reforms that we have passed through this parliament, like allowing under-25s to opt in to insurance in their super, like banning exit fees, like reducing the fees on low-balance accounts and consolidating inactive accounts. These are important reforms that are designed to support Australians with super.
While those opposite will always do the bidding of the unions and always do the bidding of the industry funds, we on this side of the House are enabling Australians to choose and to get a better deal from their fund. I remind the House that it was this side of politics that supported allowing Australians to access their own money during the COVID crisis—up to $20,000—which was another important initiative which enabled Australians to access their own money, because, at the end of the day, when people put money into superannuation, it remains their money, not the money of their unions, not the money of the industry funds and not the money of the fund managers.
Energy
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn—Deputy Nationals Whip) (14:54): My question is to the Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia. Will the minister outline how the Morrison government's gas-fired recovery through the Beetaloo Basin is supporting the economy and explain how the gas industry is backing workers across regional Australia?
Mr PITT (Hinkler—Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia) (14:55): I thank the honourable member for Flynn for his question. We know the 'fighter for Flynn' is very keen on the gas industry. In fact, the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister have been down at Auckland House in the member's electorate, where you can see LNG exports leaving from Gladstone and see all of the jobs being driven by the resources sector, including gas.
I am asked about the Beetaloo Basin and supporting the economy. This government has struck out with strategic basin plans into the Beetaloo and other areas. In the Beetaloo, we are investing some $224 million to get this strategic basin online. It is our intention to make sure that the basin is delivered earlier than it would have been otherwise. Included in the $224 million is $50 million to drive additional exploration, some 10 additional wells in that area by 2022. What will this do? This will help drive confidence into the basin. Business will do the rest. If the resource is known, if the resource is 2P, if they know that it is there, they will deliver the rest that is needed for this country. What will be the outcome? We expect, from the territory, that that could drive up to 6,000 jobs over the next 20 years—6,000 jobs. It is about jobs, jobs right across the country, including in manufacturing.
Back in Queensland, strategic basin plans—we just announced the North Bowen and Galilee Basin in Central Queensland, nearly $21 million in new funding. I'm told that technically this area is very difficult. It is described as a tough nut. It is a tough nut to crack in the Galilee in terms of getting this gas into the domestic market. More gas means better prices, which means more manufacturing, which means more jobs. We will have more to say about further strategic basins as we advance.
We on this side know others have a different view and are opposed to what we want to do. We want to see more gas. We want to see more gas into electricity. We want to see more things like we've announced in recent weeks in New South Wales—electricity which is affordable, which is reliable, which relies on gas. We have to ensure that we have a pipeline of projects into the future to make sure that gas is delivered on time in a reliable way with an affordable price to make sure that we are competitive internationally, because a competitive gas price helps drive jobs into manufacturing, and we want to see more manufacturing onshore. It is those jobs which will add on. It is those downstream positions, those downstream opportunities that will help Australia become once again a powerhouse in manufacturing for industry that drives our exports into the world. We have a plan to drive more gas into our area. There are those who have a different view. Their view is that there will be no gas.
The SPEAKER: No, the minister was not actually asked about alternatives.
Mr PITT: We will continue to drive more strategic basins. The Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction is doing a great job on more pipelines and we— (Time expired)
Workplace Relations
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:58): My question is to the Prime Minister. These two payslips are from two train drivers at Pacific National's coalmine in the Bowen Basin, who do the same job. One is employed by Pacific National and one by a labour hire firm. The train driver employed by the labour hire firm is a casual but still earns $308 less every week than his colleague. Why does the Morrison government continue to protect this rort that can only drive wages down?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:59): We believe in a guaranteed safety net for minimum terms and conditions for employees. When it comes to labour hire specifically as a proportion of all employers, this has remained stable at about two per cent for the last decade and, indeed, longer than that. Labour hire employees have the same rights and protections as all other employees when it comes to, for instance, unfair dismissal rights, award entitlements, general protections, and work health and safety protections, just to name a few. Labour hire employees working under enterprise agreements also already have rights and entitlements above the award minimum safety net and this is the framework that those opposite created, which is the point. Under Labor's Fair Work Act, the wages and conditions payable to employees are determined by the relevant industrial instrument. There is no requirement under Labor's Fair Work Act for enterprise agreements to provide for a particular level of pay above the safety net. The arrangements that we administer are the ones that the Labor Party put in place. If that is their position, if that is what they maintain is the case—that there is some unfairness in the arrangements that are already in place—then why did they design it that way?
Youth Employment
Ms BELL (Moncrieff) (15:00): My question is to the Minister for Education and Youth. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government is supporting young Australians to enter the workforce as we emerge from the pandemic? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies?
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Education and Youth) (15:00): I thank the member for Moncrieff for her question. She brings to this parliament experience as a workplace trainer and assessor for the National Retail Association before she came here, working with young people to get them into jobs—so real-life experience of getting young people into work.
Young Australians have every reason to be optimistic under our government, and parents have every reason to be optimistic for the future of their sons and daughters as they go into training, education and work, because, under this government, youth unemployment is now down to a 12-year low. It is a full one percentage point lower than it was in March 2020, before the pandemic hit. So it's just great news for young people to see those youth unemployment figures down so low. The biggest drop in youth unemployment was actually in the member's home state of Queensland, where incredibly, in the last six months alone—
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Moreton will leave under 94(a). He continually interjects.
The member for Moreton then left the chamber.
Mr TUDGE: In the last six months alone, youth unemployment has dropped in Queensland from 18 per cent to just 9.8 per cent, an incredible drop over that six-month period. This has come about because of the solid economic policies which we've put in place but also the opportunities we've been providing in the education and training space. Mr Speaker, you'd be aware that we provided 30,000 extra university places this year and we dropped the fees on those courses which have more likelihood of leading into a job. That's working, so we've got many more people now enrolling in, say, IT courses, engineering courses, physical science courses, because they're the ones that are most likely going to lead into work. Plus, in the training and apprenticeship space, we've also provided so many more opportunities, as the employment and training minister knows—$500 million to deliver an extra 163,000 training places; the extension of the Transition to Work program; and of course the extra 310,000 apprenticeships which are being supported by this government. So it is jobs, it is education opportunities, it is training opportunities, all for those young people.
I am asked about alternatives. I mentioned that we're supporting 39,000 additional students at university. Those opposite, in their budget reply, in their signature policy, in Bill Shorten's old policy: 2,000.
The SPEAKER: The minister will refer to members by their correct titles.
Mr TUDGE: The member for Maribyrnong. I mentioned the 310,000 apprenticeships we're supporting. Labor's policy: only 10,000. We are delivering for young people— (Time expired)
Workplace Relations
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (15:03): My question is to the Prime Minister. These pay slips are from two men who work at the same abattoir and do the same job, for the same hours, on the same shift, in the same room. One works for the company which runs the abattoir, and the other is a labour hire casual. The labour hire worker gets $500 less per week. Why does the Morrison government continue to protect this rort that drives wages down?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (15:04): This question is very similar to the one that was put to me by the member for Watson. Under Labor's Fair Work Act, the wages and conditions paid to employees are determined by the relevant industrial instrument. These are Labor's laws. We actually have sought to improve on those laws.
We sought to make positive changes that would help businesses to employ more Australians, would help workers to be able to achieve more and earn more. But those opposite decided not to support them and they thought that workers were collateral damage for their political objectives in scuttling the changes that we were seeking to make. Those opposite are no friends of the workers. They're no friends of the workers, and workers know that. As the member for Paterson said, Labor sound like they are whingeing and people just don't like it. She worries that Labor is sleepwalking off a cliff. That's what workers think of the Labor Party.
Trade
Mr SHARMA (Wentworth) (15:05): My question is to the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. Will the minister please update the House on the Morrison government's progress in backing Australian jobs and supporting industry through our negotiations for free trade agreements with the United Kingdom and the European Union?
Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (15:05): I thank the member for Wentworth for his very important question. He brings to this place a deep knowledge of foreign affairs and trade policy and he's already making a significant contribution in that area to this parliament. Since we've come to office, we've finalised eight free trade agreements. The share of trade covered by FTAs has grown by 26 per cent to 70 per cent, and we're working to grow that even further. Why are we working to grow that even further? Because trade creates jobs. One in four jobs in regional and rural Australia is created by trade, and that number is one in five right across this nation. That is why we are continuing to pursue free trade agreements. What's on our agenda at the moment? We're pursuing an EU free trade agreement. We've had the 10th round of those negotiations. We made more progress in the 10th round of those negotiations than we made in the previous negotiations. The 11th round will be held in early June. More recently, I met with Valdis Dombrovskis, the EU trade representative, and we had a very, very good discussion about how we could seek to shape and finalise this agreement after the 12th round of these negotiations. I look forward to continuing those discussions with him.
We're also pursuing a free trade agreement with the United Kingdom. Just so we understand: the European Union, 450 million people, a GDP of US$14.9 trillion; the UK, 65 million people, a GDP of US$2.8 trillion, so they're both incredibly important FTAs. With the UK FTA, we are now in a sprint to try to finalise that free trade agreement. Both countries want to make sure that we have an ambitious and comprehensive agreement, and that's what we're working towards. I had another negotiation with Liz Truss, the UK trade minister, last night. We'll meet again on Friday. The Prime Minister has spoken to his counterpart, Boris Johnson, about the Australia-UK free trade agreement. Why? Because it would be a win-win for both nations. It would help and support the agriculture sector here in Australia and in the UK. It would help and support the services sector here and in the United Kingdom. It would improve and facilitate further investment between both countries, and all that will lead to more and more jobs. That's what this government is about, using our trade policy to create jobs because we know that benefits all Australians.
Workplace Relations
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:08): My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister give a straight answer to this simple question: should labour hire workers be paid less than the workers beside them who are doing the exact same job?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (15:08): The laws that govern workplaces should be upheld for every single Australian, and that's what this government provides for.
Home Ownership
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (15:09): My question is to the Assistant Treasurer, Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness, Social and Community Housing. Will the minister inform the House how the Morrison government is backing Australian jobs through our economic recovery by helping Australians achieve their goal of owning their own home? Most importantly, is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Treasurer, Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness, Social and Community Housing) (15:09): I thank the member for Leichhardt for his question. The member for Leichhardt has championed so many good causes in this House, and one that he has championed in North Queensland and his electorate and indeed throughout Australia is on behalf of first home buyers. I'd say to the member for Leichhardt that it was wonderful to join him very recently in Cairns, with Grant and Heather from a local building company, who explained to us—
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition!
Mr SUKKAR: that the HomeBuilder program has ignited the residential construction industry of northern Australia—
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The SPEAKER: No, the Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting! The minister has the call.
Mr SUKKAR: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'll start again. We met with Grant and Heather, who explained that, in their building business, when the pandemic hit, sales stopped overnight. We announced the HomeBuilder program. It has ignited the residential construction industry in northern Australia. We've got nearly 4,000 new homes being built now in northern Australia, in and around the electorate of Leichhardt. That has been fuelled by the HomeBuilder program. One of the most important aspects of the HomeBuilder program is the support it has provided to first home buyers. It was wonderful to meet even more first home buyers in northern Australia. Christie in Cairns explained to us that, without HomeBuilder, there's no way she could have jumped the deposit hurdle to get into her first home.
The HomeBuilder program is built on a range of programs that the Morrison government have put in place because we are a government for first home buyers; we are a government for homeownership. The First Home Loan Deposit Scheme—highly successful—has allowed people to purchase their first home with a deposit of five per cent. The HomeBuilder program which we put in place allows people to build a new home with a five per cent deposit, and we extended that. In the budget just a couple of weeks ago we had the Family Home Guarantee. The Family Home Guarantee, I think, is a landmark policy for this House. We will now enable single parents—84 per cent of whom are women—with dependent children to purchase a home with a deposit of two per cent. I have been inundated by single parents around the country, including from the member for Leichhardt's electorate, saying, 'This will be the difference between me renting and me owning, and being able to provide my children with the security that they need through homeownership.' So we are the party of homeownership, whether it's HomeBuilder or the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme or the Family Home Guarantee, and we'll continue to support those Australians.
Mr Morrison: I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
Edwards, Sir Llewellyn Roy (Llew), AC
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (15:13): I extend my condolences to Lady Jane Edwards and the entire Edwards family following the passing of Sir Llew Edwards, former Queensland Liberal leader, Treasurer in the Bjelke-Petersen government, chancellor of the University of Queensland and also the chairman of Expo 88 in Brisbane, which some will remember very well. Our deepest condolences to his family, and we thank him for his service.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (15:13): I join with the Prime Minister in expressing condolences to the family and friends of Sir Llew Edwards, former Deputy Premier, Treasurer and health minister in the Queensland government—someone who, interestingly, began his work career as an electrician and then went and became a doctor. Bob Hawke, of course, appointed him to head Expo 88. He's someone who had friends on both sides of the chamber, including the member for Oxley, who I understand used to catch up with Mr Edwards for lunch. Mr Edwards was born in Ipswich—so from the same part of the world that produced Milton Dick. Our condolences go out to his family and his friends.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Defence and Leader of the House) (15:14): 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
The SPEAKER (15:14): I have received a letter from the honourable the Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The impact of the Government's failures.
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—
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (15:14): The government had two jobs this year: the vaccine rollout and quarantine. It has botched both. We have a Prime Minister who never accepts responsibility. He's too busy rolling out the red carpet for himself to roll out the vaccination for Australians. This is not just a government of smirk and mirrors; it's a government of shirk and mirrors. It's always someone else's responsibility. We saw it today when we asked questions about the Victorian outbreak and the connection with the hotel quarantine system, which has been established because of the Prime Minister's refusal to establish an appropriate facility. If this Prime Minister has a single Shakespearean quality, it's that he is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
We saw that again today. He actually had the chutzpah to stand up and say, 'They're attacking the states.' This is the guy who had his Treasurer stand at this dispatch box and attack the Andrews Labor government. He had the health minister attack the Andrews Labor government. This is a Prime Minister who went to Queensland to do two things: to raise funds for the Queensland LNP and to call upon the Palaszczuk government to open the borders. 'Open them up!' That's what he did. And then, in Western Australia, he joined with Clive Palmer to say that Mark McGowan was right. Well, I say this: I'm on Mark McGowan's side; this Prime Minister was on Clive Palmer's side.
We were told that Australia was at the front of the queue, but we know that we're 113th. We were told four million Australians would be vaccinated by March. Well, we're almost in June and we're not at four million yet. When the vaccines arrived, the minister made it sound like the moon landing. Remember that? 'The eagle has landed.' Well, it was a dodo bird, not an eagle, because there we were at the back of the queue. The member for Higgins went further. She said on Raf Epstein's program that the minister opposite deserved a Nobel prize. She did! I'm not kidding. He's more worthy of a booby prize.
Then there are the mixed messages we've had out there. 'We're not in a rush. Nothing to see here. Chill out, peeps. Wait for the next vaccine.' That's the message they've sent out. The PM's messages spin like a weathervane in a tornado. They are different each and every day. No wonder there's so much confusion out there. When we asked about quarantine yesterday, we actually got an answer to the question. For 30 seconds he took responsibility. He stood up and he said, 'Yes, well, the Commonwealth is responsible for quarantine'—hint, hint: it's in the Constitution. He then paused and went, 'But it's the states and territories.' There it was.
We know that the Melbourne outbreak comes because of hotel quarantine in Adelaide. The people involved survived India unaffected, but they didn't survive the Adelaide quarantine without being infected and without spreading it around Victoria. This has real consequences for human health, real consequences for people's everyday lives and real consequences for our economy. That's why this is not an academic exercise. That's why this government shouldn't shirk its responsibility.
They had a report last year from Jane Halton, which recommended that they deal with issues like ventilation in hotels—hotels weren't appropriate—and that they deal with facilities. Exmouth was named. We've had proposals from state governments. The Palaszczuk government—almost a year ago now—in the third quarter of last year were advancing proposals outside of Gladstone and, of course, in Toowoomba. What did we get from the Prime Minister? He described Toowoomba as a place 'in the desert'. Then he said that you've got to have quarantine close to airports. I'll give him the big tick: the proposal is at Wellcamp Airport. It's actually at the airport where his plane landed. Then he said it needed to be near health facilities. The Toowoomba Base Hospital is not a bad place at all.
This is a Prime Minister who got confused between Toowoomba and Betoota. The Betoota Advocate got it absolutely right when they described him as 'Scotty from marketing'. Speaking of marketing, they spent $1 billion on advertising, but they can't get an advertising program for the vaccination rollout right. They spent $3.8 million on a campaign featuring a milkshake video that was so obscene that even The Betoota Advocate couldn't send it up. Then we had government members such as Senator Rennick yesterday saying this about when he would be vaccinated: 'Mate, I'm going to sit back and watch and see how it goes.' That's what government members are saying. Of course, they have no plan for getting the vaccine rollout right. They have no plan for quarantine; that's for the states. And, of course, they have no plan for the economy.
This is a government that's high on visibility but low on delivery. They assume closed borders until after the election. Their budget allows for lower wages, low growth, low productivity and lower workforce participation. What a quadrella! Not only are workers' wages due to go down over the forward estimates; we know their taxes will go up once the election is over and the tax offset is withdrawn. This is all the while racking up $1 trillion of debt while they cut $3.3 billion from infrastructure over the forward estimates.
The Prime Minister recently quoted Talking Heads—someone must have given that to him! What he should have quoted, if he's talking about this government, is 'Road to Nowhere', because that's this government. They don't actually have a plan for Australia's future. Labor does: appropriate quarantine facilities, rollout of the vaccine, manufacturing mRNA vaccines here and a proper advertising campaign. But, post the pandemic, we'll be building back stronger—not just trying to go back to what was there—through our National Reconstruction Fund and through the creation of jobs and skills in Australia. We'll be identifying jobs of the future and training Australians for them, including in the new energy apprenticeships program. There will be universal affordable child care to boost productivity, boost the economy and boost women's workforce participation. Our Housing Australia Future Fund will not just deal with homelessness, deal with people escaping domestic violence and look after our veterans who are sleeping on our streets but also create jobs and build our economy. We will create secure work and deal with casuals, the gig economy, the gender pay gap and 'same job, same pay'. When we asked simple questions about that today—about two people next to each other doing the same job with a $500-a-week pay differential—what did the government have to say about it? Nothing. They've been in government now for three terms. They're shooting for over a decade in office, but they won't take responsibility for anything. On a day like today, the fourth anniversary of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, if you want to lift Australia up, just get it done.
We want an Australia where no-one is left behind and no-one is held back. What we have from this government is not just a government dominated by climate sceptics; we know, as a result of recent decisions, they're market sceptics as well. They're prepared to engage in using taxpayers' money for any purpose whatsoever. What reform will this government leave after three terms? Where's the big vision? Where's the change in the economy, in social policy and in environmental policy? This week we saw that the Prime Minister not only doesn't hold a hose; he couldn't hold a nail! He was there with a hammer, pretending to hammer a nail in. There was no nail there! It says it all about how fake this government is. Australians have been magnificent during this pandemic, and they deserve a government that is better.
Mr MORTON (Tangney—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Assistant Minister for Electoral Matters and Assistant Minister to the Minister for the Public Service) (15:25): What a demonstration of not being on Team Australia that we have just seen in this chamber—disgraceful! The Treasurer this week was quoting from Sir Robert Menzies—and, I can tell you, I've been reminded of this quote. It was Sir Robert Menzies on the eve of the 1954 election against 'Doc' Evatt. He said:
Our opponents have been destructive critics. They have politically welcomed every difficulty. They have prophesied, and hoped for, disaster.
… … …
… bitterly frustrated by the failure of their past prophecies, they are struggling to raise false issues and new prejudices, and to make glittering promises to distract attention from real and solid achievements.
What are those achievements today? Australia's COVID-19 response is the envy of the world. It didn't happen by accident—and, most importantly, we thank every Australian for the part that they played in responding to this crisis. We can be proud together as Australians to share in the Australian response.
The economies of the United Kingdom, France and Italy all contracted by more than eight per cent and Japan and Canada around five per cent. Programs like JobKeeper and JobSeeker kept workers engaged in businesses, kept households afloat and kept businesses going. The result has been that the Australian economy has contracted by just 2.5 per cent. JobKeeper kept 3.8 million people in their job. JobSeeker helped 1.5 million people who were without work. Since the end of JobKeeper, 132,790 Australians have come off JobSeeker and youth allowance.
At the start of COVID, the effective unemployment rate peaked at 15 per cent. There are more Australians in work today than before COVID. At 5.5 per cent, unemployment is lower today than when we came to government. Female workforce participation is now near a record 61.3 per cent above pre-COVID levels. Business conditions are at some of the highest levels ever. According to the NAB index, consumer confidence is the highest it has been in a decade. In these uncertain times, Australia has maintained our AAA credit rating—one of only nine countries in the world to do so. On the health front, 3.8 million vaccine doses have been given here in Australia—and it continues, with over half a million doses of the vaccine given in the last week alone. Globally, sadly, 3.3 million people have lost their lives to COVID-19, and right now we see 700,000 to 800,000 people every day contract COVID. Here in Australia, sadly, just over 900 people have lost their lives. But if we experienced the OECD average of deaths, if we compared ourselves to like economies, to those like democracies, that same rate of death would have resulted in 30,000 Australians dying.
Yet those opposite want to talk about the government's failures. I don't know why you'd want to talk Australia down when our economy and health response is the envy of the world. It is something that Australians should be and can be proud of. The destructive talking down of the Australian response to COVID-19 is irresponsible. The Leader of the Opposition said that the roof of the economy would come crashing down. But what have we seen? We have seen 33,800 full-time jobs created, underemployment at its lowest level in seven years and youth unemployment falling to its lowest level in 12 years.
Our budget is rebuilding the economy. We're providing tax relief for 10 million Australians. Low- and middle-income earners will get up to $1,080 for individuals and $2,160 for couples. We're doubling the JobTrainer Fund to support 163,000 new training places, and we're funding more than 170,000 apprenticeships and traineeships. We're adding another $15 billion to our $110 billion infrastructure pipeline, and we're making an additional $1.7 billion investment in child care.
We're backing Australian small businesses—98 per cent of all businesses in this country are small businesses. The instant asset write-off threshold and the temporary full expensing and temporary loss carry-back measures will make a big difference to those businesses who want to invest and grow their businesses and to employ more Australians. We're seeing it working, and that's why it's continuing. We've passed legislation to bring forward tax cuts for small and medium businesses. The corporate tax rate will now hit 25 per cent in 2021-22, five years sooner than planned. We've also increased the small business entity turnover from $10 million to $50 million for 10 small business tax concessions. That represents $105 million worth of tax relief for those small businesses and a very important deregulation measure that this government backs. See, the government wants to set up Australia for success, and we do that by supporting small and family businesses to deliver on that success.
Getting Australians into homes through HomeBuilder has seen 137,000-plus starts to detached homes across Australia. That's an increase of 34.2 per cent on last year, and it's higher than the peak that we had seen in the previous boom in 2018. That keeps tradies in jobs. That puts people in homes. This is a key program that has assisted Australia's economic recovery and makes a huge difference to those people who deliver the program and those people who benefit from the program by owning their own home, an essential part of the Australian dream.
Australia is playing its part on climate change. We have met our 2020 commitments, and we are on track to meet and beat our 2030 target. Australia's emissions are 19 per cent lower than in 2005 and at their lowest level since 1995. Australia is on the pathway to net zero, and our goal is to get there as soon as we possibly can, preferably before 2050. We will do this practically, with a technology-focused approach. We'll use technology, not taxes. We've got the highest uptake of rooftop solar in the world. We are supporting major energy storage solutions like Snowy 2.0 and Battery of the Nation. In this budget, we're investing a further $1.6 billion to fund priority technologies, including clean hydrogen and energy storage.
We'll provide funding to protect our environment—$480 million, including $100 million for our oceans. We will invest that $100 million through our Ocean Leadership Package. It will deliver cleaner beaches, reduce fisheries bycatch, increase fish stocks, protect turtles and sea birds, and support coastal and Indigenous communities who are reliant on the ocean for their livelihoods. I'm pleased that we're establishing two more Australian marine parks, covering 740,000 square kilometres around the waters of Christmas and Cocos Islands. That will lift our percentage of waters protected from 37 to 45 per cent.
This government is about putting in place a plan that allows Australians to steer their own ship, to get their home, to employ more Australians, to ensure that we put Australia on the track that secures our economic recovery. Those opposite like to complain. They like to talk Australia down. They like to talk Australians down. They like to undermine the success of all Australians in relation to our COVID economic and health response.
No wonder Australians are confused about the Labor Party. I tell you what—when a group of people do well, you say, 'Well done.' What does this group opposite do? They whinge and they complain, because, you know what? This is a group of people that can't even manage themselves; they're tearing themselves apart. They don't know who they're for and who they're against. In fact, the Prime Minister has reminded us that they're for everybody. This group of people have lost their way, and yet they sit opposite the government and lecture this government in relation to our COVID health and economic response.
In relation to Labor's failure, their own Leader of the Opposition spent $9 million helping to set up Community Chef, a local government-run supplier of meals for the aged-care sector, which estimates have shown have cost the taxpayer $30 million. That's failure!
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (15:35): The Morrison government couldn't deliver a pizza and the Australian people know it. In almost every policy area that this Prime Minister has made a commitment or a promise to the Australian people, he has failed to deliver and it's affecting the welfare of the Australian people. Remember the Prime Minister promised four million Australians would be vaccinated by the end of March? He only fell 3.8 million short of that target. The government are still bungling the vaccine rollout, with elderly people and people with disabilities still unable to receive the vaccine.
I want to read a letter that I received from a GP in the area that I represent. This GP is the head of a number of GPs that work at a practice. He writes, 'We find it hard to understand and very disconcerting that some GP practices, including one as large as ours with a total of 16 doctors, is only receiving 100 AstraZeneca vaccines per week. We have a large number of elderly patients and patients with significant underlying medical conditions and currently have close to 500 on our waiting list to get the vaccine. They understand the need to be protected against COVID-19 and they're keen to be vaccinated as soon as possible via their GP. We ask you to pass on our dilemma to the health minister, Greg Hunt, and the Prime Minister and we hope this will result in an immediate improvement in vaccine distribution to GP clinics like ours.' That was on 5 May. That's the view of Australia's GPs about how that side of the chamber is bungling the vaccine rollout, but they don't seem to care.
Australians are worried about their health, particularly the elderly and those with disabilities. Small businesses are pleading with this government to get on with the vaccine rollout so they don't have the threat of another lockdown or restrictions again. Businesses whose workers rely on borders reopening are dumbfounded at the government's lack of interest in getting Australians vaccinated. When it comes to vaccinations, they have failed the Australian people. Now, the No. 1 job of an Australian government is to keep the Australian people safe and to provide them with safe passage home when they want to get home.
Remember the Prime Minister promised we would have all Australians home by the end of Christmas—another failure. There are still 36,000 Australians stranded overseas and they cannot get home. Back here in Australia, the government talks about supporting workers. Well, this government is failing Australian workers. Those on that side quite often like to come in here and say, 'We're all about supporting Australian workers.' Let's look at their record. They are not about supporting Australian workers when they're the party of WorkChoices that introduced laws that cut the wages and working conditions of Australians and forced them on to individual contracts. They're not the party of Australian workers when you cut penalty rates so that low-paid workers take home less to their families each week. They're not the party of Australian workers when they allow Qantas, one of our largest employers, to sack 3,000 of its workers and, in an ultimate insult to those workers, bring in a foreign corporation to do the work that Australians were doing on lower wages and conditions. That's an absolute disgrace. They're not about Australian workers when they oppose coalminers who are seeking to be paid the same as their colleagues for doing the same work although they're employed by a labour company. They went to the High Court and gave a submission against those workers saying no, they shouldn't be paid the same as their colleagues. And they are not for Australian workers when they make a submission to the Fair Work case for low-paid workers ensuring that they don't get a wage increase at all. When they make a submission to the Fair Work case saying low-paid workers don't deserve a wage increase at all, they're not for Australian workers one bit. The result is that Australian workers' incomes are falling and it is confirmed in the government's own budget papers. They admit that, over the forward estimates, the real wages of Australian workers are going to fall under their government. How are they for the welfare of the Australian people?
The government is failing small businesses as well. If you walk down any main street of any region in Australia, a small business employer will tell you, 'We can't get workers. We can't get skilled staff.' Why? Because there are 140,000 fewer apprentices in this country since this government was elected. They cut $2 billion from TAFE and, as a result, there are no workers to take on the skills and the requirements that employers need. Their solution in the past was: 'It'll be okay. We don't need apprentices and trainees. We'll import them from overseas. We'll bring in foreign workers on temporary visas.' Well, now that the borders have been shut they've been found wanting and small businesses are suffering.
They're not for older workers, either. Older Australians are suffering as well. When the title of the interim report of the royal commission into aged care is Neglect, you know you got a problem.
You're not for Australian workers and small businesses at all.
Mr HOGAN (Page—Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) (15:40): If you were to listen in isolation to the opposition members in this chamber, you really would think Australia was a bit of a basket case right now. In an unhealthy state of mind, everything they say is negative. Everything they say is painting a picture of an Australia that is not in a good place—if you were to listen solely to what they say.
Of course, the Australian people know that that is not the case. The Australian people know because they see and listen to international news, and they know that there is not a continent on this planet, except Australia, that hasn't been ravaged by this pandemic. The previous member said that the primary aim of a government is to keep its people safe. Guess what? We have. We have kept the Australian public safe—and thank you to the Australian people for adhering to the health advice that we were given and that we gave to them. We have kept the Australian people safe. We as a government have been a big part of keeping the Australian people safe. But you never hear that. You never hear any of the positive statistics come out of their mouths. About 12 months ago they were saying that we needed to flat the curve. Deputy Speaker O'Brien, I'm sure you heard that, and I'm sure members opposite remember that, and said that the health advice was that, as a government and as a country, we needed to flatten the curve. Guess what? We did flatten the curve.
You can't eliminate a virus; we know that. There have been outbreaks. There will always will be outbreaks. We were told right at the start that this virus could not be eliminated. As the Prime Minister mentioned today, there would be no country in the world, on both a health front and an economic front, where you would rather be right now than Australia. But, again, there's no acknowledgment of that. Sure, you can look at things and, sure, you can highlight things that we need to look at and maybe we need to get better at. No matter what you do, you can always do a bit better. Sure, we need to discuss those things. But, seriously, not a positive thing has come out of their mouths.
Because we've done so well on the health front—because we did flatten the curve and because we have kept Australians relatively safe from this virus—economically we have done very well as well. Economically, compared to just about any country in the world, we're doing really well. We talk about workers and employment—we are one of the fastest growing economies in the world right now. Unemployment was predicted by the Treasury—if we didn't introduce certain measures—to go to 15 per cent. An extra two million Australians would have been unemployed. It never happened. We capped the unemployment level at 7½ per cent. What's happened to it since then? What's happened to the unemployment rate since then? It's gone to 5.5 per cent. In the budget last week Treasury predicted it would go below five per cent. Is that good for workers? Of course it's good for workers.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr HOGAN: I hear people groaning over there. Obviously they don't agree that the unemployment rate going down is a good thing. They must want unemployment to be high. Do you want unemployment to be higher? I mean, groaning that the unemployment rate is predicted to go below five per cent? Really? The unemployment rate is at 5.5 per cent and is predicted to go below five, and I get groans from the other side? Seriously? You can't celebrate a low unemployment rate?
The biggest issue in this country right now, the biggest issue which just about every private sector business talks to me about, is that they can't get enough workers. We have a staff shortage. The biggest problem is that people can't get enough workers. Now, that certainly is better than the alternative—people not being able to find a job. But we don't have that issue. Why is that the case? Why don't we have high unemployment? It's because we, as a government, have done some very specifically targeted stimulus spending. That's why the economy is doing so well. Again, you've never heard anything about that, you've never heard from those opposite how fast our economy is growing. You never hear them talk about a falling unemployment rate because it is impossible, for whatever reason, for any of them to say anything positive about our country.
A couple of things have been very important, and the one I like the most and that I mention most times I speak is the instant tax write-off. I was at a Primex field day in my electorate on the weekend, and there wasn't a small business there that didn't say what as great policy that is. I celebrate Australia. There are a lot of positive things happening. I ask you to see them. (Time expired)
Dr ALY (Cowan) (15:45): People want certainty, security and safety. That's what people want from their governments. When a government fails to deliver these things—when it fails to deliver certainty, so that people can plan for their future and their children's futures; when it fails to deliver security, so that people know that their jobs are secure, they can put food on the table, if any calamities befall them their government is on their side; when it fails to deliver safety so that people feel safe in their homes, on the streets and in their workplaces—it's not just a failing of policy. It's a failing of leadership, and this Liberal-National government has failed in its leadership. It has presided over a vaccine rollout that is inept and happening at a snail's pace. It is a rollout that has real impacts for the people that they are supposed to represent, for the people for whom they are supposed to deliver certainty, security and safety.
I want to speak about a few people in Cowan, people like Garry. He's 70 years old and he reported to my office earlier this month saying that he's been trying to get a vaccination since Easter. His local medical centre claimed that there is a waitlist—wait for it—of 500-plus people who are waiting to get vaccinated at the centre. The centre is only getting a supply of 50 doses a week. Kerry, whose 89-year-old mother is living in a nursing home, has contacted the office concerned that neither the staff nor the residents have received vaccines, despite being in the priority group 1a. One of the worst ones that I got was from a nurse named Jeanette who wrote to me. She starts her email with this: 'Right now I should be on my way to receive my first Pfizer COVID vaccination as a frontline worker, but instead I'm sitting writing to my federal MP to express my extreme outrage, frustration and disappointment.' I think that just about sums up how people are feeling about this government's handling of the vaccine rollout: outrage, frustration and disappointment.
These are not my words, these are not the words of people on this side of the chamber. This is not us complaining or whingeing or being negative. These are the words of Australians. These are the words of the people you are supposed to be looking after. These are the words of the people that you are supposed to be keeping safe, to give them security and to give them confidence: fail, fail, fail, with real-world consequences. While these are individual cases, the collective impact of this is that we have slower economic recovery. We're behind the rest of the world.
A government member interjecting—
Dr ALY: We will have slower economic recovery as the rest of the world opens up its borders and ours stay closed because we have no vaccine and no quarantine facilities. We will have our borders closed to tourists and international students as the rest of the world forges ahead because we are No. 113 on the long list, even though we were promised that we were way ahead, that we were at the front of the line. A lack of certainty and security, people don't know who to believe—
A government member interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The assistant minister is warned.
Dr ALY: Do they believe the health minister? Do they believe the Prime Minister? What is the timetable? The government has spent millions of dollars advertising themselves. They haven't allocated a single cent to advertising vaccine uptake, including advertising to ensure that people do not fall for vaccine fraud, to ensure that people do not fall for phishing scams that will lead them to taking false vaccines or to criminal syndicates collecting information from them. Where is the advertising campaign? Instead, we have a government that spends millions of dollars advertising itself. How can Australians trust this government? How can they trust them on security, on confidence, on safety? We've got a Prime Minister who doesn't hold a hose. No, he doesn't hold a hose but, I tell you what, he holds a hammer—doesn't always hit the nail on the head, though! On the vaccine rollout and on quarantine, he's missed the nail completely.
Ms LIU (Chisholm) (15:50): I want to start by thanking the Australian Labor Party for giving me the opportunity to speak on the impact of this government. The Morrison government is securing Australia's recovery from COVID-19—and everyone knows that. Unlike Labor, the decisions we make on this side of the House have real consequences. We do not have the luxury of grandstanding in this place. While the opposition complains and plays political games, the Morrison government is getting on with the job.
When I vote in this House, my electorate of Chisholm is front of mind, and I must think about what a particular bill will do to my electorate. So let me first speak on the impact that this government has had in my electorate of Chisholm. I can go to the people of Chisholm and say that around 63,900 taxpayers in Chisholm will benefit from tax relief of up to $2,745 this year alone. This is a result of the Morrison government's decisions to extend low- and middle-income tax relief. This is the impact of this government's decisions, making sure hardworking Australians are better off. We are making sure that those that need our help most get the help. We are guaranteeing essential services and looking after those in need. Around 15,976 age pensioners and 2,983 carers in Chisholm received three support payments since the start of the pandemic, totalling $1,250. This government positively impacts the lives of everyday Australians.
Labor haven't been asked to make any public health decisions for a while. But, when they did, we saw a Labor government refuse to list life-changing medication on the PBS. If Labor want to talk about the impact of a government's failures, that would be a good place to start. Unlike Labor, this government has listed every medicine on the PBS that has been recommended by medical experts. Over two million free or subsidised medicines have been delivered in Chisholm alone.
The list of positive impacts in my community goes on. There are 930 families in Chisholm who will directly benefit from childcare reforms. I can go to the businesses of Chisholm and see the impact of continuing tax incentives. Around 24,400 businesses in Chisholm can write off the full value of any eligible asset they purchase. This has an immediate, positive impact for businesses in my electorate of Chisholm. But it's not just those in my electorate of Chisholm who are better off. Victorians are better off as well. In Victoria, we have received over 35,000 HomeBuilder applications. This is helping the construction sector—another example of real, positive impacts in our communities.
I want to thank the Morrison government for their continued investment in infrastructure as well. We have a 10-year $110 billion pipeline of projects, including, in my home state of Victoria, a $2 billion investment to deliver a new Melbourne intermodal terminal. So I am proud to be a part of this government that delivers positive impacts for the people of Chisholm, Victoria and Australia.
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (15:55): So full of hubris, so busy patting themselves on the back and so full of self-congratulation, the government are, in fact, utterly blind to their responsibilities and the needs of the Australian people—totally blind. I have noted this government being tone deaf on a whole range of issues in the past, and I might come back to some of those. But the idea that members of government would stand up one after another in this chamber saying, 'What a great job we're doing,' when they have utterly failed one of the most basic premises of government: to protect their citizens in a global pandemic! You've got an opportunity now to vaccinate the nation, and there is no sense of urgency whatsoever. There is no sense of urgency about this project at all. There are outbreaks in the state of Victoria again today. Are any of the Victorian members of the government saying, 'Gee, if only we'd got our people vaccinated in a timely manner, we might not be facing this crisis again'? Maybe all that trade and business you would like to see kicking off would have a chance if you'd actually vaccinated people. Telling us we're at the front of the queue when we are 113th is such deceit.
But the Australian people have got you guys clocked. They're not listening to this rhetoric that is churned out day after day after day by this government. When I'm at home in Newcastle, what do people ask about the government? Let me tell you what they ask about you. They say: 'What is this government's plan for this nation? Honestly, what is this vision?' All they see is the master of transactional politics sitting in the Prime Minister's seat at the dispatch box and not doing anything unless there is a direct, immediate political benefit from doing so. We see this time and time again.
The Leader of the Opposition was absolutely right when he said the Prime Minister definitely got the Talking Heads reference completely wrong in his speech the other day. This is a Prime Minister leading us all on a road to nowhere. We're on a road to nowhere when it comes to vaccines now. We have appallingly low rates of vaccination going on. Vaccine hesitancy is through the roof. All my GPs are saying the same thing:, they can't get the kind of supply they need in order to do the vaccines, but, even when they've got the vaccine supply, there's no information going out into the community as to how you could rock up and get your AstraZeneca or Pfizer vaccine in a timely manner. The irony that this Prime Minister—Scotty from Marketing, as he's known to the population—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Llew O'Brien ): The member will withdraw.
Ms CLAYDON: I've given him his proper title, but what he's known as—indeed, his Twitter handle—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will pause for a moment.
Ms CLAYDON: I withdraw.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Without qualification, thank you.
Ms CLAYDON: I withdraw, Deputy Speaker, out of respect to you and your office. But the Prime Minister, who has had some experience, I am led to believe, in marketing in a prior life, is completely unable to run a community education campaign on vaccination. There is no community health promotion campaign going on. It is not necessary, apparently.
I go back to the issue that we're going nowhere on vaccinations. We're on a road to nowhere when it comes to the complete disregard for the Commonwealth's responsibility to manage quarantine and keep our borders and our nation safe. We're going nowhere on National Sorry Day, I just remind this House again. We are going nowhere on the Uluru Statement from the Heart, going nowhere in terms of any real action on climate change, going nowhere on addressing the gender pay gap or gender equality in this nation, going nowhere on real new energy jobs, going nowhere on addressing the housing crisis in Australia, going nowhere on Australian manufacturing and being able to boost our capacity to make things again here in Australia, going nowhere on wages growth, going nowhere on education and training—going backwards, indeed, on education and training in this nation—and going nowhere on national leadership full stop. This is a Prime Minister who has no vision, no courage, no guts and no appetite to build a better Australia for after this pandemic—absolutely nothing. That empathy training was a complete waste of money.
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (16:00): Almost every afternoon we discuss a matter of public importance in this place. We discuss the big issues of the day—taxes, vaccines, infrastructure, the pandemic, the recent recession. The Labor Party puts forward a topic that matters to the people of Australia, and we have a debate, often spirited, about these issues, because debating important matters is largely what we do here. So, when the opposition put forward a matter today that is without a substantive noun, my first thought was of a little sympathy for the other side. It must be a tough day in the back rooms of the Labor Party when, after just one MPI this week, they run out of a tangible issue to raise. There must be some soul-searching going on there.
But I'm an optimist. I have many friends over there, including the member who just spoke. I consider her a good friend. So, instead, I see this MPI as a step towards agreement between the two parties. I return to the progressive discussions between parties that we saw in the Menzies and Calwell era, in the Hawke and Howard era, where parties certainly disagreed but worked through their differences to find a way forward, avoiding the slanging matches and petty squabbles that we so often see here now, in favour of discussion and progressive debates that actually move things forward.
An honourable member interjecting—
Mr ALEXANDER: Sorry; I can't hear you. I'm speaking at the moment.
But, either way, there is a substantive issue with this motion, even though it says so little. Where is the failure? In 2021 how do we measure failure? In a year dominated by the COVID pandemic, we might measure failure in deaths from the disease. While every death is a real tragedy, Australia has been blessed to escape with relatively few deaths, especially compared to other countries. There were weeks when the number of daily US deaths was the equivalent to or larger than the population of Townsville. We have avoided that terrible fate, which I would think is hardly a failure. It is a triumph.
Would we measure it in cases? Perhaps. But here again Australia has had a fraction of the cases of the rest of the world. The UK had a great day for cases yesterday. There were only 2,493. While we certainly need to be concerned about the cluster in Victoria, most countries would give anything to have only 10 cases in a day. It would be a bold person who would look at this as a failure.
What about the economy? That may be a fair metric, but then again this government has had resounding success. We may have gone into recession, but we bounced back out of there so quickly that nobody in the country could have predicted it to be so good or dared to even hope for it. There is no other country in the OECD that has more people in jobs now than before the pandemic. Is that a failure? I think not.
We can always do better, and we don't trust anyone who says that they can't, but, comparing Australia to the rest of the world over the past 18 months, it's pretty hard to call us a failure. We've had this success as a government and as a nation, working together with states to deal with outbreaks, treat patients, deliver vaccines and support people who have been affected by the lockdowns. JobKeeper payments, vaccine deals, quarantine support—national cabinet coordination coming together. This government is helping to keep Australians safe, healthy and employed. If you ask anyone anywhere, they'd say this has been a huge success. In a comparison between nations right now, we are the Dawn Fraser of the race, we are the Heather McKay of the championships, we are the Ken Rosewall of this court.
An honourable member: I'm too young to know those people!
Mr ALEXANDER: My faster told me about them! You should read your history! We're the gold medallists, and if they had platinum medals we'd win those too. If this was a war, the Mint would be overworked handing out VCs to every frontline health worker. (Time expired)
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (16:05): I'm proud to rise today to support my colleagues in calling this government out on the failures that they've delivered for Australians most recently, and I do so with this context: today Joe Biden tweeted that 50 per cent of American adults are completely vaccinated. That's something I'd like to be saying about this country today, but, no, in this country only two per cent of adults are completely vaccinated. If you put that into context in terms of the trajectory for the US and the fact that they've had a change of government along this journey, that's an extraordinary achievement. I won't be calling the Biden government a failure.
I will, however, be calling the Morrison government a failure today, because today we saw—it's not that long ago since question time, is it? Can I remind you of what I saw in question time?—two questions in, one from us and one from their own side, I stood to ask the Prime Minister a question and he was too puffed, too tired and gave it the flick pass to someone else, and that sums up this government. They're too tired, too out of breath, looking to flick past responsibility, and they have done it through out this pandemic. They've blamed things on the states. They've blamed it on people.
Last time we were here—it's only a week ago we went home for a little while—the Prime Minister was really being careful about congratulating Australians on their achievement. Remember? 'Australians should congratulate themselves on how well we're doing in the pandemic.' Well, that switched today, didn't it? Today it was about taking credit. Not once did he congratulate Australians today. Today it was all about him. It was all about what a great job he'd done in the face of what is an absolute failure.
As a Victorian I stand here, my phone is ringing hot from home because there's another outbreak, which underlines this government's failure in quarantine and in vaccination. I can go back—in my electorate during this pandemic we lost lots of lives in aged care, and I had to put up with this government obfuscating and suggesting that aged care was someone else's responsibility and that the provision of PPE was someone else's responsibility. They still haven't learnt the lesson, because, as we stand here today, aged-care workers in my electorate are still not vaccinated. We've got an outbreak in Melbourne, and aged-care workers aren't vaccinated. Worse, in terms of failure, they were told they would be vaccinated on site—remember?—only to have the rug pulled out from under them and told to go to the GP.
We know that aged-care workers are often working shifts at different places. We knew from the pandemic that people went to work sick because they couldn't afford to stay home, but this government told them, 'Go to the GP.' When, pray tell, were they going to the GP? Were they taking a day off work to go to the GP? Were they going to be paid for that day off, given the vast majority of them are casuals without sick pay? This government just doesn't think anything through, and then it marches in here and wants to claim credit for Australians' hard work, claim credit for the states' hard work, while they have failed, absolutely failed.
Today, in question time, they claimed credit for quarantine staff being vaccinated. The states have done that! They claimed credit for frontline health staff being vaccinated. The states have done that! The states have done those things!
The Prime Minister stood at the dispatch box claiming credit for other people's hard work. He sees the pandemic as the road to another election win. That is the frame everything is seen through. This government has failed aged-care workers. This government is so frightened of failure now, it has stopped setting targets. They don't set targets for anything. It is out on the never-never. Remember the increase in numbers in the quarantine facility in the Northern Territory were going to be April-May? April-May—what sort of a target is that? When asked about it today, the Prime Minister couldn't answer it and flick passed it to someone else to take responsibility for his failings.
Mr SHARMA (Wentworth) (16:10): Australia has been through a lot in the past year. We have been through a once-in-a-century pandemic, we have tragically lost the life of 910 of our fellow Australians, we have been through things like lockdowns and social distancing, we have had the term 'personal hygiene' elevated to a new set of expectations about how we behave, we've had weddings cancelled, we've had guests at funerals limited, we've had people unable to visit elderly and disabled relatives in care facilities, and families have been cut off from one another, both interstate and overseas. In addition to those social impacts, our economy suffered a big impact. At the height of the pandemic in the second-quarter of last year, 3½ million people were having their jobs supported through JobKeeper and 1.3 million Australians had either lost their jobs or had their hours reduced to zero. At the time, members here will remember, Treasury feared our unemployment rate could reach as high at 15 per cent and economy might contract as much as 20 per cent. Understandably, it was a time of great fear and great uncertainty, both in Australia and, indeed, around the world.
But one year later, Australia, in my view, is emerging exceptionally well from this crisis. We have unemployment now down to 5.5 per cent, youth unemployment at a 12-year low. We have more Australians in work now, with over 13 million people in jobs, than we had before we went into this pandemic. We have consumer sentiment at its highest level in 11 years. We are still one of only nine countries with a AAA credit rating from all three ratings agencies. Over 3½ million Australians have received the vaccination and, by the end of this year, everyone should have been able to receive one.
There has only been one death from COVID in Australia this year, one more death than we should have had but, nonetheless, one death. Every one of these deaths and losses and sufferings we have had from COVID is a tragedy. But when we look across the world, across the seas, at the United States, which members opposite just mentioned as a paragon or a model of some sort, there have been over half a million deaths from COVID-19 in the United States; in the United Kingdom, over 120,000 deaths. There have been 3.3 million deaths worldwide from COVID-19. In Australia, as I said there have been 910 deaths, 820 of which have been in Victoria. Whilst every one of those deaths has been a tragedy and a loss, if we looked at what we could have been facing on a proportionate basis, based on other advanced economies, we could have been facing something in the order of 30,000 to 40,000 of our fellow citizens who would have lost their lives through this.
We have the travel bubble with New Zealand now open, and the vaccination program is accelerating with a record 104,000-plus vaccinations delivered yesterday, with everyone over 50 eligible to receive the vaccination. Our economy is roaring back to life. As Steven Kennedy, the Treasury secretary, said in a speech last week:
Australia’s economic recovery from the pandemic has been stronger than we expected, stronger than we have seen from any downturn in recent history and ahead of any major advanced economy …
Now, this is not a cause for complacency and it is not a cause for self-congratulations either, but I think that perhaps a better topic could have been nonetheless found for today's MPI, because any honest and realistic appraisal of Australia's performance through this crisis would not choose a title like that which has been chosen today.
I feel for those opposite. Those opposite should hold the government to account, but my respectful suggestion is that at times their relentless cynicism and hyperbolic criticism only detracts from legitimate arguments they might have to make. When you look around the world, there are very few countries who have come through this pandemic in better shape than Australia. The health impact of the disease has been far less, orders of magnitude less, than other nations around the world, including other advanced economies. We are the only advanced economy with more people in work and more jobs than we had before the pandemic. Our economic contraction through the pandemic at 2½ per cent was one of the smallest, in part because of the success of temporary and targeted measures like JobKeeper.
We've got back to normal—the easing of health and social-distancing restrictions and the resumption of social activities, public gatherings and sporting events—much sooner than any other country. As I said, this is no cause for complacency, and we are preparing for the future. We've had 3.795 million vaccine doses administered to date, a record 104,658 delivered just yesterday, 25 May. We expect to have 4½ million Pfizer doses in the country by the end of June and then over seven million in each of the third and fourth quarters, which should allow us to ramp up to around half a million Pfizer doses per week in the third quarter. The sooner we get this done, and this will be a combined national effort not just of the federal government but of the states, primary healthcare providers and GPs, and our citizens, the sooner we can ease our border restrictions and the more we can resume normal activity.
The pandemic is far from over, but we can see our way out. The journey may not be linear, but let's keep our eye on the ball and focus on what we have achieved.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Llew O'Brien ): The time for the discussion has concluded.
BILLS
Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 3) Bill 2021
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr CLARE (Blaxland) (16:15): Before question time I rose to say that I support this legislation and that the opposition supports the bill that's been introduced into the House, in particular schedule 2, which deals with the Family Home Guarantee. During question time, the Minister for Housing, who joins us here at the table in parliament, made the important point—one that I welcome—that he has been inundated with requests and interest from single-parent families looking to take up this offer. That makes the question I asked in the earlier part of my contribution all the more important.
Before question time, I asked this question of the minister, and perhaps he might be able to answer the question across the dispatch box or tell us in reply: Is the 10,000 a cap? Is it a cap like the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme, or if more people want to access scheme than 10,000, can they? It's a genuine question. I think a lot of people would like to know what will happen if this scheme is as popular as it potentially could be, if more than 10,000 people want to access the scheme. Remember, it's only 10,000 over four years, not 10,000 a year like the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme. What will happen if more than 10,000 people want to access the scheme? As I mentioned before question time, there are something like a million single-parent families right across the country. Some of them own a home today, but many of them might want to access the scheme. If there is a cap, then there is a chance, a risk, that some people might miss out. So I ask minister to address that question in his reply.
The other issue I raised briefly before question time was the issue of price caps. Under the scheme, you only get access to the benefit if you buy a home under a certain price. That's fair enough. That is the way the scheme should work. But what happens if the price cap is so low that there is nothing to buy in certain parts of Australia? This is a problem which seems to have been identified in Launceston The headline on the front page of the Examiner in Launceston yesterday is: 'Great divide: Housing inequality and unaffordability highlighted by scheme'. The story was written by the journalist Ebony Abblitt. It looks at the scheme that we are debating here today and looks at how many properties single-parent families might be able to buy if they were to go online or open the newspaper and try to buy some property today. The article reads:
The Family Home Guarantee aims to support eligible single parents with dependents to purchase a home, by guaranteeing a participating lender up to 18 per cent of a purchase price - giving the ability to purchase a property for a deposit as small as two per cent.
But, under the scheme capital cities and regional areas (places with a population of 250,000 or more) have a higher price threshold.
Parents in Hobart can access the scheme for a home up to $400,000 - but Launceston is classed as "rest of state", with a threshold of just $300,000. A property search on Monday—
that's Monday of this week—
showed just 25 homes in the greater Launceston region that met that criteria - with the majority not meeting basic bedroom requirements for families.
The story goes on:
"Whilst the announcement looks great, once you delve into the nitty gritty of it all, it certainly needs some work—
That's a quote from Launceston-based financial advisor Toby Mahoney. He's quoted again:
"That's the problem with it - it comes out and it's presented like it's a fantastic opportunity … but in reality … anything under $300,000 you're not going to get anything that's suitable for a small family".
The story goes on:
A property search undertaken by Mr Mahoney showed 25 properties available in the Launceston region with a listing under $300,000.
Twelve of those properties were asking for offers $275,000 or above - which Mr Mahoney said were "more likely" to go for over $300,000 due to the current market.
Two of the properties only had one bedroom, which he said would not realistically work for a single parent family.
That leaves 11 properties available, nine of which are two-bedroom properties.
"There's potentially two options for any single parent within Launceston that has more than one child under the $300,000 mark and that place, you're still going to need to do some work to it," Mr Mahoney said.
The article ends:
With Tasmania's smaller population, Mr Mahoney said … the scheme would be able to reach more people if the price threshold was increased across to the same amount as Hobart.
It's a more realistic figure to be able to buy a property for a small family to live in.
He's quoted again:
"It would get them into a property sooner, which is really what this scheme is all about."
So this front-page story in the Launceston Examiner is making the point that, under this scheme, there would be only two properties available right now for a single parent with more than one child to buy and to be able to benefit from this scheme. And this is in no ordinary place. This is in Launceston. This is in the most marginal seat of Bass.
Surely the government has got to fix this. Surely, Minister, you've got to have a look at this. This is the most marginal seat, or one of the most marginal seats, in the country, and you've got the local paper saying that the scheme isn't going to work there as well as it could because the price cap's too low. This isn't hard to fix. It's an easy thing to fix. They just need to change the price cap.
I'll give the minister a week. Mark my words: once he reads this article and sees what the newspaper is saying is true, I suspect that, by this time next week, the minister will be back and increasing that price cap for Launceston, because it's the right thing to do, because it makes sense, because it means that more people will be able to benefit from the scheme.
But don't just do that for Launceston. Have a look at the price caps that you've set for the whole scheme and make sure that they work in all parts of the country, so that single parents, wherever they live, can get equal access to the scheme.
This government has been in power now for eight years—eight long years—and, over that time, housing affordability has just got worse. It's harder to buy a home now than ever before. It's harder to rent than ever before. There are more homeless Australians today, sadly, than ever before. This is a genuine housing crisis.
We support this legislation for what it is and for what it does, but it doesn't do enough. It doesn't do enough to turn all of this around. If 10,000 is the total number of single-parent families who could benefit from this, over four years—2½ thousand families a year benefiting from this—then that's not enough when there are a million single-parent families that might or could benefit from this if that cap didn't exist. More could be done.
And it's not just single-parent families. There are lots of Australians out there who could do with an extra helping hand, whether it's to buy a home, to rent or just to put a roof over their head. I mentioned earlier, before question time, older women. The fastest-growing group of homeless Aussies are older women aged 65 to 74. I'll give you two other examples. The first is veterans. One in 10 people who will sleep in a park or on the street in Sydney tonight will be a veteran. How did we let that happen? We train them, we send them off to war, and then, despite everything that we say on Anzac Day, we do forget them—otherwise, we'd be doing something about it.
The other one is women and kids fleeing domestic violence. This legislation, with good intent, is trying to help single-parent families to buy a home, but there are a lot of other single-parent families who are trying to flee their home. Last year, 10,000 mums and kids fled their home in the middle of the night, sought refuge in a crisis centre and got turned away because there wasn't a bed. Just think about that for a second. In the middle of a pandemic, 10,000 mums, fleeing their home—the place where they were raising a family—ran out, sought refuge and got turned away because there wasn't a bed. People I speak to in refuges tell me it has never been this bad, not in 30 years. People are staying in refuges not for days but for weeks and sometimes months. Why? It's because there isn't enough transitional accommodation and long-term accommodation for women and their kids to move into.
We've got a Women's Safety Summit coming in July. I ask the government, if they are serious about women's safety, to have a look at the policy we announced in the budget reply—if not the whole policy to establish the Housing Australia Future Fund, then at least the part that helps women fleeing domestic violence. We need more crisis accommodation, yes, but we also need more transitional and long-term accommodation, otherwise more and more women and kids are going to get pushed away, knocked back from refuges, and forced to sleep in a car or at a friend's house or go back to the house where violence is happening. In the budget reply, we promised that, if we were to win the next election, we would build 20,000 social housing homes, 4,000 of which would be for mums and kids fleeing domestic violence. I ask the government to, at the very least, have a think about that.
We support this legislation helps. It helps, but it doesn't help enough. As I said at the start of my remarks, it's like a bucket of water in a drought. We'll take it, but so much more is needed to help Aussies buy a home.
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (16:27): Taking those recommendations from the previous speakers, these price caps are important. They're very carefully calculated, and I think it's reasonable to say that the government is monitoring the operation of these concessions that are offered, particularly by the states, but also median house prices and taking into account unique circumstances in every corner of Australia. As he will be aware, there are capital city caps and caps for the rest of the state. I think the capital city caps are for populations of 250,000 or more. There's no doubt there will be variation between some of these regional centres. Prices can vary significantly. It isn't as simple as running a search, popping in a number and seeing how many are listed below the price. Plenty of properties settle on a price far different from what is listed. Plenty of people are prepared to move away from the centre of a regional centre, for instance, to just outside a regional centre, where a $300,000 cap would cover far more properties than in a specific area of a community that may well be a small regional town or city. So there are options to purchase throughout the region, not just inside a regional city. Lastly, these calculations are not pegged to other things that create uncertainty and confusion, for both the lenders and the borrowers. We're not using median house price indices. They can be volatile. They reflect past sales activity and, as I think the previous member spoke about, are not really a reflection of the current market conditions.
I want to go back in history a little bit, prior to what I think was a really important move into home saver arrangements for single parents. This is an extremely important addition to the original deposit assistance scheme, which has been successful. It has seen extremely low, if not negligible, default rates. That's very encouraging. If we go back to 2018, when this conversation was initiated, the great concern was that any assistance with deposits could lead to higher default rates and overheated housing markets. The first conversations about the deposit assistance scheme emanated from my office in September 2018, at a time when there was no other discussion about this topic. The messages, both to Treasury and to ministries, came from Carolyn Rosario, a former staffer in my office, who identified the need to understand the pressures that people with secure salaries faced in raising a deposit.
In many cases, property growth moved so fast that the deposit requirement also grew so fast that you couldn't even catch up to the deposit with regular savings. This shift we've seen over two decades, where the true hurdle is no longer about earnings but now about finding a deposit, has necessitated a look at deposits. Young electors were telling us they could service these loans without any problems. Their issue is having to raise $50,000 or $80,000. We talk about the bank of mum and dad. But nothing is more unfair than a certain cohort, because of good luck and their parents, being able to purchase a home while others are locked out forever.
The understated element of both the home saver and deposit assistance systems is that we now provide this to people of all backgrounds, and an important extension that we're debating in this legislation takes on the challenge of single parents, predominantly single mums, so they can leave the conditions of unreliable and tenuous rental and find themselves owning their own home. Nothing can be more important, but it is often overlooked by people who live in their own home, than being able to give young children, with otherwise difficult tenancy-landlord arrangements, their own room—able to put a nail in the wall and hang something off it; to walk in the door and kick your shoes off and call it your own place; to invite kids over from school and say this is your place that your parents have just purchased. To know that no landlord is going to boot you out at the end of a lease—the sort of uncertainty that could mean you leave school early because of the rental conditions in the area you live and, potentially, the job that your parents have. That is all, effectively, addressed with deposit assistance.
In a rapidly moving property market, as we see right now, post COVID, and as we see confidence coming back to real estate, again we see people desperate to get on what we call the property conveyer belt. As they tell us in this chamber, repeatedly—they tell us from every corner of Australia—once you're on the escalator, you're on it for life. Property ownership sets up a decision tree with a completely different pathway of choices. In prospect theory, we know that choice is about risk and benefit, and whether we have risk aversion towards loss or are prepared to take a gamble. With buying a home, the gamble you want to take is to be paying off your own home and mortgage—
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (16:32): Mr Deputy Speaker O'Brien, we have made clear we don't view this individual as fit to be a member of parliament. I move:
That the Member be no further heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business be disagreed to.
The House divided. [16:36]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (16:40): Surely nothing is more important than speaking about single parents and the opportunity for them to buy a home with a reduced deposit, and it's something, ironically, that both sides of this chamber supported at the 2019 election. Both parties supported deposit assistance, and it's a very important contribution. Thirty thousand families will no longer be renters but will be home owners by the end of this financial year. The default rate is extremely low. It is a successful program that originated in 2018. I recognise the role of the Australian Banking Association in providing advice, and I recognise the support of Aussie Home Loans and other major lenders and of builders and constructors who recognised the role this could play in supporting property prices through COVID.
Most importantly, imagine single parents with children finally being able to escape the rent trap and to live without having over their heads the shadow of being moved out of their homes because they're caught in rent difficulties through the whim of a landlord. This is what this is all about: giving people a chance, for the first time, not to have to raise large deposits that would simply not be possible. The evidence is there to look at, if you haven't got your head in the sand, that the default rate is at a record low so far. For the 30,000 families that initially took up the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme, be it a new home or an existing dwelling, and now for the additional 10,000, this is something that deserves bipartisan support. It originated in 2018 with these early discussions, and it's been a very important policy for those most vulnerable families to achieve a dream that would never have been achieved without this policy. I strongly support this measure.
Dr HAINES (Indi) (16:42): I wish to speak briefly about schedule 2 of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 3) Bill 2021, which will enact the Family Home Guarantee program that the government announced earlier this month in the budget. That program would allow single-parent families with an annual income lower than $125,000 to build a new home or purchase an existing home with a deposit as little as two per cent. The program would be open to 2,500 single-parent families per year for four years. To be eligible for the scheme, these single parents would need to show that they could service the remaining 98 per cent of the loan within 30 years. The property price must be below a maximum threshold which ranges from $700,000 in Sydney to $375,000 for electorates like mine in regional Victoria.
I will not oppose this bill, but I want to table a number of concerns I have about the Family Home Guarantee and the housing crisis regional Australians face right now. First of all, I am disappointed that the government decided to establish this program as part of the omnibus Treasury bill. It was entirely possible for the government to introduce this measure separately and not put MPs in a position where we're also considering welfare supports for thalidomide survivors and recovery grants for flood and storm victims. The government must be ready to debate the standalone merits of this policy, which it has sold as one of two pillars in its Women's Economic Security Package.
Second, the Family Home Guarantee program totally misunderstands the economics of the current housing crisis, which is clearly a supply side issue. We have not had a comprehensive national housing policy in Australia since World War II, and, quite frankly, it shows. You're living under a rock if you think better access to finance is the silver bullet that's going to fix the housing crisis. What we really need is more mixed housing stock, including social housing and crisis accommodation for the homeless or for women escaping family violence. I have heard that message time and time again from the Master Builders Association in Wodonga, from the nine local councils across my electorate and from the hundreds of small businesses I speak to who are under immense pressure because they can't attract new workers to town, primarily because there's simply nowhere to live.
Earlier this month, the Regional Australia Institute reported that there are 66,200 job vacancies across regional Australia. This is the largest since records began, and even beats the demand during the mining construction boom a decade ago. For years, the government has said, 'Build it and they will come.' Well, they've come and we haven't built it. The latest data shows that less than 0.5 per cent of properties in north-east Victoria are vacant. That's the lowest level since these records began over two decades ago. We also know that less than a third of properties in Indi can be classified as affordable, based on local income data. Let's put that into perspective. Only 0.1 per cent of houses in Indi are available and affordable to an average salary earner, let alone low-income, single-parent families who earn much lower than the median salary. Based on the latest census data, we are talking about 60-odd houses across all of Indi—29,000 square kilometres—that might be available. Median house prices across the electorate are also soaring way above the $375,000 cap this program imposes for regional Victoria. The latest Domain report shows house prices increased 83 per cent in Alpine, 32 per cent in Wodonga, 57 per cent in Indigo, 35 per cent in Wangaratta and 41 per cent in Benalla in the last five years. The median house price is now $409,000 in Wodonga. So good luck finding one of those 60 houses across Indi or in Wodonga under $375,000.
It is a total stretch of the imagination to think that many single-parent families would be anywhere near the $125,000 salary cap in this program in Indi. Less than four per cent of Indi earns over $100,000 a year. More than half earn under $50,000 a year, and the median salary is $42,809. So it beggars belief to think single-parent families could find a way to save $10,000 for a deposit and demonstrate that they could service monthly mortgage payments of $1,500 over 30 years, when they're bringing in around $700 per week after tax. To me, and I think to anyone reasonable, this is the definition of unacceptable mortgage stress. It seems to me that the people this program aims to help will either miss out or suffer great financial hardship as a result. Indeed, they are likely to miss out. There are more than one million single-parent families in Australia, and only 10,000 places in this program over four years.
The third and final point I'd like to make is about how this package is framed as a women's economic security measure. The government made a lot of noise on budget night about its $1.8 billion package to create new opportunities for women and secure their economic future. But it was, essentially, two flagship measures: an increase to the childcare subsidy, and this: the Family Home Guarantee program for single parents. I have spent the last few weeks consulting with over 1,000 constituents in my electorate about their views on the budget, via an online survey. Here's a quote from one constituent who lives in Marysville: 'I want to see spending on social housing, not spin, on the few who may be able to buy a house, then struggle to pay the mortgage when the interest rates go up. There's no point in putting money into refuges if there's no available housing for women escaping violence to go to.' I'm still working through all the results of that survey, but it's pretty clear already that people don't think this package truly understands the economic challenges women are facing. Single-parent is not synonymous with single mother. Child care is not the sole responsibility of women. Sure, these two measures will go some way to support women, but single parenthood and child care is not the totality of the experience of women in modern Australia. It's much broader than this, and the government has some work to do to truly understand this.
I won't be opposing this bill today, but I do want to record some central concerns I have about it. To that end, 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:
(1) notes:
(a) the housing availability crisis is reaching new heights across Australia, including North East Victoria where residential vacancy rates are at their lowest level since records began;
(b) the Family Home Guarantee will not address the underlying need for affordable and diverse housing supply, including social housing;
(c) that in some regions, a single parent earning the maximum allowable income under the Family Home Guarantee would have to commit close to half their monthly income to be able to service a loan based on median property prices; and
(d) the Family Home Guarantee will only support 10,000 single parents over four years, while there are currently one million single parent families across Australia; and
(2) calls on the Government to take a leadership role in urgently addressing the housing supply crisis by working proactively with local and state governments to unlock creative solutions, including incentives for private developers to build more affordable low-cost housing stock at scale".
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr S Georganas ): Is the amendment seconded?
Mr Wilkie: I second the amendment moved by the member for Indi and reserve my right to speak.
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (16:51): It's a great privilege to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 3) Bill 2021, and particularly to speak on it in the presence of the Assistant Treasurer, who is currently in the chamber. Many of these so-called TLAB bills contain a range of measures in them. One of the measures that you often see in these bills is the granting of deductible gift recipient status to organisations. I didn't want to let the passage of this bill go without saying something about a couple of the organisations that have been given deductible gift recipient status that are very old organisations in the Jewish community of Sydney.
It may not be well known across the country, but Jews have been in Australia since a dozen or more Jewish convicts stepped ashore with the First Fleet. Since that time, Jewish communal institutions have been established. One of the first institutions to be established in the colony of New South Wales was a Jewish burial society, or a chevra kadisha, as it is known in Hebrew. The chevra kadisha which exists today in Sydney is the direct descendant of that original burial society. Jewish burial rituals are very important in terms of respecting the body, and I'll talk a little bit about them in a moment. But chevra kadisha have existed not just in Sydney but right throughout the country. It might interest people to know that, in a recent edition of the Australian Jewish Historical Society magazine—and I pay tribute to Peter Philippsohn, the society's president—they have a very interesting article about the chevra kadisha that existed in the Jewish community in Goulburn. It is now a heritage listed site—not just the burial plots themselves but the home of the people who were engaged in watching over the bodies of people who had died.
A burial society is one of the very first things that Jews establish when they come to a new land. The chevra kadisha is important because of the particular rituals under Jewish law that it provides. Firstly, when a person has died, respect for the body means that somebody needs to remain with the body at all times. These people have particular roles. They are usually orthodox Jewish people. They are called shomrim. Their job is to respect the body by remaining with it. There is ritual purification that occurs. Before the funeral, the deceased is washed, cleansed and purified so that, in a symbolic way, they leave the world in the same condition as they entered it. Only individuals of the same gender perform the tahara, or the purification, for the deceased. The people who do this are trained in proper procedures and perform their duties with the utmost care and preserve the dignity of the deceased.
The shrouding procedure, in which the deceased are prepared to be buried, is interesting. The idea in Jewish law is that people leave the world as they entered it. So a Jewish coffin is always a very plain coffin, and a person is shrouded in plain linen garments that are representative, in their colour and in their style, of the garments that were worn by the high priest in temple times on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar. Men are buried along with their tallit, or prayer shawl, and it is the chevra kadisha that performs the role of preparing the body for burial. As I said, the coffin is identical. It's plain. There's no ornamentation. Everyone is treated in the same way, from the most distinguished citizen to the poorest or youngest person, sadly, buried by the chevra kadisha. Everything is returned to nature. Under Jewish custom, people are buried rather than cremated or embalmed, and it is considered disrespectful to have open coffins for viewing bodies.
The Sydney Chevra Kadisha is such an important institution in the Sydney Jewish community. It's building on Oxford Street, in Woollahra, has been a site of communal commemoration for over 70 years, but the building is very much run-down. I grew up in the synagogue down there, and the late Rabbi Fox, who was the rabbi that I grew up with, used to say, 'We are Emanuel Synagogue. We're down the road from the Chevra Kadisha. We hope you come to us before you go to them.' That was his way of reminding people where they were. The facilities there are now quite inadequate. They're 70 years old, they are too small for larger funerals—where you can often have people spilling out onto a very busy Sydney street—and they are quite antiquated and run down. The Chevra Kadisha, which is run by a volunteer board—and it obviously has paid staff as well—needs to move with the times. One of the great things about receiving deductible gift recipient status is that it will allow the Chevra Kadisha to raise funds and provide people who are looking to donate to it with a tax deduction for doing so—thereby encouraging more people in the community to donate to and support a very important community organisation.
Whereas the Chevra Kadisha is 203 years old, the second-oldest institution in the Sydney Jewish community is obviously the Great Synagogue. That is a site of much happier occasions for the Jewish community than funerals. It's pleasing to see that the Great Synagogue has been given deductible gift recipient status. The Great Synagogue is the most magnificent Jewish building in Australia. It is built in that classic 19th century cathedral style of synagogue. It has sat in Elizabeth Street since 1878. It is simply a stunning building.
The present rabbi of the Great Synagogue, Rabbi , Dr Ben Elton, is a wonderful scholar of Torah and a wonderful community leader who not only serves there but also serves as an adviser to the Jewish Board of Deputies. The Great Synagogue is one of the key institutions that people who are wanting to understand the Jewish community in Australia go to visit, because of its very deep history. On the ceiling, there are stars painted on the sky. The reason for those stars is that they each represent a different Australian Jewish serviceman who served in the First World War. The synagogue has gone through renovations over the years. The bimah, or the desk, where the rabbi and the cantor read from the Torah on a thrice-weekly basis was originally in the centre of the sanctuary. It was then many years later moved back closer to the arc. But it really is a magnificent building, and a magnificent heritage building of its age requires a great deal of upkeep and a great deal of care and conservation.
The Great Synagogue wasn't the first synagogue—there were two predecessor synagogues that amalgamated in the 1870s and came to establish this new community—but it was certainly for a long time the main and only synagogue in Sydney. It is referred to by many in the Jewish community as the mother congregation of Sydney. Many important religious festivals but also commemorations and celebrations have been held there. I have attended services for the Council of the Order of Australia there. They had a service recently to commemorate the life of His Royal Highness Prince Philip, who passed away recently. It is the central and focal site for the Jewish communal commemorations in New South Wales and one of the central sites in Australia, and it is a most beautiful sight. It is therefore, I believe, a very significant thing that, if this bill is passed, such an ancient and important institution in the communal life of Australia—not just Jewish communal life but the broader communal life of Australia—is being granted deductible gift recipient status, which, again, provides an incentive for people to donate to the restoration, the maintenance and the upkeep of the synagogue. The synagogue also has the magnificent Reverend Falk library, which has one of the most impressive collections of Jewish history and Judaica anywhere in the world but particularly in Australia. It is a great place of study, and it is a great place to learn more and understand more about the history of the Australian Jewish community.
I didn't want to go through any of the other details of this bill, but I didn't want to let the occasion of this bill's passage through the parliament pass without paying particular tribute to those two very important and very old institutions in Australian Jewish communal life. I think it's appropriate that the government and the parliament support the maintenance of institutions of a very old community that goes all the way back to the First Fleet. I commend the bill to the House.
Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (17:01): The Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 3) Bill 2021 does a couple of things in relation to a housing measure for sole parents. It is a measure which has been much touted by the government, but it's impact is much smaller than their claims would have you believe. It adjusts Medicare levy low-income thresholds, which is something that happens on an annual basis, so there's nothing to write home about there; changes the tax arrangements for disaster recovery grant payments in such a way as to make them tax free; and adds a number of charities to the specific listings for deductible gift recipients. Among them is the Judith Neilson Institute for Journalism and Ideas, a really important institute which is broadening the quantity of high-quality journalism available and collaborating with a range of media organisations in order to provide better international and regional coverage of investigative journalism. The work that the Judith Nielsen institute does is going to be increasingly important in the future as more pressure comes upon the media industry.
But, while these organisations are receiving specific listing, many other charities are hurting. We've just seen new data on volunteering from research work done by the Australian National University's Nick Biddle which reveals that the volunteering rate in Australia may now have fallen as low as 24 per cent. That's the share of Australian adults volunteering in the previous 12 months. That's off the back of Australian Bureau of Statistics surveys which showed that, over the period from 2010 to 2019, the volunteering rate fell from 36 per cent to 29 per cent. So if this Australian National University survey is accurate—if we can match it up against the Australian Bureau of Statistics surveys—it suggests a whopping 12 percentage point fall in the volunteering rate in Australia in just 11 years. That suggests that a third of Australia's volunteer workforce has dropped out over that period. That's a massive hit to the many charities that rely on assistance of volunteers.
Many charities are also struggling with donations. In-person fundraising drives weren't possible during the pandemic. Events such as charity balls had to be cancelled. While some foundations have opened their wallets and given more generously during the pandemic than they would have in a normal year, for some organisations that hasn't made up for the hit.
At the same time, the sector has a government that continues to wage a war on charities. The coalition parties for five years fought against the creation of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission—a one-stop shop for charities which was supported by a dozen reports before its creation but opposed by the coalition tooth and nail. They even brought into this parliament a bill which attempted to abolish the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, but, when they realised they couldn't get it through the Senate, they finally backed down.
What did they do instead? In the hours following the same-sex marriage vote passing, they appointed Gary Johns as head of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission—Gary Johns, who had attacked the charities Recognise and beyondblue, who had referred to Indigenous women as cash cows, who had written a book complaining about the extent of impure altruism, as he called it, within the charity sector, and who was best known not as a charities collaborator but as a charities critic.
We have now seen handed down the report of the mandated five-year review of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profit Commission legislation. That report was handed down in May 2018. Sadly, the government took nearly two years to respond, and it rejected 11 of the 30 recommendations. Among the recommendations it rejected were recommendations to provide more checks and balances on Dr Johns's powers. Such checks and balances would be appropriate given that he has restructured the organisation in such a way that it is much more hierarchical, with the commissioners working less as collaborators and with more of the organisation reporting directly to him.
We know that the government is now attempting to get through changes that would see charities deregistered by Dr Johns if he anticipates that they will commit a summary offence. Let's just go through that. A summary offence could include something like trespassing, so, if Dr Johns anticipates that a charity will encourage trespassing, he could deregister it, effectively destroying the organisation. This is a power that Labor would be reluctant to hand to any head of the charities commission, even the well-respected Susan Pascoe, the inaugural head of the organisation, but it's a power we should be particularly concerned about handing to Gary Johns.
We have seen the sector outraged by this. Right across the political spectrum, charities have spoken out about their concerns that handing this additional deregistration power to Gary Johns could well see them unable to participate in the advocacy arena. We have seen critiques from Tim Costello, who, in a terrific article by Mike Seccombe in the Saturday Paper, was quoted as comparing the changes to Putin's Russia. We've seen criticism from St Vincent de Paul, from Anglicare and from UnitingCare. Many religious charities have been concerned about the government's new front in their war on charities. This is a sector which has had to write two open letters to successive Liberal prime ministers complaining about the attacks in the sector.
The fact is that the Liberals don't want charity voices in the public space. Labor sees the voices of charities as enriching the public debate, but the coalition don't want people criticising them. So they believe that social service charities should serve soup at soup kitchens but shouldn't talk about poverty. They believe that environmental charities should plant trees but shouldn't talk about climate change and deforestation. They believe that legal charities should assist needy people in court but shouldn't talk about Indigenous incarceration and the systemic factors that are driving that. What the Liberals miss is that the voices of charities bring a lived experience to public policy debates. Public policy debates are enriched through the voices of charities. That's why Labor's spoken out against gag clauses in social service agreements. It's why we were so concerned at the under-the-table attempts by the Liberals to muzzle foreign aid charities from talking about the fact that Australia's foreign aid levels have now fallen to the lowest level since records began.
Instead, the sector wants fundraising reform. The sector's top ask was for Commonwealth leadership to develop a harmonised fundraising system. That is because Australia's fundraising laws pre-date mobile phones. They pre-date the internet. They are based on a model of charities asking for money door-to-door or in the street. But, increasingly, Australians give to charities online and it makes no sense that charities should be required to register in seven different jurisdictions. Every state and territory except the Northern Territory requires separate registration in order to fundraise. The result of that is charities end up having to either take the risk of breaking a state or territory fundraising law or else they need to spend a week filling out that paper work every year. That is a week of time that could be used to assist the vulnerable, a week of time that could be used to engage with donors and raise more funds.
A splendid report chaired by Senator Catryna Bilyk in 2019 handed down a bipartisan recommendation saying that the current outdated fundraising laws are costing charities $15 million annually or more than a million dollars a month and set a two-year time frame on the government to fix fundraising. But the government failed to respond to that report for much of the time and have now missed the deadline. They are not willing to work with the sector on its No. 1 ask. A government which talks about red tape reduction won't do red tape reduction for a sector that is being hamstrung by it.
The government have come in here on their so-called red tape reduction days touting the changes in legislation, such as removing the hyphen from 'e-mail' or scrapping errant commas from legislation. But they won't help charities that need fundraising reform and that is why the charity sector is so disappointed by this government. While this bill has specific listing for a handful of charities, there are thousands more Australian charities that are just saying to anyone who will listen that they need a government that is on their side. They need a government that is on the side of Australian charities, a government that is on the side of the people who are helped by Australian charities, a government that is on the side of those who speak out and add their voices to the public conversation.
Let's be clear. When Labor was last in government, not every contribution in the public debate by a charity and not-for-profit was in favour of the things that the Rudd and Gillard governments were doing. Frequently, when we were in office, Labor governments were criticised by charities. But Labor never responded to that by saying, 'Let's shut charities down. Let's muzzle charities. Let's attack environmental charities through measures such as the one the government is currently pursuing of extending the power and de-registration to cover anticipated summary offences.' Labor never did that because Labor believes in a strong and vibrant public debate. Labor believes that charities have a proud role to play, not only in assisting the community but also in improving the quality of the public debate. We need the government to back off its attacks on charities. There is plenty more that could be done in the sector. The Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission should operate as a one-stop shop for charities, much as ASIC was set up as a one-stop shop for corporations. But while on the case of the standardisation of corporations law in 1990, the states and territories referred their power to the Commonwealth government. We didn't see that in the establishment of the ACNC, so as a result, there is a lot of duplicate reporting.
The ACNC could do a better job if it had a minister who was keen to work with states and territories to remove some of those duplicate reporting requirements by having things like a charity passport so charities were able to minimise the amount of time they spend on compliance issues and maximise the amount of time they spend assisting the most vulnerable. This would be an important step forward.
We would also benefit from a government which would make a clear commitment to the Australian people that they valued the contribution that charities make, that they valued their role in the public debate, but, instead, we have in Minister Sukkar a minister who is following Minister Andrews's previous approach, seeing charities as being a threat and not recognising the value that charities can bring to the community.
Australia is facing a disconnection crisis. Over the course of the last generation, we've seen a drop in the share of Australians who are part of a social group, a community group, a political group. We've seen a decline in volunteering rates, a decline in churchgoing, a decline in union membership and a decline in participation in many of our most important groups. In order to turn around that crisis of civic disconnection, in order to turn Australia from a country of 'me' into a country of 'we', we need to be working with our charities and not-for-profits. Labor will do that. The coalition will continue to wage war on charities.
Mr CONAGHAN (Cowper) (17:16): I rise to speak to schedule 4 of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 3) Bill 2021. It's a fairly simple change, but one that just makes sense. I can deal with the machinery, and then talk to the real effect that it has, particularly to my people in Cowper.
Schedule 4 amends the ITAA 1997 to provide the payments are non-accessible income and non-exempt income if the payments are recovery grants made to small businesses or primary producers as part of category D measures under the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements 2018 and the payments relate to floods consequent on rainfall events that occurred between 19 February and 31 March 2021 or to storms that occurred in the same period. Basically, the payments of $50,000 or $75,000 to primary producers that were made will be tax-free. What does that mean? We only have to look at the last two years at what has occurred across many of our electorates.
The farmers in my electorate suffered terribly through the drought. Many of them had to destock—some stock they'd had for many, many years. Following the droughts, they had to face the bushfires, and those bushfires weren't just in my electorate over a period of days or weeks. In the Hastings, we had a heat pit which burnt for nearly six months, which affected not only the farmers and the wine producers but also the tourist operators who lost very, very valuable income over a number of months, so they had to face not only the bushfires but also the smoke taint and smoke damage and the loss of income through tourism, because simply nobody was coming to the electorate.
Following the bushfires, our farmers again had floods. Because of the bushfires, all the topsoil was washed into the rivers. There were massive fish kills. The oyster farmers suffered devastating losses, losing two to three years of stock. If that wasn't enough, then of course the pandemic hit. Whilst that may not affect farmers, it certainly affected the businesses in the electorate where the vast majority of these businesses rely on tourism.
We've had over 12 months now of devastating impacts. Fortunately, it's coming back, but they hurt for a very long time. We then had to face further floods. Even growing up in Kempsey, where we see floods every 10 years or so, I'd certainly not seen anything like that, particularly in the Hastings in Port Macquarie and up in Rollands Plains. A wall of water that came down in a matter of hours—700 millimetres over three days that just washed everything away. Thousands of head of stock were lost, floating down the rivers and in trees, and miles and miles and kilometres and kilometres of fences were damaged. That's what our farmers have faced over the last three or four years. So to hand them $75,000 and then say, 'Hang on, we're going to tax that,' is a slap in the face. These measures change that ruling and allow them to keep that money in their pocket. Let's be honest, $75,000 for them to restock is a drop in the ocean. To get a decent bull you can pay anything up to and over $20,000. I had one gentleman come and see me who said he lost 33 head of cattle in one day; $75,000 isn't going to change his life. He has to put his hand in his pocket. Mind you, he was 80 and saying, 'Well, we're just going to have to rebuild.' Then there are the examples not of farmers but of business people. Nathan Tomkins from the Whalebone Wharf restaurant had just spent $300,000 doing the restaurant up. It was a beautiful restaurant on the water, on the Hastings. It had never flooded there before, and this wall of water came down and went all the way through it. The Prime Minister came up and spoke to him and said, 'You'll be eligible for the $75,000.' He said, 'We weren't on Newstart. We were coming back.' So that very day the Prime Minister spoke to the Treasurer and changed that rule so that he could apply for the $50,000 for the business. He has now reopened, again spending $300,000 to redo that business. Again, $50,000 is a drop in the ocean. It is the right thing we're doing, not to tax that money.
The tourist businesses across Port Macquarie, Kempsey, Coffs Harbour and Dorigo have all been affected in the past 18 months. It has been a really tough time. These grants of $50,000 and $75,000 for damage from the storm and the floods are not just money. They provide that little bit of hope, that confidence: 'The government is with us. It's helping us. It's not going to cover my costs, but at least it's there doing something.' I think this small change in the legislation acknowledges that. In the past, those grants have been taxed. The ones through the bushfires and the ones through the previous floods have been taxed. It's good that the government has recognised this, and it's good for the business owners and the farmers to see that the government listens, does things about it and changes it. I think it provides hope to those business owners and hope to those farmers who work day in, day out and who pay their taxes that we're here doing our job as politicians and a government.
This is a very simple change. It's a very sensible change. There are times when business owners and farmers feel that they're on their own, that nobody has got their back. But that is certainly not the case. These changes certainly prove that to them. I commend the changes and I commend the bill to the House.
Mr HILL (Bruce) (17:24): I rise to talk about this bill with a catchy title, the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 3) Bill 2021. I particularly want to turn my remarks to schedule 2 and the second reading amendment. By any measure, housing affordability in Australia is a national disgrace. Young people are locked out of the market. As the former Liberal Prime Minister, No. 2 of three in this eight-year-old government, said, 'Get rich parents.' That's the way to get into the housing market, isn't it? Get rich parents and they'll give you a deposit. There are actually four measures in this budget, and this legislation introduces one of them. The government claims it 'will help people into home ownership.' It sounds nice, and each of the measures sounds nice in isolation. They've given them cool-sounding names to make it seem like they're doing something. On the face of these individual measures taken in isolation, it's hard to disagree with most of them; they're kind of apple pie. But let's focus on the one in this bill first. It was splashed all over the papers that they're going to help single parents to get into the housing market. That sounds good. Wouldn't we love to help single parents get into the housing market?
The measure in this bill, though, will help—so they claim and even if they deliver the promise in the budget—10,000 single parents over the next four years to get into the housing market. There are one million single parents in this country, and the government got their headline by saying: 'We'll shut people up about housing—it's a bit of a problem, but we'll shut them up. We've got a little bit of money here to help 10,000 people.' I was raised by a single mum. My dad died when I was four. We were incredibly lucky that dad had life insurance, so mum could pay off the mortgage and we could have a house to live in. She basically had no money, no savings, lived pretty much from hand to mouth with casual jobs. We were looked after, but I know what it's like to be raised by a single mum and how important having a roof over your head is. I know for a fact that she could never afford maintenance, so by the time she moved out 20 years later, the house was falling down, the clean-out was a nightmare, as many sons and daughters of single parents know. The devil is in the detail. In reality, this is not about helping poor, deserving single mums. The only people who might benefit, the 10,000 lucky winners of the Liberal lottery from the one million single parents who may benefit, basically are going to have to be earning between about $85,000 and $125,000. Let's be really clear: behind the nice spin, this is not about helping poor single parents into housing. This is a marketing exercise which will do almost nothing for the real housing crisis in this country.
The other three measures in the budget are the first home loan guarantee, the First Home Super Saver Scheme and HomeBuilder, but that's another conversation. Apparently if you criticise HomeBuilder for renovating people's bathroom, you're against tradies—what nonsense. The Rudd government spent a few billion dollars during the last financial crisis and left a legacy of 20,000 homes. Those homes are still there today. They are an asset that people are still living in. This mob are pouring hundreds of millions, billions, into renovating people's private dwellings while doing nothing for the most deserving. But the problem with these four measures is that together they all further stimulate demand in an overheated market. They pour petrol on the fire that is the housing market in the big capital cities, particularly in this country. They help a few people, but, as is usual with this mob, they sacrifice the many. As one stakeholder said, you don't make housing more affordable by making it more expensive. But you have to give them an award for shameless hypocrisy. They're doing well in that regard because most of the time, when they get challenged on housing, they say: 'That's a state issue, it's up to the states. We're the Commonwealth government. Housing's not our problem, it's a state issue.' Yet when it suits them politically to have a few marketing slogans, like in this budget, they're spending $3.3 billion on what they then say on another day is actually a state issue.
But all of these measures add to demand. Not one of the government's measures will actually do anything to add to supply because that would be social housing. That might actually help the most needy in society, and that's not what they're about. As National Shelter said, when they summarised the government's budget, it puts home ownership out of reach for the many while benefiting the few. All of the government's measures just bring forward demand. They do nothing to provide a pipeline of housing construction over two to five years. Contrast that with Labor's Australian housing future fund, which the Leader of the Opposition, the Labor leader, announced in the budget reply, to invest in new housing. This $10 billion commitment would create jobs, not pour petrol on housing prices. It would create lasting legacy assets because what Labor governments do is build things for the future and leave a legacy. It would build new homes for people to live in, targeted at the people who will never get a crack the housing market. That's what governments should be doing.
National Shelter's executive officer said—and I couldn't summarise it better:
They are conducting lotteries for deposit programs ensuring the great Ponzi scheme of housing continues where the benefits accrue to existing owners not hopeful ones.
He also said:
We have called on the Commonwealth to show the leadership and establish the incentives, provide their part, instead they spruik the market while interfering in it and refuse to lift their share of investment in social and affordable housing so desperately needed.
Governments have a responsibility to play a role where markets fail, and housing markets have failed to produce housing for those in greatest need; another opportunity has now been ignored.
On Labor's policy, a $10 billion future fund which is forecast to deliver 20,000 new social dwellings and 10,000 more affordable dwellings over five years under a Labor government, he said:
Such a fund will create a pipeline of investment that can be built on to secure a steady growth in social and affordable housing.
It adds to supply in a predictable way. It is creating jobs for tradies but is targeted at the most needy, who actually need this. National Shelter said:
Instead of pumping up demand and pushing house prices out of reach, the reply speech builds supply, creates jobs, and makes homes to ease pressures on households and markets.
The forecast spending on veterans housing, crisis and transitional housing and the repair of social housing was welcomed. The executive officer said:
At least one major party recognises that social and affordable housing is critical economic infrastructure which enables tenants to participate, learn and address health and other issues, it's also critical for women's economic security.
Those points are fundamentally important. The government, who call themselves economic managers—those geniuses over there—are in their eighth year of government, heading to the next election and thinking people should give them 11 years, when they've built nothing. There's no legacy. There is $1 trillion of debt and $100 billion of new spending, with nothing to show for it—just more petrol on the fire of the housing market, putting it further out of reach and, funnily enough, advantaging people who already own houses.
But it could be worse, I suppose. I am looking at the second reading amendment. We're lucky that the government hasn't listened to its own nuttier backbenchers and their self-promoting idea to let people spend their superannuation on pushing up the cost of housing further—super for housing, putting more petrol on the fire of demand. You don't make housing more affordable by making it more expensive. The only thing that that would do is to put the vacuum cleaner into your superannuation account and suck it into the pocket of the guy selling the house. That's what every mainstream economist said. It's what Joe Hockey said. It's why he knocked this stupid idea out years ago. But we've still got Liberal backbenchers pushing the government to add a fifth element to their policy of pushing up housing prices. That's the practical economic impact of the government's policies. They can dress it up in whatever language they like, but that's the true impact: pushing up the cost of housing further and making it harder for people to get in the housing market.
Not deterred, the member for Goldstein was out this morning bagging his own government for not picking up his silly idea. But it's pretty clever of him, because at least it makes him look like he believes in something. He has a degree of consistency there. But it is incredibly hypocritical, of course, because people like him are actively opposing the ability for superannuation funds to invest in affordable housing. If you're serious about affordable housing, we've got trillions of dollars of funds, many of them looking for stable asset classes in a world awash with cash but with not enough investment opportunities, and you've got the member for Goldstein and his weird mates on the government back bench saying, 'Well, we couldn't let these funds go into social and affordable housing and increase supply; all we want to do is use taxpayers' money—or in this case, with our $1 trillion of debt, we want to go and borrow money and run up the national debt—and put it into teeny-tiny schemes that will help a few people while pushing up the cost of housing for everyone else.' How on earth can they claim to be good economic managers? Even before these schemes came into place and we saw the latest house price rises, the Australian housing market was the third most unaffordable in the world. I will bet my bottom dollar that by the time they finished, if they had their way, they would get to No. 1 as the most unaffordable housing market in the world.
We're not going fall into the little wedgie trap, as I think Katherine Murphy or one of the other media reporters called it, of the gas-fired power station—the giant atomic wedgie on Labor. We're not going to fall into the trap of voting against a little measure that might, by itself, if delivered, help 10,000 of the one million single parents in Australia, over four years, get into the housing market. We're not going to do that. But we are going to call out the practical impact of your economic agenda: to cut wages for ordinary workers; raise taxes on the people at the lower to average end; cut taxes, permanently, for the highest income earners in Australia; and push up the cost of housing to better advantage people who already own a house.
Mr PASIN (Barker) (17:35): I am pleased to be given an opportunity to make a contribution on this TLAB, the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 3) Bill 2021, because it will give me the opportunity to speak about something that I am passionate about and have been advocating for for some time in the hope that that modest idea might see itself into a future TLAB—in particular, as it relates to deductible gift recipients. But, before I do, for anyone who might be listening out there on their drive home or somewhere else, TLABs are effectively bills that are grab-bags of Treasury measures that need attention and, in and of themselves, perhaps don't justify a separate bill.
It's schedule 5 that I want to go to. Others have made contributions on schedule 5, but, in this TLAB, at schedule 5, which deals with deductible gift recipients, there's a number of organisations that, as a result of this bill, will be given DGR1 status under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. 'What's that?' I can hear people on their ride home asking. It is to do with tax-deductible status. When you make a contribution, you're often told that donations above two dollars or more will be tax-deductible. That entitlement is only available to entities that have achieved DGR1 status, or deductible gift recipient status. Whilst each of the organisations—not all of which I'm familiar with—I am sure do great work, I want to speak about a group of organisations that fall into a category that I am incredibly passionate about, and they are community foundations.
There were, when I last checked, around 37 or so community foundations around Australia. I need to disclose an interest. I'm particularly passionate about two because they exist in my electorate: the Stand Like Stone Foundation, which exists and does amazing work in the south-east of South Australia, and the Barossa foundation, which, as you might expect, does similarly good work but in and around the iconic Barossa Valley, which is also in the electorate of Barker. Those are only two of the 37 or more community foundations. You might ask: 'What's a community foundation?' Well, the answers are probably as many and varied as the community foundations that there are, but I can speak with some knowledge in relation to Stand Like Stone and the Barossa foundation. They are just, as the name would suggest, community organisations that seek to provide a philanthropic pathway for locals to give locally and for the proceeds of that gifting, that philanthropy, to be delivered locally.
One of the criticisms in regional, rural and remote communities, the likes of which I represent, is often that charitable organisations are headquartered elsewhere; often the charitable organisations deliver services and other things remotely. To be honest, a number of my constituents are very keen to give but to give to a local organisation, where they can see, directly, not just the pathway to the recipient but also the benefits and the dividends from their contribution. Listeners might think, 'Well, that sounds fantastic!' and it is, but there are some challenges. One of those challenges is that community foundations in Australia currently don't enjoy DGR1 status.
In the case of Stand Like Stone, in my home town of Mount Gambier, ensconced in the Limestone Coast, someone who wants to make a contribution through Stand Like Stone will do so but, unless Stand Like Stone is working hand in glove with a DGR1 charity, they won't enjoy the tax deductibility. For small donations, that's perhaps neither here nor there, but those larger corporate contributions are often disincentivised because of the inability to make a tax-deductible exchange. There are ways around this, by jumping through a number of hoops and dealing with significant red tape—time doesn't permit me to go into the detail—but it still requires the donor to accept that the donation will go out of the community before coming back to the community at the discretion of the DGR1 charity that might be working hand in glove with a local community foundation.
I am passionate about community foundations. The Treasurer, the Assistant Treasurer and others in senior decision-making positions in this place know that I am very keen to see community foundations listed on a future TLAB schedule 5 for deductible gift recipients. I should say that my push hasn't always enjoyed the support of Philanthropy Australia, the peak body, but it does now. As you would imagine, my push has always enjoyed the support of Australian Community Philanthropy, the community philanthropy peak body, but now it also has the support of the national body with responsibility for those very large philanthropic bodies. We're on a complete unity ticket and hopefully marching towards that outcome.
I think the best way of highlighting to this place the importance of DGR1 status is to go to a couple of real-life examples that not only show, in this case, Stand Like Stone's contribution to need in my community but also highlight the limitations that DGR2 status—their status—applies. In the infamous Black Summer bushfires, a community in my electorate, Keilira, was burnt significantly. That took place in December 2019. Stand Like Stone stepped in immediately. They had two community events and raised $9,000 to support and distribute to the fire victims. They say, in correspondence to me, 'However, had we been able to offer tax deductibility to larger donors, in conjunction with the event, the sum would likely have doubled or trebled. Indeed, we've had indications to that effect.' These are people who had come to an event ready to make a contribution, but when the tax deductibility status was explained to them—as it should be—there were some limitations and, as a result, there wasn't the level of contribution there could have been to support those fire victims. Again, it's a case of locals wanting to make a local gift to support a local charitable outcome.
The second example relates to the response to COVID-19. You'll recall there was a period of extreme lockdown arrangements and we had a number of organisations ensuring that Australians had access to the food they needed. Stand Like Stone were limited in their ability to support these charities. Whilst they were considering a significant contribution, it had to be moderated down as a result of their inability to attract those contributions from corporates in their local community.
I said at the beginning of my contribution there are 37 or so philanthropic organisations. They are spread across Australia and their representation in this place is evenly distributed, I have to say. I have written to all coalition colleagues encouraging them to get on board with this campaign. I encourage others in this place to familiarise themselves with whether they have philanthropic community based organisations in their electorate and, please, join in the campaign to ensure that they are recognised with DGR status. It is a simple request. It makes sense.
I don't want it to be suggested that community foundations only exist in rural or regional or remote communities. There are some that exist in larger communities, indeed, some even in capitals, and the ACT is a classic example of that. It is a simple concept. Australians are so giving. We are incredibly generous. That generosity is probably piqued when we know our neighbour is in need of support. In communities where these additions operate, there is an opportunity to direct your giving straight from a local organisation to another local in need. It seems silly that we have a distinction between, on average, larger philanthropic organisations based in other places and local community foundations. I hope we can deal with that issue in coming months because I think we will see even greater giving through these community foundations, particularly if we can facilitate it through DGR1 status.
Ms MURPHY (Dunkley) (17:46): I don't disagree with much of what the member for Barker said about the generosity of Australians, giving and why DGR status is important for charities. I would also, though, urge Australians to continue to give to charities, regardless of whether they get a tax deduction for doing so, because I am sure the member for Barker's electorate is like mine and like many others. There are many groups out there doing a lot of good work on the ground, and a donation goes a long way whether or not you get a tax deduction as a result of having given a generous donation.
I want to speak to a number of the schedules of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 3) Bill 2021 and the second reading amendment. The first schedule implements changes to thresholds related to the Medicare levy. Of course, like everyone on this side of the parliament, I am absolutely proud of the Labor legacy of Medicare and of our public health system. There are two things in this legislation that are fundamental human rights that we have to protect. One goes to housing and one goes to health, and they often cannot be separated.
Health and access to decent health services is a fundamental human right. By and large, we are very lucky in Australia that people have access to and their rights are fulfilled because of our public health system but we are a long way from it being as good as it should be. Our universal public health system is not always universal. My electorate of Dunkley, which is outer suburban, compared to many other places in Australia, is doing well. We are not remote Australia. We do not, by and large, live in the Third World conditions some of our First Nations communities live in. But we do have very low outcomes on a number of health measures that we shouldn't have, including life expectancy, including dental, diabetes. We have significantly higher drug and alcohol problems in a number of my local communities.
We also have a real problem retaining GPs in bulk-billing clinics, the very clinics that are supposed to be fulfilling that promise of universal healthcare and a public health system. I have spoken in this place a number of times about clinics, particularly those in Carrum Downs and Frankston, where a combination of an inability to attract Australian trained doctors to completely bulk-billing clinics and the fact that we do not qualify for some of the government schemes for overseas GPs means that my clinics are really struggling to serve the health demands of some particularly difficult socioeconomic areas. I will continue to implore the minister for health to look at these issues and address them so that my community can get the health services they need.
There is a new issue that has arisen very recently that I have recently written to the minister about, and I'm hopeful that I'll get a positive response from him soon. We have in the Bayside shopping centre—the big mall in my community—a Medicare bulk-billing facility, which in particular looks after people who come into the mall who are exhibiting dangerous, strange or difficult behaviours and who otherwise would be taken by security and marched out of the mall for public safety. But, because of the extraordinarily community minded centre management and this medical centre, people are often taken to this medical centre to get a mental health consult.
Dr Vahedeh Naseri worked at this centre, the Myhealth Bayside medical centre, and has been described by patients, by the management of Bayside and by the medical centre as just a godsend and an amazing woman—a single mother who is working as a doctor, has become an Australian citizen and is single-handedly helping people with difficult mental health issues to stay in the community. But she's not able to continue to practise because the impact of COVID has meant that, while she's been working towards the requirements for fellowship to be able to continue to be registered, her last exams were postponed—through no fault of her own; it was because of COVID. She's waiting for some results and waiting for a provider number, but that can't come because of the delay. So she can't practise, so people aren't getting that medical attention and she, a single mother, is not getting an income, because the clinic cannot keep paying for her. It seems like a simple bureaucratic matter to solve this so that someone who is so important to a section of my community can help serve the community and can also continue to practise her profession and look after her daughter.
The second schedule of this bill relates to the Family Home Guarantee measure from the budget. Before I talk about that specifically, I want to congratulate the member for Indi on her second reading amendment, and I support what she says in that—that the government needs to 'take a leadership role in urgently addressing the housing supply crisis by working proactively with local and state governments to unlock creative solutions, including incentives for private developers to build more affordable low-cost housing stock at scale'. But I want to add to that so that it says 'including by actually investing, as a federal government, in public, social and affordable housing themselves'. I'm a member of this House's Social Policy and Legal Affairs committee, and we've completed an inquiry, and there will be a report soon, on homelessness and housing in Australia and the evidence that we heard about the lack of affordable housing across this country. There are almost no adjectives to describe how disturbing it is to sit there and hear witness after witness—service providers, individuals who have been made homeless, community advocates, academics, researchers—talk about all of the groups in our society, in our rich and prosperous First World country, who can't find safe and secure housing. Women fleeing domestic violence, First Nations people, migrants—we know that these people are struggling. But you've got to add on top of that students, people with insecure and low-paid jobs, people who work as nurses and paramedics and are heroes of the pandemic, who can't afford to live near their work because of the cost of housing, who can't afford to rent near their work because of the cost of rents, and whose situation has been made only worse by COVID and continues to be made worse by government policies that do not much more than push up the cost of housing.
As a party, we won't stand in the way of this measure in the budget that is said to help single parents get into the housing market. But it has to be said that there was a lot of splash and a lot of attention for what is a very small policy which may perhaps help 10,000 people—out of the some million single-parent families across Australia—to get a mortgage. But it also does nothing then to help the single-parent families—predominantly single mothers—and it certainly does nothing to help the older women who are single mothers to be able to service these mortgages. Their wages aren't going up, because the work they do in child care, aged care and cleaning is so fundamentally undervalued in our society that they don't earn enough to be able to service a mortgage, even if they have help to get a deposit. Short, tiny little measures might get headlines in the newspaper, but they are not structural reform that will help the people who need it the most.
Every time I give a speech in this place and talk about housing affordability, I get more and more people from my community contacting my office to say: 'Hey, Peta, you were talking about me. The story you told about Lisa from Langwarrin; that's also me'—or their mother or granddaughter or father or brother—'because we can't find anywhere to live in Dunkley where we can afford the rent, let alone buy a house. This is me.' These are my people. And it's not just about these tiny measures. It's about affordable and social housing where people can live a life of dignity while also working day in, day out to put their children through school, to build a future for themselves and their families.
That's why the announcement in the Leader of the Opposition's budget reply speech about a Housing Australia Future Fund is so important and so transformational, because it actually is a vision for a country that cares about people who don't have mum and dad to help them buy their first investment property, who don't have five or six investment properties by the time they're 35, who will never be able to have an income between $85,000 and $150,000, because of the sort of work they do, their lack of educational opportunities, their disabilities or their caring responsibilities. These are the people that need to be looked after and assisted to have great lives, and that's what the Housing Australia Future Fund policy of the Leader of the Opposition does. That's what the role of government is—not to pontificate in speeches in the parliament about your academic understanding of the use of superannuation or the free market. It's actually to be part of a parliament that says, 'These are people who, through no fault of their own, often through accident of birth, just need some assistance to have the same sort of life of dignity as those of us who were born into more prosperity and opportunity have had.' It's about giving back, and that's why people in my community come up to me every time I talk about affordable housing and say: 'Keep talking about it, Peta. Keep talking about the need to have a federal government that will actually invest in building, repairing and maintaining housing that we can live in. Keep talking about it, because that's what we need.'
I live in a community where there's no youth crisis accommodation at all and where there are so many community groups helping homeless people because there are so many people who don't have anywhere to live. I live in a community where people aren't thinking about how they're going to buy their third and fourth investment property; they're thinking about how they're going to find a rental property to live in next week. The people that do have the opportunity to have investment properties understand how fortunate they actually are and that it's not just something that you should think that you're entitled to. That's why stakeholders across this country who understand the importance of housing and that housing is actually a human right have slammed this federal government for pretending in its budget that it is going to help those who hurt the most—that it's going to help low-income families and predominantly women. It's why organisations like National Shelter say that, when you actually look at this government's package, it will put home ownership further out of reach for the many while benefiting the few. The role of government is the opposite; it's to make things like the fundamental human right of safe and secure housing closer to reach for the many. It's to benefit the many, and that's why I won't stop talking about it.
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (18:02): I welcome the member for Chifley being present in the chamber now to hear my response to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 3) Bill 2021. I also welcome the contribution from the member for Dunkley, because she ended where I wanted to start, which was on the importance of housing. As members would know, I am a passionate advocate for making sure that Australians can own their own home. This TLAB has measures that are in it, but one of the reasons that I believe in it so strongly is that I respect Australians and the slipstreams of their life.
The Labor Party has an obsession with prioritising superannuation over all other financial decisions—life's second biggest financial decision over all other financial decisions. I am proudly a believer in understanding the importance of respecting Australians and their life progress and that financial decisions should be made based on their priorities and their order in life. Home ownership is the most important measure to ensure financial security in your working life and in your retirement. Those who retire without owning their own home live at a higher risk of poverty in retirement and are exposed to rising rental costs. The older that Australians buy their home, the more they pay rent over their working life, the longer they have to pay off their mortgage and, of course, the more likely—ironically as it is—that they end up using superannuation to clear their mortgage at the end of their working life. So at every stage it's better that Australians buy their home first and then save for retirement second. But, of course, the Labor Party doesn't like that.
The Labor Party want to engage in a form of economic social engineering where you prioritise superannuation ahead of home ownership. There are lots of reasons why they'd like to do this. It has something to do with the fact that money gets funnelled into funds that they and their mates control and they can use it as a form of laundering to empower themselves. They are then able to direct the funds through the unions, through marketing fees and the like, which somehow eventually end up in the pockets of the Australian Labor Party. Another fund, the megafund of the super funds, IMF Investors, refuses to answer questions of this parliament and the House Standing Committee on Economics, including on the $36 million bonuses they pay to fund managers. I can't believe, Member for Moreton, that anyone would accept $36 million being paid out of the retirement funds of Australian superannuants to individual fund managers by the industry super sector, but that is where we are. That could buy a lot of homes, including for low-income people.
The other problem the Labor Party has is they don't actually understand the housing market. Their solution is to put a giant bandaid on the housing market rather than fix the root causes of the problem. I am going to break a really hard truth: people would actually prefer to own their own home. There are lots of reasons why they might want to do that—social, political, economic, everything else—but I can tell you as a proud member of the government that we believe in Australians owning their own home because it's the pathway to democratic ownership of the country and democratic distribution of the wealth of the nation. If Australians cannot own their own home, then they normally like to rent in the private market. It gives them choice, flexibility, understanding of their reflection of their stage of life. Of course, securing a long-term lease which provides them with security for their living standards but also the raising of a family. If they can't rent in the private market then they turn to things like social housing.
We all as members of the parliament understand the importance of social housing. It has a critical role in making sure we catch people so they don't fall through the safety net of our society. It is the same reason we have other forms of social welfare. But our preference always should be that people can stand on their own two feet. Labor's solution isn't to try and fix the problems that might exist in the private ownership end of the market or the private rental side of the market but to focus on putting a giant bandaid on the bottom of the market, in social housing. The consequence of that is more people depend on it, but of course the Labor Party likes that approach to housing. They don't want Australians to own their own home. In a choice between empowered citizens and owners, which is the Liberal vision for this country, and indentured renters, which is the Labor vision for this country, they always go for the latter. They go for that for one reason: it empowers them. It empowers their control over the lives of Australians. Just look at the hypocrisy that comes from the opposition on housing policy. They say you shouldn't be able to use superannuation to own your own home. Apparently that's an outrageous attack on the superannuation system and retirement savings.
Mr Hill interjecting—
Mr TIM WILSON: Apparently it's outrageous, and the member for Bruce loves to rant on about it. But they're silent when we expose those same superannuation funds that are the trustees of Australia's superannuation savings, who use your money to go off and buy houses that they own and rent back to Australians. What hypocrisy sits at the heart of a structure where the super funds can buy homes with your money and rent them out but you cannot use your money to own your home so that you can have financial independence and economic security for you and your family. Don't think this is an esoteric issue. Cbus have a whole portfolio of property that they own in residential property. In answer to a request from the House of Representatives economics committee recently, they conceded they own $800 million of residential property in Australia that they rent out. Who is it funded by? You, the Australian people through your superannuation savings for houses that they own that you can rent from them with your money. This is the gross hypocrisy of the structure of the superannuation system, which is empowering concentrated capital to own the country. This is why I say Australians will end up being serfs to their own superannuation funds. That's fine for the Labor Party, because through their mates in the unions they're the ones who will be living it high and dry and having a fantastic time. They're the ones who get to go to the tennis on the sponsored deals. They're the ones who get to enjoy the benefits through the marketing arrangements, through the trade unions, which are then funnelled into the Labor Party. They're the ones who get every single benefit of the system—and it comes at your expense. That is why we believe in home ownership. We believe in home ownership because it is about empowering you, the people of Australia.
The superannuation system, in its current structure, is about empowering the Labor Party at the expense of Australians—and that's how they like it. Every single measure and every single pathway that shifts the balance back to empowering individuals and families, they will oppose—when we know full well exactly what happens when we don't keep a close eye on what the super funds get up to. We in the House of Representatives Economics Committee exposed superannuation funds reactivating low-balance inactive accounts—which funds had a legal obligation to pass through to the Australian Taxation Office—and funnelling them into their own funds so they could secure them and use them to harvest for fees, for bonuses and for insurance premiums that Australians didn't want. This is the height of corruption and misconduct. The Labor Party rightly talk about the problem of fees for no service in the retail and banking sector—and where that happens I completely agree with them—but they turn a blind eye and in fact run interference when it's their own mate being caught up in the job, where they are the ones charging fees for no service and doing nothing except taking Australians' money to feed their own bonuses. Their silence leaves them condemned.
An honourable member interjecting—
Mr TIM WILSON: Because the royal commission overlooked these issues, and we've been exposing them. I know the Labor Party hates, every step of the way, the scrutiny the House Economics Committee provides. We've got APRA and ASIC looking at insider trading in superannuation funds. We've got APRA and ASIC going after funds that are engaged in misconduct or charging people fees or giving them misinformation about how they can use or transfer their money.
There is a reason why the Labor Party opposed the measures in last year budget which enabled young Australians to draw down on their super at a time of crisis and need. It was because they saw very clearly that it exposed the deep problems of liquidity that sit at the heart of the superannuation system. They also saw that, when Australians had a choice about what they wanted to do with their money, it wasn't the system the Labor Party set up, designed to empower the Labor Party; it was Australians making choices about taking their own money to empower themselves. They hated it every step of the way, and we know why. It's because the debate about superannuation isn't a debate about retirement savings, as much as the Labor Party want to make it so; it is a debate about power. It's about a choice between empowering Australians, which is what the Liberal vision is, or empowering the unions and the Labor Party, which is what the Labor Party want it to be. They know that every time Australians have that choice, they seek to empower themselves, because that is the success on which this nation is built. It is not built from empowering centralised Canberra, monopoly businesses and corporates; it comes from building the potential of individuals, families and communities, from the citizen up.
When you build a country with 26 million empowered citizens, you build a great nation. But when you seek to concentrate power in the hands of accords between corporates and big government, we know full well where that ends up: it empowers the few. Make no mistake: this is why Labor weren't a participant in the Federation and actually voted against it back in the 1800s. That is the reason why they opposed decentralisation of power. It is why they love nothing more than empowering themselves in every piece of legislation. They look at every single Trojan horse that they can seek to use to achieve that, because they know that politics is about power. They know that this is about the choice of who you empower.
We want to see Australians succeed. When we empower them to take control and responsibility for their own lives, they live a better life. We know that, when you empower Australians to be able to control their finances and have choice, they make decisions that reflect their interests as part of a mutual cooperation through a market economy and, of course, through community to improve their circumstances. The whole model of the Labor Party is about conformity and trying to knock away that choice. Don't get me wrong, once upon a time I do believe Labor believed much more in empowering citizens. That's what the member for Hunter goes on about regularly. He regularly talks about the issues of making sure Australians have the dignity of work. He regularly talks about the right of respecting workers and their efforts, and they enjoy the benefits of that. But we know in the mad, ideological world view of the modern Labor Party that that is now heretical. This is why there are so many problems and so many issues of division within the Labor Party today, because their interest is in what they need to do for themselves, not what we need to do in this parliament to help Australians.
There are a lot of other measures in this bill of course, but it's important to make this point: it's always important to talk about the structural divide, because it ultimately comes down to the choice that voters have at the ballot box, about who is going to back you, the Australian people. And it will always be people on this side of the chamber, whereas the Labor Party will always choose the reverse to empower themselves. This bill includes many measures that focus on how we go about doing that, from the simple to the substantial, like making sure the Medicare levy and Medicare levy surcharge income thresholds are indexed so that people aren't punished for working more or doing more or seeing CPI increases in their income.
There is also the Family Home Guarantee, which deals specifically with making sure that eligible single parents with dependents can build a new home or purchase an existing home with a deposit for as little as two per cent regardless of whether that single parent is a first home buyer or previous owner/occupier, because we understand that, regardless of people's life circumstances, we want them to own their own home. That should be the objective of this government, this parliament, this nation. It's one of the great traditions that sits at the heart of our social contract. Right from the beginning, the foundations of modern Australia have always been focused on how we empower ownership and democratic ownership of the country. There are many other measures in this bill that I won't have time to talk about today, but each one of them matters because it's focused on empowering you, the people of Australia.
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (18:17): This is a really important bill for the people of the Hawkesbury, who have just been through a one-in-50 flood and they have experienced damage unlike anything that has been seen before in the Hawkesbury. Why it's so important is because, while many homes have been inundated, around 40 homes were completely destroyed by the flood, around 100 were severely impacted, another 100 were moderately impacted and then still another couple of hundred suffered some sort of damage or loss to the home or the property. What schedule 4 focuses on is the disaster recovery grants that are made to primary producers and small businesses.
It's a really interesting thing when you talk to your community during a flood. What I found is that every homeowner who has suffered damage has said to me, 'Oh, but at least I didn't lose my income or my business.' And, every small business or agriculture producer has said to me, 'Well, at least I didn't lose my home.' There are some people who have lost both, but, by and large, people are just grateful that they have something left.
The ability to earn an income and to get your business back up and running after a natural disaster is so fundamental to your recovery. In 2013 when my house burnt down in the Blue Mountains bushfires, my business was based at home. I'd closed my Sydney offices when ADSL became available, relocated to the Blue Mountains and employed local people in the Blue Mountains to help me in my business. But, with a home based business, when your home goes you lose your business too. What was the saving grace for me was knowing that I had been at work as the fires approached and I had in my car—my one car that didn't get burnt—my training bag that I used to run my training sessions. So I was able to start my business back up. The house burnt down on a Thursday, and on the Monday I was back with clients. I did realise when I got back to the training room that the dress I was wearing on the day the house burnt down still smelt of smoke. But that was the least of my worries, knowing I could get back to business.
What we're seeing in the Hawkesbury is people haven't yet been able to back to generating an income from their business. Most of them are still on hold, and it's now nearly 10 weeks since the floods. The grants, though, that they're receiving and that are covered by this schedule are absolutely vital for them. For primary producers, it's up to $75,000. For other small businesses, it's $50,000. There are some businesses that you would think would fall under the primary producer category, like some of the pastoral properties that have been destroyed. Those working with horses may not qualify for the primary production grant, but they will potentially qualify for the small business grant. There are a lot of grey areas, and I'll talk about those later. I'm very pleased to see that, for those people who do qualify for these grants, they will be able to receive those grants as non-assessable income, so they will not have to pay tax on the grants as they won't be subject to income tax.
These grants are fairly small in the scheme of things for some primary producers, and I'm going to paint a bit of a picture to illustrate that. The turf growers are the single biggest group of people in the Hawkesbury who've been affected. The larger turf properties might have lost $5 million worth of turf that was just about to be cut and rolled. It might not have been that much, but they may be carrying large debt. They may have been funding another property they'd just bought, assuming they would have a steady cash flow. The amount of money they tell me they have to spend to get their property back to being a place where they can actually produce turf down the track can be as much as $200,000. It is coming into winter, so it's not the ideal time to be planting new turf and they know that their cash flow is very severely damaged. These grants don't support cash flow. There's nothing that will support the cash flow of a business after a natural disaster. What these grants will do is cover costs to help get the business get back on track. They will cover things like payment for tradespeople to come and do safety inspections. They might need equipment and materials for cleaning up or to hire a cleaner to assist with post-flood clean-up.
When you're cleaning up a turf property, you need a lot of cleaners, a lot of people on the ground going around, metre by metre, picking up and trying to salvage what's there. Most of the turf growers have found that a lot of stuff that isn't theirs has come onto their land. People have been making an effort to return things to their original owners, but the clean-up has been enormous. These grants also cover equipment and materials essential for immediately resuming operations. That might be something like a pump that's floated away down the river. These grants also cover removal and disposal of damaged goods and materials, repairing premises and internal fittings, leasing temporary premises if needed, hiring equipment or replacing stock. They can be really big-ticket items. The same sorts of things apply to small business and to primary production grants. The primary production costs obviously are going to go way beyond the $75,000 that's available. I have spoken to the people at Turf Australia, who have done an incredible job of advocating for their growers. They have been working with government, with me and the minister for emergency management, to make sure the immediate needs were able to be covered. Some of the hardest hit are the newer ones with large debt. They might have lost 30 to 40 per cent of their crops and might have lost 12 months of income.
The feedback from this is great. They're really pleased they don't have to pay tax. I have to say they didn't expect they would have to pay tax on the grant money anyway, and finding out they don't have to was done to a pretty short time line and they are grateful. One of the things that is significant is it doesn't affect just the turf growers. There are also the vegetable growers. I'm disappointed that New South Wales government has taken some time to reach out to a lot of the market gardeners. There is a big cohort who are a Chinese-speaking market gardeners and there have not been materials available for them to even understand what is available. It has taken some time, and I believe those resources are now hitting the ground. But this group is still way behind in their recovery because those things were not in place, so many of them had not yet even applied for support.
The way a lot of primary producers access support is by seeking help from the Rural Financial Counselling Service, which, again, deserves medals for the work it did in the weeks immediately following the floods, working with primary producers and small businesses to access these very grants we are talking about in this legislation. But there still are people who have not got around to accessing them and part of the reason is the Rural Financial Counselling Service is just a couple of people normally based in the Central West. Because of the bushfires, they were given a licence to support bushfire-affected people and that has been extended to flood-affected people, as it should be. They are gold and their ability to help farmers and vegetable producers work through complex application processes is the difference between a market gardener going, 'You know what, this is just too hard. I have so many things to cope with. I am not sure this is worth the small initial amount of money I will get,' to going, 'Yes, okay, I am going to do this because every bit helps.' We really should be supporting the Rural Financial Counselling Service to have even greater numbers on the ground, fast, after a flood or natural disaster.
The other business group I want to talk about, who would benefit by this legislation if they apply for a grant, are the caravan park owners. These are the van parks, more than two dozen of them, along the Hawkesbury River. They have a few permanent vans usually allowed but most of them are weekenders for people who love water skiing who come to these places and they have their van. This is part of the Hawkesbury culture—you may not live too far down the road but you may have your caravan and all the things that have grown up around it. As I speak to this group, they are so profoundly affected by this flood. None I have spoken to have been able to really get operational. Some have a small number of sites that were less flood-affected.
One of the biggest van parks is the Sackville ski park. I spoke to Shane there this week. Shane is still struggling to put together all the things that need to be done to even apply for these grants. He has to get scope of works, he has to talk to electricians and plumbers, get quotes for things, and they are big structural jobs. The $50,000 that the owner of his park is eligible to apply for won't not even touch the surface of what is needed there. I should point out the owners of the vans themselves are not eligible for any of this assistance. The amount of support for homeowners or van owners is very minimal; $1,000 is all those people have been able to access in government support. People have said: 'They have a home or they have a van beside the river; this is what they should expect.' What we need to make sure is that they get sufficient advice, accurate information and preparation, not just a few days before a flood, but a long time before. We can make these communities more resilient and that would be where the special assistance fund that is available—that the government hasn't accessed yet—would be really useful. It is a floodplain. We know there will be more floods. We don't know when, we don't know how high, we hope it will be not as high as the one we saw this time but we know it will come.
I was speaking with Elizabeth at Riverside Gardens and with Rachel at Percy's place. In one case, they had not had any of this grant come through. They are grateful it will not be taxed but it has not turned up yet. In the other case, they have not even got around to applying for it because, when you go through a trauma, paperwork becomes an even harder thing to do than at the best of times. They have seen massive holes in their river banks, huge gulfs—like massive, giant sinkholes the size of a two-story house, carved out like a horseshoe—on their land. They're struggling with how to come back from that. The state government has not been able to get its agencies together and come up with: here's the way forward for everybody who has suffered massive riverbank damage. I have to say, the small amount of money that these grants provide, $75,000 or $50,000, is not going to be able to be used at all to tackle that river bank damage. It's massive. One business told me that the initial quote they got for just one of the big sinkholes that appeared when things were washed away was $300,000. So I think I will be coming and asking the government to do more than these grants, once we get costings on what people are up for.
But we really need—it's 10 weeks on—the state government to pull it finger out and give these businesses and landowners a plan—a way forward. They're operating in a vacuum. They are being threatened with fines for noncompliance if they do it the wrong way, yet they're not being told, 'Here's what you can do.' They're still operating under the pre-flood rules, which don't cater at all for the sort of damage they're seeing.
So while schedule 4 in this legislation is, absolutely, something that I'm very pleased to be able to speak to, I think the parliament needs to know the level of loss, trauma and anxiety that people in the Hawkesbury who have been flood affected are suffering. It's not just that it has been a one-off flood; they had a flood a year ago. Some had only just got fences back up from that flood, especially properties in the Macdonald Valley, when this latest one came through. Also, many of these areas suffered months of smoke in the bushfires, and that came on the back of drought. So you've got the cumulative effects and the pressure on their finances of drought, bushfire, flood, COVID and then massive flood. So to have these grants tax-free is great, but I have to say there is much more that we need to do.
Mr BROADBENT (Monash) (18:32): For those who are listening to this broadcast, this particular piece of legislation, the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 3) Bill 2021, has a number of parts to it. One is the Family Home Guarantee—to amend the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Act to implement the Family Home Guarantee, which should enable 10,000 guarantees over four years from July of this year to eligible single parents with dependents to build a new home or purchase an existing home with a deposit of as little as two per cent, regardless of whether the single parent is a first home buyer or previous home owner. Anything we can do for single-parent families should be supported, and we've got a lot to do and a lot to recognise with single-parent families. It's hard enough to raise children, as we found out, when there are two of you, let alone when you are on your own.
Schedule 3 is about the Australian government recognising the plight of victims of Thalidomide. We understand they have suffered from circumstances beyond their control, resulting in a lifetime of pain and hardship. This is another disability area which, of course, sparks my interest. This includes payments to Australia's Thalidomide survivors in recognition of their suffering and cost of living due to the disability. This bill exempts those payments from income tax from the social security and veterans entitlement income test.
The other part is, as the former member was speaking about, recovery grants for the floods and storms that had an enormous impact on many parts of the Australian community. The last one is that new organisations will get deductible gift recipient status, and there's a list of all of those organisations—worthy organisations—that will receive tax deductibility. It also includes the Medicare levy and Medicare levy surcharge income thresholds. This ensures that low-income households that did not pay the Medicare levy in 2019-20 generally will not begin to pay it in 2021 if their income has increased in line with or by less than CPI.
I'd like to return to the housing issue. When I grew up—which is a long time ago now in many people's eyes but only a few minutes ago in mine—between the years of 1950 and 1970, on average 16 per cent of housing across the nation was public housing. That meant that in every small community like the one I grew up in, Koo Wee Rup, there was a group of what were called commission homes. They were put there by very good Liberal governments who saw the need right across Victoria for public housing in every small community everywhere. That figure was 16 per cent. Since that time, by 1990 that had been reduced down to six per cent of all housing being public housing. Since 1990, that has dropped by a third again, from six per cent to four per cent of all housing being public housing.
It's not that successive governments don't pour a lot of money into housing. They do. There's a lot of support that goes into housing. As much as $100 billion goes into housing from government each year, in different forms of support. For instance, low-income earners receive social housing subsidies, homeless support and rent assistance. It comes to about $8 billion of government outlays. The rest goes into areas where there are generous tax concessions allowed to home owners, especially on capital gains tax.
I heard the member for Dunkley speak, and she was very passionate about the need for youth crisis housing in her electorate and the problems her electorate is having with rentals and people trying to find a rental property. But what she actually described to me, as I listened, was the disgraceful response from the Labor government in Victoria to the need for housing, even though they now have a proposition to build public housing. That's come out of COVID and the response to COVID. The problem is that where they've been building that public housing has been in cities and outer city areas, not in the regions and the small towns. So, if you happen to live out there and your family is there and all your support services are there, but you cannot get a property, the current Labor government has not been able to deliver into rural areas the sort of public housing that's needed. In fact, it's gone into places like Hawthorn where it suited them to put it. There has been political bias in where they have chosen to place the public housing, and that's hugely disappointing because it means people in country areas miss out, and I'll explain why.
In my electorate, there was one particular family—a mum and four boys, victims of domestic violence—in a rental property. All was going well. The property got sold. They have to go and find another place to live. Hunt as they may, they haven't been able to find a home. I thought it was a one-off. It turns out after inquiries that five families are in exactly the same boat at the moment. What's happening right across coastal and rural Victoria is that people have gone and purchased properties to live in, and the people at the lower end of the scale, renting, are being put out of their homes. Where do they go? Do they go to a caravan park? No, the caravan parks are full.
So if you happen to live in a small country town and you haven't got a home, or the home you're in has been sold or the rental price has increased—I'll give you another example. I rang the estate agent on behalf of these people. I said, 'Have you got any houses to rent?' 'One, one in the town, and I've got 15 applicants.' Do you think a mum on public benefit who's had issues, with four kids but the kids are well supported in the township, is going to be the winner in that 15-lot gallery, in the lottery to get that home, when there would be people on double incomes et cetera? The landlord would say, 'I'll take that person, thanks, because that'll be of best benefit to me.'
This is where government has to step in—and I'm not saying the federal government, because the federal government, Labor governments and Liberal-National governments, year after year after year have poured money into the states specifically for this housing. We don't run the housing schemes. We don't build the houses. We give the states the money to deliver. Also, we provide the money for Indigenous housing, but we don't manage the Indigenous housing. It's all done by the states now. I haven't got a problem with states' rights or states' delivery. But there hasn't been a focus on delivering housing for single-parent families, and COVID has caused a greater crisis than we expected in this regard. Nobody knew that people were going to burst out of the cities and start buying properties at low prices in the country to get away from the cities.
The community that I live in is a rural community, but it's changed. I'm not saying I'm in lockdown yet, but I am in the greater Melbourne district. Sadly, so are Garfield and Lang Lang and Koo Wee Rup. These are all country towns right out of Melbourne, but they are in the local government district named; therefore, you're in it. People have moved out of town and into these areas because, all of a sudden, 'I can work three days from home and I can travel into my job in the city one or two days a week if I have to, so I can live out here. I can have all of the fresh air that Gippsland provides and the lifestyle it provides and still do my work.' But then there's the pressure that that has put on all of the services, all of the housing and all of the opportunities, and the people who are at the lowest end of the scale are the ones that are missing out.
We in this House and other houses are responsible for those people. My analogy has always been the same: in a family where there are four children and one is disabled, 80 per cent of the focus on the children is on the disabled child, the one that needs the most help. It's exactly the same as we should be in the community. It's alright to have lifters and leaners and those sorts of things, but we don't know what problems people have faced in their lives that have brought them to the point that they have come to. We don't know why in individual cases. Women over 55 now have the greatest propensity for homelessness. The fastest-growing cohort of future homeless in our community is women over 55. Marriage break-ups, no superannuation, loss of opportunity, some illness, time to have children and all of those sorts of things can make a massive contribution. They can quickly fall through the cracks into homelessness. If you don't know somebody who's like that, you probably will. It takes us to a place of greater responsibility as representatives of the people to consider those who are on the edge.
I'm calling on the state governments and local governments and communities to join together and say, 'Righto, what can we do as a community when we are faced with this crisis that is real today?'
I only ask you to put yourself in the place of a single mum with four boys, four fine boys. At a certain point you're going to have nowhere to live. You might have to move to a place like the Latrobe Valley to get housing—not that I'm denigrating the Latrobe Valley—or back into the city. The four boys are going to be torn out of their community. All of their supports—their footy clubs, their cricket clubs, their schools, the sport in their schools—all the things that they do will be gone. Their life will be turned upside down. They'll be in a new place, which won't be as friendly as the small town that they were in.
I don't know what the answer is, but I'm going to keep looking for an answer. I'm going to keep talking about the people that are on the edge. I'm going to think about whether there is a new idea, a new way, a new opportunity, where the federal government can direct how the states spend their money and where they spend it. Because it's federal money that's going into that housing, right across this nation, and we need to direct that some of those funds go into communities where, like every other community, we have people who are doing it hard, not by their own choice or doing; it's just life and what happens. When we have a bushfire, when we a flood, when we have terrible storms, when we have a tornado, what do we do? We go in and help.
Because of COVID, this nation is facing a housing crisis, and we're going to have to come up with some very innovative ideas as to how we help these people, otherwise we are going to have a national crisis on our hands, right across Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland. And how are we going to deal with that bushfire? I've got to tell you something: I haven't got an answer. But I can see the fire coming—those people being on the streets—and it's unacceptable. What options do that family have at the moment? Two caravans in a caravan park, perhaps, with a hood over. Is that what I want for my children or grandchildren? I don't think so. I have lived a life privilege.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (18:47): We are supporting this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 3) Bill 2021. It contains five Treasury measures, including two measures from the 2021-22 budget. Schedule 1 implements changes that increase various thresholds relating to the Medicare levy. This is the most significant component of the bill, and it is expected to have a negative impact of $250 million on the cash balance over the forward estimates. The Medicare levy low-income threshold, beyond which the Medicare levy is not required to be paid, is currently $22,801 for individuals. That will increase to $23,226 following the passage of this bill. Consequently, a number of other thresholds will change for families, for individuals subject to seniors and tax pension offsets, and for dependent children and students.
The measure of this bill will be that it reduces tax earnings from the Medicare levy by around $50 million a year. In that respect, I say to the government: how are you going to replace that vitally important funding that goes to funding health care in Australia, particularly in our hospital system? At the moment, in many states of the country, the hospital system is under enormous pressure. In recent times I've spoken to nurses that work at the Prince of Wales Hospital, in the electorate that I represent, and they've been telling me how overworked and underpaid and under pressure they are. Nurses that are leaving the profession are simply not being replaced because of budget constraints put on them by the New South Wales Liberal government. We're seeing stories that have been exposed in newspaper investigations about the health system in New South Wales—in particular, of people dying in regional hospitals from infections because there were no doctors on duty at the time and the basic checks weren't done. Hospital waiting lists for elective surgery are blowing out once again, and Australians are facing the prospect of having to deal and live with unacceptable levels of pain.
We all know that, when Liberal governments are in office, they don't spend the requisite amount to run the health system properly. That's why you get these cutbacks in our hospital system through funding and budget constraints which result in these tragedies. So my question to the government is about this particular element of the bill: how are you going to replace the funding of that $50 million a year for Medicare?
Schedule 2 implements the Family Home Guarantee measure from the 2021-22 budget. This measure creates for single parents with dependants 10,000 new places in the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation's First Home Loan Deposit Scheme. The measure will allow single parents with a household income of less than $125,000 to purchase a home or build a new home with a deposit of only two per cent, subject to the individuals to service the home loan. While housing advocates have welcomed this change, they have indicated that benefit will only really flow to single parents who are earning between $80,000 and $125,000 a year. This measure leaves many of those who are less well off out of the system. It will apply to first home buyers and those single parents re-entering the market after a family breakdown.
My question for the government is about housing being out of control in Australia. Not a week goes by where someone doesn't approach me in the street and ask the question, 'How are our kids going to be able to afford to buy a home in the future?' House prices are out of control. Housing is at one of its most unaffordable levels that it's been in Australian history. Real estate agents that I'm consulting with on a regular basis tell me they're seeing an unprecedented growth in prices. Already this year we've seen an eight per cent increase nationally on house prices. Australia's household debt-to-income ratio is one of the highest in the OECD. The household debt-to-income ratio is at 200 per cent. The evidence with schemes like this—with first home loan deposit schemes that have been implemented by this government where people can put money into their superannuation for a deposit; in New South Wales, we have the First Home Owner Grant, which provides support for people to buy their first home—is that they don't help with affordability. In fact, unfortunately, they do the opposite; they increase prices. It's like pouring fuel on a fire. The real estate agents that I speak to say that every time one of these programs is introduced, you can bet your life that over the next six to 12 months prices are going to go up. It makes it simply more unaffordable for Australians to buy a home. And what's that leading to? That's leading to unsustainable rates of unaffordability of the most important thing that we can give every Australian—that is, a roof over their head.
There are unsustainable levels of housing unaffordability throughout the country, and that's leading to homelessness and an increasing prevalence of rough sleeping. The Daily Telegraph published a startling statistic in a recent article—that one in 10 people who are rough sleeping in Sydney is a veteran that served this country. It's also been highlighted that 10,000 women are turned away from homeless shelters in Australia every year, because those shelters simply can't cope.
Is that how we are treating our veterans and how we are treating our homeless in this country—when we can't afford to put a roof over their heads because housing has become so unaffordable? Yet we still continue to generate these schemes that simply push up house prices beyond the reach of the average Australian worker and the average Australian family and certainly way beyond the reach, both in rental terms and in buying terms, of people who may be sick or injured at work who are receiving JobSeeker or a veteran who's got a mental health issue. It's out of the question for them. We're not providing the support that Australians need to make housing more affordable.
That is why Labor is targeting this issue. That is why our leader, the member for Grayndler, emphasised in the budget reply speech last week the announcement of a Housing Australia Future Fund to increase the supply of affordable housing in this country for people who need it the most, including those veterans that I spoke of, women leaving domestic violence situations and people who have fallen on hard times and have lost their jobs—and there are plenty of those in the wake of COVID—putting a roof over their head and providing the necessary government support to ensure that all Australians can live in dignity. That is what we need to do as a country. If we're going to have a budget deficit of $150 billion and debt of $1 trillion, we'd better make sure that we spend it on the right things. To date, this government has done nothing to ensure that there is government support for affordable housing in this country for Australians who need it. Their solution is to come up with these schemes that just push up house prices and make it more and more unaffordable for Australians—and that's a great shame.
The other element we need to look at is dispersing the population out of capital cities and into regional centres. To do that, you need proper infrastructure and public transport links. It's beyond me why we can't work together in this place and come up with a workable plan for high-speed rail, particularly up and down the east coast of Australia, where we are providing opportunities for people to move out of cities, to base themselves in rural and regional areas up and down the coast and inland, particularly on the way to Canberra and on the way to regional centres, yet have access to high-speed rail that gets them to their place of work within 20 or 30 minutes, as it should do, instead of having to drive for a couple of hours or, even worse, try and get a train that takes three hours. A modern country like Australia should be able to come up with a plan to deliver this for our citizens. But we haven't been able to, and that's a great indictment on us as a parliament and governments of all types. We need to come up with a plan for high-speed rail to disperse that population so that we are taking pressure off, in particular, our capital cities and off house prices and we are opening up more supply in rural and regional areas.
In conclusion, I want to again highlight the fact that we need to do more around affordable housing. It's a great indictment on Australia at the moment that there are too many people that are sleeping rough, that can't afford the rent and simply can't afford to buy. Many parents say to me every week when I walk down the street in my electorate, 'How on earth are our kids going to be able to afford to buy a home?' That is the question that the government have failed Australians on over numerous occasions when they have had the opportunity to use the funds in the budget to build more affordable housing. If there is one thing that comes out of this bill and out of these measures that have been put in place by successive governments to support people to get a deposit to buy a home, it should be that we need to look at and study whether or not these schemes are actually making things worse for Australians by pushing up demand and therefore pushing up prices, particularly in capital cities.
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (18:59): As the hour is late and the speaking list has been long, I shall not detain the House that long. I see the next speaker, the member for Macnamara, is here. Can I say, that he, unlike me, is erudite and eloquent and will undoubtedly be able to shine forth upon this bill in a manner and form that my poor capacity will not allow. So I won't keep the House from what will certainly be Cicero-like rhetoric.
The first schedule of this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 3) Bill 2021, deals with the Medicare levy and the Medicare levy surcharge income thresholds.. It is designed essentially to reset where we need to be, given that incomes rise and our capacity to understand what is a low income changes from time to time. Schedule 2 deals with the Family Home Guarantee announced in the budget. It makes it very possible for people who are seeking to buy their own home to do so and ensures that some of the guarantees that we are providing are not caught inadvertently by the tax system. Payment to thalidomide survivors is clearly a technical issue that got caught by the tax system, because we do have the most voluminous tax system in the world. Therefore, we needed to introduce a bill to make sure that payments that no-one intended to be caught by the tax system were not. Recovery grants for floods and storms is clearly a very important issue for those people who have received funds, so they can get on with rebuilding their lives. It is clearly irrational for us to give money and then tax part of it, which means they would have less money to use to get on with their lives. Therefore, we are exempting it from the Income Tax Assessment Act. Finally, schedule 5 is a series of organisations to which we are now giving deductible gift recipient status. This means that if you give money to these organisations you will be able to claim it on your tax. There are many worthy organisations. There is the Alliance for Journalists' Freedom, which is Peter Greste inspired. It is a very important role that he has played in the freedom of journalists internationally to report, in his case on the uprisings in Egypt so that people have the opportunity to know what was really going on in that oppressed nation. There is the Andy Thomas Space Foundation. Of course, Andy Thomas was Australia's first astronaut. I have had the pleasure of meeting Andy Thomas on a couple of occasions. He did not lobby me for this change, and therefore I don't feel that I need to make any declaration. Youthsafe is about helping our young people stay safe. There are the Royal Agricultural Society Foundation Ltd, the Judith Nielson Institute for Journalism and Ideas, and the Great Synagogue Foundation trust, which is important if we are to maintain what is a historic building. That is being done largely out of the incomes of other people.
I want to go back to schedule 2 very quickly before I pass to my far more learned friend the member for Macnamara, I believe. Such honour has he brought to the seat that they felt they needed to rename it. Schedule 2 regards housing affordability and some programs we're trying to put in for housing affordability. I have great regard for the member for Kingsford Smith. Many of the points he made around housing affordability are absolutely right. Part of the guarantee that we made when we were establishing Australia as a federation and a nation was that every single person, regardless of where you were born and in the circumstances you were born into—indeed, even if you weren't born in this nation—had a chance to have a slice of the Australian dream. One of the cornerstones of that was being able to own the home in which you lived. The importance of that, we now know, is so extraordinary that we cannot possibly underestimate it. It seems silly that in the 21st century we need to reaffirm it. There are benefits for mental health, for stable democracy, for equality and for homelessness. It goes without saying that if you are to be homeless you need to have lived in a home.
The member for Kingsford Smith pointed out that, on average, homes in his electorate now are $2.5 million a pop. There are not many young Australians in Sydney, certainly in his electorate, certainly in my electorate, who can afford $2.5 million. Yet at this very moment, a very well-known builder in Sydney is seeking to do a massive development in Little Bay in the member's electorate. It is being opposed by the member. It would be selling dwellings—houses, that is—to people who want to own their own houses for less than half the price of the average house in his electorate and it is being opposed by the member. It is being opposed by the state Labor member. I say to those branches of the Liberal Party who have passed positions opposing it: shame on you for doing that because this builder will be putting in place dwellings and houses for literally thousands of people to be able to live and have their share of the Australian dream.
We know that massive public housing buildings, as proposed by those opposite, don't work. How do we know that? Because, Japan, after 1989 when they had their property crash, introduced a massive fiscal stimulus. It was designed to stimulate the economy. Part of that stimulus was the massive building of homes and public housing, ostensibly to house people who were on low incomes and who found themselves homeless. After 14 years of that building program, it did not shift the dial on homelessness in Japan. The Tokyo city government in 2002 undertook planning reform. It liberalised the planning system and allowed people, builders, to get on with the job of building more housing—that is, create more supply. In 11 years, they reduced the number of people who were homeless in Tokyo by 80 per cent.
We know the problem with affordability of housing in Australia is supply. We know that it does not start in this chamber. We know that it starts in the state parliaments and the local government chambers around this country. I don't say this to be partisan. I impeach those members who are listening to join whoever, all of us, to demand more supply, to demand better planning laws in Australia. Because it is not about us, it is not about votes, it is not about political division and it is not about all of the sort of stuff that we usually play in this; it is about young Australians being able to have a slice of the Australian dream.
The other big idea from the member for Bennelong, value sharing or value capture, is not a new idea; it has been implemented in large parts of the world. The member for Fraser would know about this because he has a doctorate in economics from Yale. I am self-taught, as most people can see. The point is that the US has introduced value capture. It incentivises local and state governments to ensure they are building transport infrastructure where housing is going—that is, it makes the lives of people better.
Recently the Victorian government announced that it would spend $9.5 billion to build 11,500 public housing units. The problem with that is, according to St Vincent De Paul, there is an undersupply of 380,000 affordable houses in Australia. That means, on that number, this country would need to spend $5 trillion to clear the backlog. For $9.5 billion, the Victorian government could have built the infrastructure required to allow people to personally build and fund over 100,000 homes in that state, massively alleviating the backlog, the downward supply and pressure on prices for housing.
This bill is important but, let's face facts, if we really want to do something about giving young Australians the opportunity that they need and they should have to have their share of the Australian dream then we need to do something about our failed planning laws in this country and the way they are administered by local governments.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (19:09): The Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 3) Bill 2021 implements a measure from the 2021-22 budget to create 10,000 new places in the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation First Home Loan Deposit Scheme for single parents with dependants. It allows single parents with a household income of less than $125,000 to purchase a home or to build a new one with a deposit of just two per cent.
Encouraging people—including, of course, single parents—into home ownership is a worthy thing to do. As someone who grew up in a household with a single parent, as a youngster I was always encouraged by my mum—who was born and died in the one house that she lived in for all of her 65 years, a council house that became a housing department house—to go into home ownership and to live in my own home one day. But the truth is that she was never in a position to buy her own home, and the idea that that would be an aspiration that she would have reflects how those opposite—when I hear some of their comments—just don't get how tough so many people do it in our society.
This is not a bad thing to encourage, and we're not opposing this measure. But what we say is that if you're serious about dealing with housing affordability and about understanding that a roof over someone's head does more than just keep the rain off—it provides them with security that allows them to have a better quality of life and their kids to aspire to something better—then you actually have to do something more than just look at home ownership. You actually have to address the issue of the decline that has occurred in social housing due to a lack of investment over a long period of time. You have to acknowledge that, by investing in social housing and by increasing supply and increasing the stock of housing out there, you do something to address housing affordability, including for people buying their own home, because of supply and demand—the way that basic economics works.
This measure, its advocates say, will potentially benefit those single parents who are able to earn between $80,000 and $125,000 a year. That's a good thing, but a whole lot of single parents out there, even if they're in a position to be able to work due to the interaction that's there with the childcare system—with the disincentive to work a fourth or a fifth day, particularly if you're a single parent, and with the unaffordability of child care—simply won't be in a position to take advantage of this scheme, which is why you need to do more than just this.
That brings me to Labor's plan. Labor's plan is about creating opportunity, encouraging home ownership, encouraging a strong economy and encouraging people to aspire to a better life for themselves and their children, but it's also about recognising that we're leaving a whole lot of people behind. There have never been more people homeless than there are right now in this country. If you think about the wealth that's there in this country, we should be doing better than that. If you think about the fact that so many Australians have benefited from being able to invest in housing, why is it that governments aren't able to benefit from their position by using capital to pass that benefit on to the Australian people by having a stock which boosts the balance sheet, essentially, with an asset that the public therefore own, whilst providing a better life for people by increasing public housing stock?
Because the consequences are very real with the crisis that is there. The member for Blaxland, our shadow housing minister, and I visited, along with Jenny McAllister from the Senate and our candidate Madonna in Brisbane, DVConnect. That's one of the services that look after vulnerable women and their children who are escaping domestic and family violence. There were 10,000 women and children turned away from shelter last year. They were forced to sleep in their car, sleep in a park or go back to a circumstance in which they weren't safe. We're a better country than that. Tonight, like every other night in this country, that will happen to women and children. Imagine how those children feel when they go to school the next day. Imagine how a mother feels, with that instinct she has to look after her child, knowing that they were in a vulnerable situation. Imagine the anguish that causes them.
We need to do better than that, which is why we, if we're elected to government, will create a $10 billion housing Australia future fund. It's a sensible plan. It's a plan at no cost to the taxpayer. It's a plan which sees $10 billion of capital invested through the vehicle of the Future Fund. The money that is made from that investment is then reinvested in the creation of social and community housing, to create 20,000 extra additional social and community housing dwellings, and to create 10,000 affordable housing units. Because one of the other areas of the housing crisis is that for so many communities, including mine in the inner-west of Sydney, where we have gentrification taking place, there is a massive increase in housing affordable issues. If you're a nurse working at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, if you are a firey, a police officer, an essential worker or a cleaner, you struggle to live near where you work.
What we're seeing in Australia is that the superannuation funds, particularly industry super, are making investments. If the Prime Minister wants to see how this works, he can just go into his electorate and look at the program by Aware Super that has built affordable housing in that electorate for essential workers. This plan will deal with that. What we would also do in the first five years is allocate 4,000 of the 20,000 social housing properties to women and children fleeing domestic and family violence, and also for the section of our society that has the greatest growth in the area of homelessness, and that is older women. Older women—that segment of people who have contributed to our society—increasingly find themselves unable to have shelter at night.
So this is a practical plan. It's a practical plan that, whilst at no cost to the taxpayer and no cost to debt—debt has been added to massively by this government—would directly support 21,500 full-time jobs across the construction industry and the broader economy per year over five years nationwide. Of course, like other infrastructure programs where there is Commonwealth involvement, one out of 10 of the direct workers on those sites will be apprentices or trainees. This will use government procurement policy to drive the sorts of changes that should occur throughout our economy. We'll also use a portion of the investment returns to fund acute housing needs in perpetuity, and that will make a difference as well, in terms of the crisis, transitional and long-term social housing that we need.
In the first five years, we'll also be able to deliver $200 million for the repair, maintenance and improvement of housing in remote Indigenous communities. We actually know that it's a tragedy that, in this country, we have some of the worst housing circumstances in the world. I've travelled to some of these communities. I was with the shadow minister in Mutitjulu, right near Uluru, just a few weeks ago. So, there you have Uluru, one of the world's most recognisable natural sites. It's a very spiritual place, which touches you when you see it. And just down the road you have communities like Mutitjulu that are really struggling—really struggling—and where you have massive overcrowding, with all the health consequences from that. There are community leaders looking for employment, looking for a future, for their people. But if you don't have a decent home it's pretty hard to get up in the morning and get dressed for work or think about your education and training. It has an impact on your health. It has an impact on everything—which is why we see housing as being absolutely essential.
One of the other areas of homelessness that's growing is shown by the extraordinary figure that, tonight, in Sydney, one out of 10 of those homeless people will be a veteran—a man or woman who's served our country, put their life on the line, worn our uniform. We can do better. We'll allocate $30 million to fund housing and specialist services for veterans who are either experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness.
We announced this in my budget reply, and I've got to say that the Housing Australia Future Fund has been pretty well received. Bill Crews, who we visited at the Exodus Foundation, said this: 'Their program is really wonderful because there are so many people who need cheap, affordable public housing.' We've seen it from other organisations. Jack de Groot from St Vincent de Paul said: 'We really welcome this announcement of the Housing Australia Future Fund. We have a crisis. We need an investment. I think this future fund is about a partnership between federal and state governments, as well as community sector organisations.' We had similar from Anglicare Australia, from Kasy Chambers.
But it wasn't just them. The Real Estate Institute of Australia's Adrian Kelly said:
If a Future Fund style model sustainably finances the gap for community housing providers without top up from the public purse, then that is a sensible thing and puts the sector in good stead …
Julia Cambage from the Australian Institute of Architects welcomed it, saying:
The Institute particularly welcomes the focus on constructing new social and affordable housing for the most vulnerable and most in-need sectors of our community.
The Australian Alliance to End Homelessness welcomed it. ACOSS welcomed it. Mission Australia welcomed it, as did Wentworth Community Housing and Housing Trust. Master Builders' Denita Wawn said this:
Last year when the country was in the grip of the pandemic and the economy was locked down, Master Builders in conjunction with the CFMEU, called for a $10 billion social housing stimulus fund …
The Opposition Leader and the Shadow Minister for Housing and Homelessness have listened. We applaud the Opposition's $10 billion social and affordable housing fund.
National Shelter, an organisation that the current minister hasn't even bothered to meet with—they can't get a meeting—welcomed it, saying:
Investment at that scale will be the largest ongoing investment we've seen and will make a massive dent in social housing backlogs.
So, if you look at all of those organisations, across the business sector, the construction sector and homelessness organisations, they all understand that this measure is needed.
Why is it that those in this government don't pick it up, introduce legislation and do it? We'll vote for it. We'll give them the credit—they can say, as on some other things, that they thought of it! No doubt, they would! It'd be a bit like JobKeeper and wage subsidies! So get on board. Do something about it. Do the right thing, because people should not be left behind in a country as wealthy as ours. (Time expired)
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Chief Government Whip) (19:24): Much as I'd like to take up the challenge offered by the Leader of the Opposition, it's interesting in this space to reflect on a little bit of history. I think the member for Rankin has stepped out of the chamber, but I grew up in Waterford West, in the middle of my electorate, and have seen the development of the city of Logan over the last 50 years. My first job, interestingly, was at the Commonwealth Bank at Woodridge, more commonly known today as Logan Central. But I still refer to it by its original name of Woodridge, because that's what it was when I grew up. Every second Thursday, when people got their Centrelink payment, they would come in to bank their cheque—as it was in those days; it wasn't electronic—but at the same time they would pay their Housing Commission payments. Depending on your arrangement with the Housing Commission, there were two different slips. One was for those who were paying rent, and the other one was for those who were in, effectively, a 'rent to buy' scheme with the Housing Commission. The interesting thing with those old Housing Commission homes—and I see this across my electorate, in areas like Waterford West, which the member for Rankin helpfully mentioned prior to his exit from the chamber, or Loganlea or Eagleby or parts of Beenleigh—is that the people who were in the 'rent to buy' scheme now actually own those properties. With the properties that are now owned, you can notice the difference. Those people are starting to renovate those properties. They're starting to upgrade them. They're quite different, maybe, to the Housing Commission property next door that's still a rental property. There is a clear distinction.
For some reason, the state government, whatever its political persuasion, has not seen fit to replace the stock of public housing that has now been purchased by those tenants and reinvest into public housing with new properties to replace the ones that have been taken out of the rental stock. That is in part the reason—at least in my part of Queensland—why we are seeing issues with lack of availability of public housing.
I'm very proud of the actions by this government in the budget and over the last 12 months in seeking to ensure that Australians, if they so desire, have the capacity to purchase their own home. We know that the housing market in large part is driven—immigration aside—by first home buyers entering the market and ensuring that they can then move up the property ladder. Whether they buy a more expensive house or they downsize and do some other things is up to them, but it creates movement in the property market. In addition, with the HomeBuilder grant, we've seen a lot of first home owners actually building houses and adding to the housing stock. I've spoken with many first home buyers that have loved the opportunity to build the home that they have so desired to move into and get out of the rental market. This, for me, is the key measure in this particular bill, the Family Home Guarantee. Now, I know and I'll acknowledge that it will not help all single parents.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (19:30): It being 7.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Lalor Electorate: Child Care
Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy
COVID-19: International Travel
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (19:30): I have the privilege in this parliament to represent an electorate with the highest numbers of young families. The 2016 census tells us that 23,000-plus families with children under the age of 15 live in our community. This number has no doubt grown with over 100 babies born a week in Wyndham and local health group, IPC, projecting that the Wyndham population has just crossed over 300,000 people.
With this phenomenal growth and so many families with young children, it's not surprising child care is vital to the people of our community. Recent data shows that our community has over 19,000 children in a form of child care. That is, long-day care or out-of-school hours care. The next highest community in the country has 13,000 children. We have the highest number of families in child care and the most childcare services. It is vital for this young community, but for many it remains unaffordable.
Fees have risen 37.2 per cent across the nation since the Liberals were elected in 2013. There was a three per cent rise in Wyndham in the last year. It's unaffordable and it's unsustainable. That's why I am so proud of Labor's childcare plan. Only Labor has a real plan to tackle skyrocketing out-of-pocket childcare costs and keep them down for good. An Albanese Labor government will cut childcare fees and put more money into the pockets of working families immediately. Labor's plan will make child care more affordable for 79 per cent of families in the system, four times as many as the Morrison government's plan. While I'm on the topic of young people, I want to share two stories I've heard about local children in my community.
A few weeks ago I was contacted by the amazing Sue Tantaro, an inspirational and loving grandmother who is campaigning for Australia to allow a clinical trial for gene therapy as a treatment for Duchenne muscular dystrophy, a condition three of her grandsons were born to have. She wanted to come and talk to me about her grandsons and the need for the clinical trial. A few days prior to the meeting, Sue rang to tell me the deeply sad news that her beautiful grandson Lukas had unexpectedly passed away. But this determined grandmother, with incredible grief overwhelming in her heart, didn't cancel the meeting because it's so important to her and for boys all over our country like her grandchildren. She used her grief as inspiration to get these trials started. Sue: you are a remarkable grandmother, and I am proud to represent you in this parliament tonight. I promise to assist you in any way I can to help you make life better for Anthony and Jakob and boys like them across the nation.
I also want to speak tonight about a four-year-old citizen of our nation whose parents are currently living in my community. He is just one victim of the government's neglect in their responsibility on quarantine. He is stuck in India at the moment. He is four years old. He's living with his ageing grandparents in Rajasthan. He misses his mum and dad. It's unimaginable how much they miss him. His father, Harjinder, met with me last week to explain the situation. Harjinder has lived in Australia for 15 years. He's a tiler by trade. He worked on mines in Mackay and now he drives a truck in Melbourne. He's paid his taxes like everyone else. But, when he needs the support of the government that others have had during this pandemic, the Morrison government has failed him. Harjinder even applied last week for an exemption to travel to India to go and get his son and bring him home. That exemption was denied, because it didn't meet compassionate and compelling criteria in the guidelines for exemptions.
How are we going to get this four-year-old home, Australia, if his father can't fly to meet him at the airport, get on a plane and bring him home? It's just one story about the effect of the ban on Australians returning from India that's happening in my electorate, but a very compelling one. This little boy needs to go to kindergarten. His mum and dad are worried that he's not going to be back to start school next year. This government needs to get involved in people's lives. They need to open their ears and listen to the harm they're causing and get to work. (Time expired)
World Ovarian Cancer Day
Ms HAMMOND (Curtin) (19:35): I wear a white shirt. I rise today to bring awareness to the Ovarian Cancer Research Foundation and the White Shirt Campaign, which took place on 8 May, World Ovarian Cancer Day. One woman dies every eight hours in Australia from ovarian cancer. Every year around 1,800 Australian women are diagnosed with ovarian cancer. If detected at stage 1, a woman has a 90 per cent chance of surviving beyond five years. However, if detected later, at stage 3 or 4, only 29 per cent of women will survive beyond five years. Unfortunately, there is no effective early detection test for ovarian cancer and, because the early stages of ovarian cancer have no obvious symptoms, most women are not diagnosed until the late stages of the disease. This is the bleak reality and severity of ovarian cancer in Australia. Improved early detection tests and treatments could address this and survival rates of women with ovarian cancer could improve. However, this is only going to happen if we invest in and further support in-depth research into ovarian cancer. There have been some setbacks in recent international research, but with every setback the commitment of our researchers must be backed in. This is the way in which scientific discovery works.
The Ovarian Cancer Research Foundation has provided funding over the past 21 years that has been essential in advancing research undertaken into ovarian cancer as well as being instrumental in raising awareness for ovarian cancer, a field of cancer research which has historically been overlooked and underrepresented. The foundation has been able to successfully raise both awareness and funds for research through amazing partnerships with companies, such as their White Shirt Campaign with Australian retail icon Witchery. The White Shirt Campaign is a 13-year collaboration that has contributed more than $13.8 million to ovarian cancer research. The campaign occurs every year in the lead-up to and peaks on World Ovarian Cancer Day.
Each year Witchery releases a new white shirt specifically dedicated to ovarian cancer research, and 100 per cent of the proceeds made from this shirt are donated to the foundation. The white shirt has been adopted because it symbolises the white lab coat of researchers who dedicate their lives to researching new and better treatment models and methods for early detection. This year the white shirt, this white shirt I'm wearing, was designed by Australian fashion designer Toni Maticevski for Witchery. In the lead-up to 8 May many women across the country participated in the campaign by wearing a white shirt and posting about it, aiming to raise awareness of the incredible work of the foundation and support the strong women in our community that are battling this terrible disease.
All sides of this parliament recognise the vital importance of funding this groundbreaking research. Since 2011 the government has invested more than $71 million into ovarian cancer research through the National Health and Medical Research Council, with $16.9 million also invested through the Medical Research Future Fund into groundbreaking ovarian cancer projects like the work done by Ovarian Cancer Australia. We have also listed lifesaving medications on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, including the recent extension of the PBS listing of Lynparza, meaning an additional 300 Australian women with ovarian cancer will have access to a medicine that would otherwise cost $140,000 per course of treatment. With this listing they will pay as little as $41.30 a script, or $6.60 with a concession card. Through the 2021-22 budget, the government is providing a further $1 million to Ovarian Cancer Australia for the extension of the ovarian cancer management pilot. This pilot project ensures women with ovarian cancer can have access to support and care, no matter where they live in Australia.
To the women—the mothers, sisters and friends—no longer with us and to those battling ovarian cancer now: your courage and resilience compels us to continue the work to find a cure. It compels us to continue to raise awareness and talk about this dreadful disease. From grassroots to government, we all have a role to play.
Travelling Shows
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong) (19:40): I address my remarks tonight to the travelling show men and women who spend their lives travelling around Australia bringing fun and entertainment to our rural and regional towns and, of course, to our big-city shows. Many of these travelling showmen, who might be listening now, driving their rights from one venue to another are small businesses, family owned. They're unique and a celebrated part of Australia's cultural fabric. Many have been passed down through a family name for up to six generations. The workers in our carnival industry are the salt of the earth. They're a close-knit community whilst vying for business in a tightly held industry.
Every year there are at least 580 agricultural shows run across Australia. The travelling showpeople employ at least 4,000 people nationwide and they keep Australians entertained. It's an industry that helps pump a billion dollars into Australia's economy every year, including a hundred million dollars into rural and regional communities. Whether or not it's one of the big coveted shows like the Royal Melbourne Show in my electorate, the Ekka in Brisbane and the Royal Easter Show in Sydney or the smaller agricultural shows in rural and regional Australia, this industry has kept Australians entertained for a century and more.
I'm very privileged to be a life member of the Travelling Showmen's Guild, and in the last year I have been speaking regularly to travelling showmen's guilds, including the Victorian Showmen's Guild and the Showmen's Guild of Australasia, as they coped with the terrible pandemic. As the pandemic first swept through Australia our travelling shows, rodeos and circuses, like so many businesses in hospitality and entertainment, came to a grinding halt. Due to restrictions on mass gatherings and event cancellations, this sector was incredibly hard hit by the impacts of coronavirus. There were shows, rodeos and circuses cancelled, and operators were forced to shut down as rents crippled them. The Victorian Showmen's Guild have informed me that the industry was ineligible to apply initially for many state and federal grants, despite sharing many characteristics of the successful recipients, because they travelled between state borders. This has not only seen an entire industry put at risk but put hardworking men's and women's livelihoods on the chopping block. They have been at risk of falling through the policy and legislative cracks of federation.
I have been fortunate to be able to reach out to colleagues on both sides of politics at the federal and state level to find a solution. Tonight I acknowledge the federal minister for agriculture, David Littleproud, who has answered the call on one issue. It's fantastic to see him announce $4.3 million allocated to the travelling industry in the recent federal budget. This funding is going to provide rent relief at agricultural shows so that show men and women are able to provide the entertainment and have their rides present at all of these events without having to pay rent for the next 12 months, we hope. All too often in politics it is rare to find bipartisan solutions, but David and I were able to achieve this by listening to the industry. It's a great result, but the industry still needs us.
There is a new problem looming for show men and women in Australia, a new obstacle that will prevent the show being kept on the road. There is market failure in the public liability insurance area. Australia's last two insurers offering public liability insurance for the industry have departed the local market. It means our show operators cannot get the $20 million of public liability insurance to open and operate rides at our shows. For everyday Australians, for city Australians and country Australians, for the children and young people who love the entertainment that these rides provide it means no rides and no more show bags. They need insurance to keep the punters safe. But if there is no public liability insurance, due to market failure, it will be the death knell of this industry. There will be no more rollercoaster rides, but it's more than that. It's people's livelihoods and the investments they have made.
There is something we can do. I had the opportunity to speak to Justine Sinclair, the remarkable CEO of the Victorian Showmen's Guild; Marjorie Chant, who is on the board, and Les 'Chippa' Chant, her son; Elwin Bell, who is the president; Jade Evans; and many others. They've told me that the insurance that they have, the public liability policies, are up or soon to be and they just want to set up a mutual. Along with AALARA, which looks after the rides and entertainment industry more generally, including our Luna Parks, we could create a mutual. It would only require an interest-free loan and a small grant to set it up. When there's market failure, I say to the government: this is a great opportunity for us to fill it.
I'm optimistic that the government is listening to this. This is not a matter where there should be great rancour. We can, I think, fulfil this market failure and make sure that we can find the gap. This crisis can be averted, and I encourage the government—who I know are looking carefully at this—to keep our travelling show men and women on the road, so the show can go on.
Budget
Mrs McINTOSH (Lindsay) (19:45): The people in my electorate of Lindsay want to know what the budget means for them. This is one of the most significant budgets in our country's history, one that charts our course to emerge from the coronavirus pandemic and to secure our country's future. What matters for people in Lindsay is lower taxes and more jobs. When I go out and speak with local businesses, they say it is about securing more support so that they can create jobs in our electorate. Many that I have spoken to—and it is really encouraging—say that it is around creating traineeships, including in manufacturing and traineeships for young women. That is really exciting for our future. The Morrison government believe that people in the community of Lindsay should keep more of what they earn. For around 76,000 people, the budget means more hard-earned money back into their pockets. This builds on the Morrison government's plan, which has already seen over 82,000 people in Lindsay pay less tax. Delivering tax relief also supports more local jobs by enabling people to spend more money across our economy.
As we are celebrating Australian Made week, which I think is a wonderful thing—and ever since I've come into this place I've been really prosecuting the case for buying and supporting Aussie made—this is a great opportunity to encourage people to back our local businesses and to actually go out and buy Aussie made products. The small business community has been so resilient throughout the coronavirus pandemic, and they do want to know how the Morrison government is backing them. Over 200 of our local businesses heard it directly from the Treasurer just last week in my electorate—only days after handing down the budget. The Treasurer also joined us last year after the budget, and I was really pleased that it was the first stop for him. He knows—as the Prime Minister knows and as I know—just how important businesses in Western Sydney are in driving our economic recovery and creating more local jobs.
Our local businesses know exactly where the Morrison government stands, and that is right by their side. Over 5,000 businesses in Lindsay were supported by JobKeeper, keeping 26,000 employees connected to their businesses. We stood side by side with businesses supporting local jobs then, as we do now and as we always will. In this budget, we are expanding the instant asset write-off, allowing around 15,000 businesses in Lindsay to write off the full value of any eligible asset they purchase. Whether it's a new tractor or a new machine, 99 per cent of businesses will be able to take advantage of this incentive to scale up, to improve their efficiency and to ultimately and very importantly create more jobs. That is what this budget and our government are all about.
In my electorate of Lindsay, we are full of aspiration, hardworking people and caring families contributing to our community. They want to know that the essential services they rely on will be there for them when they need them most. For people in Lindsay, the budget means putting more life-changing treatments and medicines within reach. In the last year, there have been more than two million free or subsidised medicines delivered to people in Lindsay through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. We have committed to fund on the PBS every medicine recommended by the medical experts, and now in this budget we're listing more medicines to treat breast cancer, lung cancer, osteoporosis, severe migraines, eczema and asthma.
That's what this budget is about: supporting people in our community, whether it is supporting our local businesses, supporting our local apprentices or supporting our community when it comes to health issues. We are investing in our local communities. I am very proud that we are investing in Lindsay. This is a budget that does deliver, growing small businesses so they can produce across our community; a budget, as I said, for local families who want to have a safe way to school, through delivering on our road upgrades as well; and a budget for people who want more local jobs. (Time expired)
National Sorry Day
Penhaligon, Major Sidney Norman, MBE
Mr DAVID SMITH (Bean) (19:50): Today is National Sorry Day. It's a day that, sadly, recognises that Australia's past policies continue to have detrimental effects on our First Nations peoples. The first National Sorry Day was held on 26 May 1998, a year to the day after the Bringing them home report was tabled in this parliament. The report was a powerful document that outlined the policies of the systematic and forcible removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families. The thinking at the end of the 19th century was that this was a good thing, but in truth it was a shameful, racist and deliberate attempt to breed out Australia's First Nations people as a race. It was a devastating policy that ran up right into the 1960s.
Until the apology by the former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, many First Nations people did not feel that their healing process could begin. Although the national apology was monumental in the healing process, 13 years on many First Nations peoples and families are still experiencing the devastating effects of these policies, due to the trauma associated with being separated from their families. It's time that as a nation we do better to learn about, preserve, promote and respect First Nations peoples and to understand the culture in ways that are meaningful to us as Australians, and it's time for all here to commit to action on the Uluru Statement from the Heart. I would encourage all in this place and in the community to inform themselves about this part of our history and to continue our collective journey of learning and understanding our history.
I would like to pay tribute to World War II veteran Major Sidney Norman Penhaligon, who, sadly, died on 5 March. Sid had an interesting life. He left school in the middle of the Depression at the age of 14 and worked in a local grocery shop, cycling a return trip of 25 kilometres every day. With Australia at war, in 1941 Sid enlisted at the age of 17. Sid's family does not know how this was achieved, given that the minimum entry age was 20. He met his wife, Marie, in 1943, and they married the next year.
After the war, Sid had several jobs and completed a two-year course in wool classing. When national service was reintroduced in the early 1950s, Sid re-enlisted and went on to have a long career in the Army that spanned more than 33 years. He had numerous postings over the years and had operational service in Japan, Korea and South Vietnam. In 1972 he was granted a commission as a lieutenant, and in 1978 he was appointed a Member of the Order of the British Empire for his service as the administration officer at the Joint Services Staff College. Sid was very proud that there had been a Penhaligon involved in every major conflict since the Boer War, and he was thrilled when his granddaughter Deirdre joined the Army Reserve.
After being discharged from the Army with the rank of major, he became the secretary manager of the Royal Canberra Golf Club and later worked at Parliament House with the Department of the House of Representatives. During this time, he was given the task of planning the move from the old to the new Parliament House, a job described as is most challenging.
Sid had a keen sense of social responsibility that was reflected in his active involvement with the Masons, the Probus Club of Weston, the RSL, Saint Peter's Church at Weston, the Artillery Association and various community groups. Over many years, including when Sid was over 80, he was still involved with feeding the homeless. He was one of the original foundation members who provided a financial guarantee to enable the building of St Peter's Church at Weston.
At his funeral, his daughter Michele described her father as a person of energy who had a positive outlook on life. She said that his family, his Christian faith and the Army's cultural and ethical values were the pivots around which his life revolved. She said, 'If you look up a definition of goodness, it's about character, integrity, honesty, generosity, moral courage and the like. My father had all this and more. He lived his life with love, with dignity, with passion and with pride. He was a proud Australian, and the extended Penhaligon family loved, respected and admired him.' I would like to thank Sid for his dedication, service and sacrifice for our country. I would also like to express my sincere condolences to his family and join in celebrating a remarkable life.
Medicinal Cannabis
Mr LLEW O'BRIEN (Wide Bay—Deputy Speaker) (19:55): As a former police officer, I know only too well the devastation that driving while impaired by drugs can have on people, their families, first responders and communities. It can be devastating. As a member of parliament, I have been made aware of some remarkable improvements in the quality of life when people have been prescribed medical cannabis by a doctor for certain conditions. In both of these jobs, I've witnessed the real and serious repercussions that a loss of a drivers licence can have on a person. It can cause isolation and cut them off from vital services.
In Australia, we have a dichotomy, where thousands of patients are finding relief due to the introduction of medical cannabis as a result of the work of advocates, researchers and government but, in finding this relief, these people discover a new problem. You see, patients prescribed some form of medical cannabis products are not allowed to drive under state and territory laws. Indeed, regional magistrate David Heilpern from Northern New South Wales resigned for this reason. He enforced a law where people who had consumed cannabis and driven a car many days after consuming it would front the court and lose their licence. Often, as a result of this, they would lose jobs and, eventually, relationships because, as the law stands today, someone with any trace of tetrahyrdocannabinol, THC, in their system, who may not have any impairment and present no risk to themselves or other road users, can face prosecution. Up to 75 per cent of patients using medicinal cannabis, nearly 50,000 Australians, are at risk of prosecution when they drive.
A law that penalises people on the basis of safety when there is no impairment can only serve to undermine vital traffic laws. The University of Sydney's Lambert Initiative has published world-leading research on cannabis effects on driving, including magnitude and duration of impairment following various doses of formulations of THC and CBD. Lead researchers informed me about the lack of high-quality scientific evidence around medicinal cannabis effects on drivers. Every study to date has been performed using healthy volunteers. When cannabis is used to alleviate a debilitating medical condition under careful supervision, they believe it may have minimal effects on driving. A controlled clinical trial examining this could provide clinical evidence to inform debate and pave a rational path for legislative reform that may allow patients a reasonable exemption to drive under certain conditions.
These laws penalise regional patients who don't have access to public transport and who have to travel long distances to go to work, to go shopping and to access services. These existing laws are a major barrier for patients who need and benefit greatly from medicinal cannabis but can't take it because it means they can't drive. Every month there are about 10,000 new approvals to the medicinal cannabis scheme across Australia. Every year in New South Wales alone, there are 100,000 roadside drug tests. These result in about 10,000 court appearances and, as more patients turn to medicinal cannabis and regional transport remains inaccessible, these numbers will get higher.
Other drugs are known to impair driving performance but our legislative approach is very different. Patients using opioids or benzodiazepines are permitted to drive so long as they don't feel impaired. The legislative approach of Australia is the most severe of any country in the world that has legal access to medicinal cannabis. Unlike alcohol, there is no simple correlation between blood or oral fluids, THC concentration and impairment. We urgently need more research like that proposed by the Lambert Initiative to inform change that is safe, that is fair and that maintains confidence in our traffic laws and addresses what is and will continue to be a growing problem.
House adjourned at 20:00
NOTICES
The following notice(s) were given:
Mr Hunt to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to aged care, and for related purposes. (Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response No. 1) Bill 2021)
Mr Hunt to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to medical and midwife indemnity, and for related purposes. (Medical and Midwife Indemnity Legislation Amendment Bill 2021)
Mr Robert to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to social security, and for related purposes. (Social Security Legislation Amendment (Streamlined Participation Requirements and Other Measures) Bill 2021)
Mr Robert to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to social security, and for related purposes. (Social Services Legislation Amendment (Portability Extensions) Bill 2021)
Mr Bowen to move:
That the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Amendment (2020-21 Budget Programs) Regulations 2021 made under the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Act 2011 on 18 May 2021 and presented to the House on 24 May 2021, be disallowed.
Mr Kelly to present a Bill for an Act to protect the right of Australians to make their own health decisions in relation to COVID vaccination, and for related purposes. (No Domestic COVID Vaccine Passports Bill 2021)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Llew O'Brien) took the chair at 10:00.
BILLS
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022
Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2021-2022
Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022
Second Reading
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:
(1) the 2021 Budget includes nearly $100 billion in new spending and racks up one trillion dollars in debt, but still delivers a real wage cut for Australian workers;
(2) after eight long years of cuts to key services, increasing job insecurity, stagnant wages growth, weak business investment, weak productivity, waste and rorts, this Budget was designed to get through an election rather than outline a vision for Australia; and
(3) that the 2021 Budget is a missed opportunity to shape a better, stronger post-pandemic Australia where no one is held back and no one is left behind".
to which the following amendment was moved:
That the following words be added after paragraph (3):
"(4) the 2020-21 Budget delivered the publicly-funded Jobkeeper wage subsidy, that was received by many companies that enjoyed an increase in profits during the pandemic, resulting from changes in consumer spending; and
(5) the 2021-22 Budget does not include measures requiring such corporations to repay any Jobkeeper payments they received as a windfall; and
(6) calls on the Government to require companies with an annual turnover of more than $50 million that received windfall Jobkeeper payments and in the last 12 months:
(a) made increased profits; or
(b) paid increased executive bonuses; or
(c) issued increased dividends;
to repay to the Commonwealth an amount equal to the amount of Jobkeeper payments they received, up to the sum of increased profits made and increased executive bonuses paid".
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Chief Government Whip) (10:01): It's a pleasure to rise and speak on the appropriation bills 2021-22. As we've seen from the Treasurer's speech in the House, the appropriation bills this year cover an enormous range of facets of our economy. We see the range of issues that we are seeking to deal with as we come out of the impacts of a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic, yet today, as we stand here in this House, we see more new cases in Victoria. We know how fragile this recovery can be until we actually defeat coronavirus over the long term. Despite that, over the past 12 or 18 months we as a country have outperformed the world in our health and economic response, and that's seen, particularly into this year, a very strong recovery in our economy. The budget is designed to ensure that economic recovery continues.
JobKeeper ensured that unemployment remained low over the past 12 months. I know from speaking to any number of businesses across my electorate the importance of JobKeeper in helping those businesses keep their doors open and keep their employees engaged. In the latest unemployment figures, a low of 5.5 per cent tells some of the story of this extraordinary achievement.
When I was at Struddys sports last week with the Prime Minister at Loganholme, the CEO, Ross Strudwick, very clearly said to us that it was JobKeeper that kept the business afloat during the coronavirus pandemic last year but now they've started to turn the corner and turn the corner so well, in fact, that they've put an additional 10 staff on. What's important in this is that every business I talk to around my electorate is actually struggling to get staff. It's a terrific problem to have.
The people across the electorate of Forde are benefiting from this budget and previous budgets as well. I will go through some of the highlights for this budget in my electorate of Forde. Nearly 75,000 taxpayers in Forde will benefit from tax relief of up to $2,745 this year. This is the result of the decision to extend the low- and middle-income tax offset to 2021-22 and the decision to bring forward stage 2 of the government's tax relief plan. The government's tax plan has already benefited nearly79,000 people across my electorate of Forde. The extended and expanded JobTrainer Fund will support some 450,000 new places to upskill jobseekers and young people. We've already seen nearly 2½ thousand apprentices in Forde. And these new measures will only lead to more opportunities for apprentices and trainees, with the expanded wage subsidies. I know any number of my manufacturing businesses are looking to put on apprentices and trainees to fill the gap they have in trying to find additional staff.
The tax incentives that the Morrison government has provided for around 18½ thousand businesses in Forde to write-off the full value of any eligible asset they purchase has been very well received. Additionally, around 5,900 businesses will be able to use the extended loss carry-back measure to support cashflow and confidence. This has helped many businesses invest more in building the capability of their business and their efficiency—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 10:05 to 10:22
Mr VAN MANEN: I'm very pleased, as I said in my earlier remarks, to be speaking on the appropriations bill 2021 and talking about the benefits it is providing to the electorate of Forde. But I know the measures that are providing these benefits to the electorate of Forde are also providing benefits right across this country. The cashflow boost has helped around 4,800 small and medium businesses across the electorate of Forde to stay afloat in addition to many of the other measures.
But I'd like to use most of my time today to talk about the extensive infrastructure investments that have occurred from the north to the south, from the east to the west, from Upper Coomera in the south to Carbrook and Cornubia in the north, out to Park Ridge in the west, North Maclean in the west and to Beenleigh and surrounds and Yatala in the east. If we start with our investments on the M1, in our term of government we have completed the M1 M3 Gateway merge upgrade between Eight Mile Plains and Springwood Road.
We are now working on the Sports Drive north upgrade on the M1 to the Gateway. It's a $750 million project, funded in part by $510 million of Commonwealth investment. This is a critical lifeline between Brisbane and the Gold Coast, but also between the city of Logan and Brisbane and the city of Logan and the Gold Coast. It carries some 140,000 to 150,000 traffic movements per day. This work is critically important to ensuring that this lifeline continues to flow throughout the day.
In addition, we are investing in a range of upgrades of the Mount Lindesay Highway. And we've already completed a $20 million project at North Maclean, improving the safety of that stretch between Chambers Flat Road and Greenbank Road. Where the service road has been extended down to Greenbank Road, a new set of traffic lights has been put in. The Mount Lindesay Highway has been separated out from the service road to improve the safety along that section, which was particularly crash prone.
I'm pleased to say we're now entering into the next major upgrade of the Mount Lindesay Highway, and that is a $75 million project of duplicating the highway between Stoney Camp Road and Chambers Flat Road. The federal government is funding 50 per cent of that—$37½ million. I have been talking to the community in the area of Park Ridge, North Maclean and Munruben. I share that particular piece of road with the member for Wright, and I know he, too, is very pleased to see that work on this upgrade is now well underway.
In addition, there has been a range of safety upgrades on local roads. Beenleigh Redland Bay Road has benefited from a $15 million investment in road safety upgrades by the Commonwealth government. There have been new safety barriers, the removal of roadside vegetation and upgrading of the surface of the road in patches. I know that was done in conjunction with a safety upgrade by the state government near one of our schools, in terms of installing traffic lights on a very busy intersection where three schools are located very closely together. That has benefited the community in Carbrook, Cornubia and Shailer Park and all the families who use the three great schools of Calvary Christian College, Kimberley College and Carbrook State School.
In the southern part of my electorate there has been a $1 million investment, in partnership with the council of the City of Gold Coast, in the upgrade of the intersection of Days Road and Williamson Road. This, again, is an intersection which was incredibly dangerous, particularly at school time—it is surrounded by two schools, Coomera Anglican College and Assisi Catholic College—because of the sheer volume of traffic moving through that intersection. That intersection has now been signalised, and when I was speaking recently with Mark Sly, the principal of Coomera Anglican College, he said to me that, in the couple of months since that work has been completed, it has undoubtedly already saved lives.
The reason these projects are so important is that the area I, along with the member for Fadden and the member for Wright, represent is one of the fastest-growing areas in Australia. Wherever you look, there is development continuing apace, whether it's through Upper Coomera, Pimpama and Ormeau or in the west in Yarrabilba, Flagstone—in the member for Wright's electorate—Park Ridge and Logan Reserve in my electorate. These areas are growing exponentially.
There are other terrific projects coming online over the next few years that will help improve the infrastructure in our local communities. There is the Chambers Flat Road upgrade, a $23 million project, to which the Commonwealth government is putting in $11½ million, in conjunction with Logan City Council. We are also partnering with Logan City Council to upgrade the High Road-Easterley Road structure around Canterbury College.
But, as I've already touched on, our business community is also critically important, and that is why we are spending nearly $100 million in upgrades to duplicate exits 41 and 49 on the M1. In addition, we're spending another $10 million on upgrades to exit 45. But exits 41 and 49 are particularly important. Exit 49 services the Pimpama community on both sides of the highway. That is a major bottleneck now, predominantly for residential traffic. It is creating issues of tailback onto the M1 in peak hours, which creates a major safety issue when you have traffic going past at 110 kilometres an hour. Exit 41, which, in conjunction with exit 38 a little bit further north, services the Yatala and Stapylton industrial areas, is being duplicated because, again, there are issues there, in terms of the volume of traffic now using exit 41 to go to those industrial areas. If you go past there in the morning the traffic both northbound and southbound is banked well back onto the M1 for at least half a kilometre, and maybe longer. Again, this is a major safety issue, because the traffic that is on the highway proper is going past at 110 kilometres per hour.
In addition, not only are we building the road infrastructure that our growing communities need but we are building the rail infrastructure that our growing communities need. Announced during the budget was a $178 million investment by the Commonwealth government for the upgrade of the Brisbane to Gold Coast rail line between Kuraby and Beenleigh to facilitate, in time, faster rail. That's a critically important investment in improving the speed of rail between Brisbane and the Gold Coast and making it more attractive for people to use public transport to get to work in Brisbane, in particular, rather than driving.
As part of that, too, we had previously announced a $50 million investment in the relocation of Loganlea train station, which is a key part of that upgrade plan. The station will be relocated further east so it will be much more adjacent to the Logan Hospital, which is our major hospital serving the city of Logan and the broader community. In addition to that $50 million investment for the station relocation, there was a $15 million investment in commuter car parking, because one of the issues that we have at all of our train stations, particularly the ones where the Gold Coast to Brisbane express train stops, is car parking. If the car parking spaces aren't there, the incentive is not there for people to use the train; they prefer to drive. Not only are we doing that at Loganlea train station but Beenleigh train station will also benefit from a $15 million upgrade to its car-parking arrangements, and we are looking to do that in conjunction with the relocation of Beenleigh train station, depending on what we're doing with the bigger rail upgrade that I just mentioned. Coomera train station is also benefiting from a $15 million upgrade to its parking facilities which will commence shortly.
I look at all of these things that are critical to the provision of services and getting people home sooner and safer. This includes getting tradies to work sooner and allowing them to get on the job when they need to be, and that is critically important because, as I talk to the tradespeople across my electorate, all of them are flat-chat, and the reason they are flat-chat is the government's support of the housing and construction industry, particularly through our HomeBuilder program. We have seen an enormous amount of growth, and I have talked to any number of first home owners who have now had the opportunity, through the HomeBuilder program, for the first time to look realistically at getting into their own home. I was also pleased to see in the budget a focus on helping single parents get into their first home through our support of that package.
All of these measures show that the Morrison government continues to deliver for the Australian people each and every day. I commend this bill in its unamended form to the House.
Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand) (10:33): I rise today to speak on behalf of my community and my home state about the Morrison government's eighth budget and Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022. This budget is deeply disappointing and deficient on so many levels that it's hard to know where to begin, but I will begin with the eye-watering headline numbers: $100 billion in fresh spending and net debt forecast to rise to $1 trillion. Let's think for a moment about what $1 trillion actually is. That's $1,000 billion or $1 million million. It's a one with 12 zeros behind it. It's a staggering figure. Eight years ago, when the Liberals came to power, net debt stood at a relatively modest $175 billion. By early 2020, even before the COVID-19 pandemic hit, the Liberals had overseen a surge in Australia's net debt to around $400 billion. Now we have a budget that is forecasting debt to continue rising to $1 trillion by 2024-25. This government is spending taxpayers' money with greater abandon than any government in our history.
If these numbers sound big, it's because they really are big, especially when analysed in the context of the size of the Australian economy. In 2013, when the Liberals took over government, net debt was equivalent to 13 per cent of Australia's gross domestic product. Under current projections, that figure will rise to about 41 per cent of GDP in just a few short years from now. And this is from the same Liberals who have the gall to declare that they're a party of fiscal responsibility. These are the same Liberals who shamelessly printed the Back in Black coffee mugs for their 2019 budget because it forecast an operating surplus—a surplus, of course, that was never going to be delivered and now will never be delivered. These are the same Liberals who have spent much of the past decade condemning Labor for the actions it took to protect our economy during the global financial crisis. Back then they demonised this means of spending as a debt and deficit disaster. Now the Treasurer says his $1 trillion in debt is sensible and manageable. We all know COVID has affected our economy—of course it has—but the hypocrisy of this Liberal-National coalition government is staggering and it's there for all to see in this latest budget.
The high level of government spending in this budget is so immense and yet it fails to be carefully targeted to ensure that as many Australians as possible can share in the benefits of the economic recovery. Unfortunately, that is just the case of this budget. What we have here is a budget of record deficit and massive borrowings yet hardly anything to show for it—no lasting social benefit, no long-term economic dividend for this nation, no vision to set Australia up for a sustainable recovery that will benefit future generations. Instead, we have a shameless political fix designed to get this government re-elected. After eight long years, there is nothing to show but a trillion dollars in debt.
The Liberals are pretending to care about the very issues they have deliberately ignored for the past eight long years. After disastrously neglecting the nation's broken aged-care system, the government is spending $17.7 billion on an aged-care package that doesn't even clear waiting lists or do the right thing by workers in the sector. After overseeing record increases in childcare fees for families, the government is now spending $1.7 billion on a plan that increases the complexity of the payment system and only provides extra support to one-quarter of the families that Labor's policy would do.
Another obvious problem with this budget is that the bevy of promises it contains is not worth the paper it's written on. Just look at last year's budget; the centrepiece of that document was the JobMaker scheme that promised 450,000 jobs. Instead it has created just 1,000 jobs, so that's a success rate of less than a quarter of one per cent. That's quite the KPI the government has set for itself—less than a quarter of one per cent success rate. We know this is a government that is all about the announcement but hopelessly inept at the delivery. We know only too well they're more interested in photo ops and marketing than actual substance.
Perhaps the most damning aspect of this extraordinarily bad budget is a complete failure to do anything about the wages of Australian workers. Under the Liberals, Australians have already endured eight years of flat wages. The fine print of this budget contains even worse news than that. It shows real wages will go backward over the next four years. That's right; the workers around this country who ensured our economy kept going during last year's COVID crisis, many of whom put their own health on the line, are being rewarded for their effort with a pay cut. This is from the same government that tried to cut workers' wages and conditions through their awful industrial relations bill. None of this is by accident. We know this for certain. The former Minister for Finance let the cat out of the bag a few years ago when he said low wages were 'a deliberate design feature' of the coalition economic policy. This is what Australian workers right around this country have to thank the Liberal-National coalition for: an economic policy that sets low wages as a deliberate design feature. That's a disgrace. It's no good for Australian workers and it's no good for the Australian economy.
Many government speakers on the appropriations bill are letting everyone know about the projects in their electorate. They can do that because the budget is yet another massive exercise in pork-barrelling that is leaving the people of Western Australia, and in particular the people of Brand, well behind. There is nothing in this budget for infrastructure projects in my electorate across the cities of Rockingham and Kwinana. There is nothing for the long-delayed Karnup train station which has been on the drawing board and planned for at least for 10 years and forms part of the McGowan Labor government's METRONET transport plan. The Karnup station is intended to service the residents of Baldivis, Secret Harbour, Golden Bay, Singleton and many others. It would take pressure off the Warnbro train station, which has been at capacity for years in its parking. The Liberals have refused to contribute one cent of federal funding to it. Instead the Morrison government decided to bankroll a train station and unplanned train station—an unplanned train station—at Lakelands as a favour to the member for Canning. This is just another example of blatant pork-barrelling and rorting that we see so often from the Liberals and shows no respect for the people of Brand.
Remember sports rorts? So many worthy sporting groups, including in my own electorate, missed out when the Prime Minister decided to hand out more than $100 million in taxpayer money to benefit Liberal electorates rather than those that actually deserved it. Remember safer seats rorts? That was when the Liberals were caught red-handed redirecting taxpayers' money into electorates the Prime Minister wanted to win at the 2019 election. In Rockingham, my home town, that meant the loss of $500,000 in funding for community safety that had already been allocated by experts for these projects. That money instead went to Liberal and marginal seats. I have repeatedly asked this government to help fund projects in Brand and I'll continue to advocate for my local community even if this Liberal government seems content to ignore them.
The people of the cities of Rockingham and Kwinana deserve a federal government that will support local employment and economic activity, but what we've seen and the track record proves is that the Liberals simply do not care about the people of Brand. They have not made an election commitment to the people of Brand since before 2016. It just proves that, when the Liberals come into government, they don't govern for the country; they govern only for their own, and that's shameful and disgusting. In fact, it's un-Australian.
It's obvious the Liberals don't care about the people of Brand. We have mounting evidence that they really don't care at all for the entire state of Western Australia. Look at last week's announcement from the Prime Minister that he will throw more than $2 billion to keep two east coast fuel refineries open. I honestly felt quite ill when I saw a photograph of the Prime Minister on the front page of the Australian Financial Review. There he was, all thumbs up and beaming for the cameras, standing alongside the workers of a Brisbane fuel refinery whose jobs he had saved. I'm grateful that those jobs were saved, but I want to contrast that with the Prime Minister's actions when BP announced last October that its Kwinana fuel refinery would shut down within months at a cost of more than 600 jobs. What did the Prime Minister do then? You can probably guess: he did absolutely nothing. Not a jot. He does not care about the livelihoods of those Kwinana workers and their families and he sure doesn't care about Western Australia's precarious fuel security.
We see his power. The member for Tangney, the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister and Cabinet, has once again managed to squirrel away $1.2 billion for a road project that has been rejected not once but twice by the people of Western Australia. This government is willing to cling ideologically to rows 8 and 9. Why not help the BP workers that have now lost their jobs? Why not apply that $1.2 billion provision to the very real fuel security problem in Western Australia? Instead, you throw it at a road that's not going to exist and that never existed. It exists only in the member for Tangney's mind these days. It's been rejected by the people, but instead you keep that on your books for your own ideological nutcase ideas, and now it's all too late for the workers of the BP refinery in Kwinana. It's a stark reminder for me and for all Western Australians that we do not count in the government's political calculations.
We saw this last year when the government played politics with the pandemic. The Prime Minister and his former Attorney-General, of course, sided with Clive Palmer in a High Court challenge against Western Australia's border restrictions. This is Mr Palmer, the Queensland billionaire who has robbed workers of many of their entitlements and closed down the nickel refinery in Queensland. Of course the government and Palmer lost the case, but that didn't stop senior ministers in the Morrison government continuing to undermine the advice of Western Australia's Chief Health Officer and the actions of the McGowan government in keeping people safe.
The people of Western Australia will not forget that this government was fully prepared to put their health at risk to push an ideological goal. We still don't know what the Commonwealth's involvement in Mr Palmer's High Court challenge cost taxpayers; that figure is not contained in this year's budget. Whatever the cost, the whole affair was scandalous.
There is a number in the budget, however, that tells a similar story about the government's contempt for Western Australia. I mentioned it earlier. It's just incredible that the government can find that $1.2 billion for a road that isn't needed or wanted yet can't find a cent to help the workers of Kwinana and has refused to build a quarantine facility that is urgently needed to take the pressure off Perth's hotel quarantine system.
Of course, in April we all got a shock in WA—you would have too, Deputy Speaker Goodenough—when the Prime Minister actually visited WA for a few photo ops. He was shamed into making the flight across the Nullarbor after the media reported he hadn't been to WA in more than 18 months. To be fair to the PM, I fully understand why he's a bit nervous about showing his face in the western third, given the disgraceful way he has treated all Western Australians.
This month, of course, we had another surprise visitor to WA. The Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia, Keith Pitt, actually managed to head west for the first time since he was appointed to the role 15 months ago. That's right—it took the resources minister of the government of Australia 15 months to set foot in the Pilbara, the nation's most important resources export region, which is literally saving this nation's economy from the troubles and travails of the COVID-19 pandemic. The minister tried to blame the McGowan government's border policies for his sluggishness, ignoring the fact that many eastern state MPs, including, might I say, the Deputy Prime Minister, had managed to enter WA during this time. This is the kind of respect that the Prime Minister, the minister for resources and other Liberal government ministers have for Western Australia—that is, none at all.
There must be a better way for Australia than what is presented by this government. I believe that in this country we have a once-in-a-century opportunity to reinvent our economy, lift wages, invest in advanced manufacturing and in skills and training, provide affordable universal child care, fix our broken aged-care system, address the housing crisis and take advantage of the global shift to decarbonisation. As the Leader of the Australian Labor Party, Anthony Albanese, spelt out so well in his budget reply speech, this is all within our grasp. He announced that a Labor government would create a $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund to build social and affordable housing. This will create jobs, build homes and change lives and opportunities. Labor will invest $100 million to support 10,000 new energy apprenticeships. We will protect workers from exploitation and rip-offs by criminalising wage theft. Our Secure Australian Jobs Plan will deliver rights for gig economy workers through the Fair Work Commission. The plan will also tackle the gender pay gap by requiring companies with more than 250 employees to report publicly on this. We will make child care cheaper for 97 per cent of families in the system and remove the financial barriers that discourage women from working more hours. This is good for children; this is good for women; this is good for the economy. Labor will rebuild Australia's energy grid, using Australian expertise, steel and workers to deliver cheap, reliable and clean electricity. Our Power to the People policy will connect 100,000 homes to 400 community batteries around Australia, reducing power bills and emissions by making households less reliant on the electricity grid. And we will back the Uluru Statement from the Heart by providing a voice to parliament enshrined in the Constitution and a makarrata commission to examine our history since occupation and supervise a process of agreement-making with Australian governments.
This is a future I want for Australia, not one overseen by retrograde government with no ambition or imagination. Labor has a vision to fix Australia.
Mr HAMILTON (Groom) (10:48): The Toowoomba region is a leading light in Australia's economic recovery from COVID-19, and our future is only looking brighter with the strong measures announced in this budget. That applies across the myriad industries that are based around the Toowoomba region.
We've got a wonderful agricultural industry, of course. I was speaking to the good people at the Port of Brisbane recently, and they told me that over half of their exports come from around Goondiwindi, in an area of about a 200-kilometre radius. They come right into the electorate of Groom, which is an absolute hub for agriculture. We've got a fantastic transport industry, which has benefited from recent investments like the second range crossing. We've got a wonderful defence industry—I'll talk more about that later on. We also, sadly, have a declining mining industry. It's the only down point here. It's wonderful to hear the members opposite talk about their support for mining. I genuinely would have loved to see some Labor government support for mining in my patch. The New Acland mine is potentially a great contributor, and not just to my region and my state. I'll be out there with CEO Ronald Schmidt shortly talking about the future. Sadly, we're not talking good things there.
I won't dither too long on the downside of the state government's lack of support for the mining industry in my area; I want to talk about the wonderful things that have come out of the budget over the last year. In the most recent regional labour force data, we saw the unemployment rate drop to five per cent in the Toowoomba region. That's the lowest of any region in Queensland and well below the state figure of 7.3 per cent. This last budget was a very Toowoomba-friendly budget, as is the current budget that's just been released. That was very much what was being put to me by the people at the TSBE political leaders summit that I attended last week. That was business leaders from around the Toowoomba community as well as other elected representatives. We were discussing the many ways over the last 12 months we have seen the Toowoomba region really grasp all of the incentives that have been put in front of it and continue to grow and thrive. The message loud and clear back from the good people there at TSBE was that this was a good budget that was going to continue to drive jobs and growth in the Toowoomba region.
As wonderful as it is to hear from those leaders, it's much better when I get out and do a little bit of doorknocking and hear from the people themselves in their homes. How wonderful it was last week to do a little bit of doorknocking in Highfields and hear from a lovely lady and her husband, both teachers in the area. They moved to Highfields to teach. The husband was teaching at the Highfields secondary school there, one of the quickest growing schools in Queensland. This is just another area in which this budget is driving the Toowoomba region. It's bringing people to our region, it's bringing families to our region and we're growing.
The number of people in employment from March 2020 to March 2021 rose by a staggering 18.7 per cent in our region, with an extra 11,800 people in a job. The great example I have of business growth in our area is the Finch Cafe. When the pandemic first struck, the Finch Cafe, like many others in the service industry, were hit very hard and were trying to work out what to do. They adapted. They started a line called iCooked of precooked meals, frozen meals, that they were selling to get them through those first couple of uncertain weeks. But then, as JobKeeper kicked in and as the economy started to open up, not only did the Finch come back, not only did the customers come back and not only did they continue to grow but they have done well enough to be able to sell iCooked, the business they built in the pandemic, and also to open a second cafe. This is a great example of new jobs being brought into Toowoomba by the incentives of that last budget.
I'm happy to say the Morrison government's measures that got the Toowoomba region through the turbulence of last year and have placed us on such strong footing will continue on in this budget. It's that simple process of continuous improvement that I think any other engineer would be familiar with—building upon what works. We have seen jobs and growth come to Toowoomba over the last 12 months and we will continue to see that.
There are 61,400 taxpayers in Groom who will benefit from the tax cuts of up to $2,745 this year. That is pumping more money back into the local economy, places like the Finch and places like Hannah's, a long-time local store. You can pop in and get a new hat or a new check shirt. Or, potentially, that's money going into local charities. Just last week I was at the LifeFlight ball, a fantastic organisation that raised $420,000 on the night. That's keeping choppers in the air. Toowoomba has the busiest base in Queensland and one of the busiest in Australia. That is being supported by the local community. That support is there because our community is thriving and growing. So that's what we see. These are the benefits that flow into the community when you're able to drive jobs and growth.
The instant asset write-off will be extended to 30 June 2023, allowing up to 17,000 Toowoomba regional businesses to write off the full value of any eligible asset. This means things like new machinery for factories and farms. I was out at a feedlot recently. We've got quite a few feedlots. In fact, while I know Rockhampton loves to call itself the beef capital, I think Toowoomba has that title. I know the member for Dawson agrees with me. Toowoomba is the beef hub of Australia and, one day, the world. I was talking to Mort & Co at their wonderful Grassdale feedlot. This is a place where a one per cent improvement can have a significant impact on their bottom line; a one per cent improvement can bring in more jobs. When we have these instant asset write-offs, when we bring in new equipment that introduces with it new efficiencies, this is where we see this growth. I know that they're very excited about the opportunity to continue to take advantage of that.
To date, 2½ thousand apprentices have already been hired locally under the wage subsidy schemes. This number will only grow, with an extra $1.5 billion this financial year for the Boosting Apprenticeship Commencements program. This is very important to our area, because this is going to really fill Toowoomba's skill bank. We're going to need that, because we have a wonderful project coming through our area called Inland Rail. In fact, I was out with Minister Coulton only a couple of weeks ago on the site where the first bit of work will be done in the Toowoomba region on the Inland Rail project. If we look across the full expanse of that project, the Toowoomba region will undoubtedly benefit most amongst anywhere along that line. We've got a significant amount of expenditure going into the Toowoomba region, as the line comes up close to the Toowoomba Wellcamp Airport, continues in a tunnel underneath north Toowoomba and then heads down the range. That work will be done in Toowoomba. We can see what happened in Parkes, where 90 per cent of the expenditure went to local businesses, and we can expect something similar. The apprenticeships that people are entering into under these incentive programs are so important because they're going to build up our skill bank and ensure that we can deliver this project with local people.
I stood on the site of Interlink SQ, the only intermodal hub that has been approved at this point. This is where the western line comes in and will intersect with the inland rail. We have the Warrego Highway and the second range crossing all within cooee of the one spot, and you can see how much of this area will benefit by this infrastructure coming into play. Those apprentices have work in front of them. There is plenty of work there for them to do, and we need that. In fact, an article in today's Chronicle, titled 'Jobs galore: Toowoomba businesses begging for more workers', states: 'From boilermakers to funeral home workers, Toowoomba is screaming out for more people to come in.' We are growing at such a rate. We need more people to come to Toowoomba.
There's a further $2 billion worth of infrastructure going into Queensland, particularly road projects, and this includes $6 million this year going into resurfacing the Gore Highway between Toowoomba and Millmerran. We saw a similar amount of work done on the Warrego Highway upgrades recently. I think everyone in our region who's travelled that road and who's seen what that improved surface does not just for our commuting but for our transport industry, moving our agricultural products to market along those roads, knows how important that work is. Now we will have that same investment, those same improvements, on the Gore Highway, and that's fantastic news.
On top of this is an extra $250 million for the Building Better Regions Fund and an extension of the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program, which has been successfully used by Toowoomba Regional Council to upgrade local roads and community infrastructure. In our patch, over the last two years, that meant $11 million going straight towards council approved, council prioritised projects, improving our local road network. What it means in this budget is another $8 million coming in, another $8 million worth of support coming to the Toowoomba Regional Council to improve our local roads. That's so important in a regional area like Toowoomba, where our roads aren't just getting us to and from work or to and from the shops; this is how our product, the work of our hands, is moved to market. It is so important that these roads continue to be invested in.
Water infrastructure is another key area for our region, and it will get a boost under this budget. The On-farm Emergency Water Infrastructure Rebate Scheme will be extended for 12 months, with an extra $50 million poured in to ensure drought affected farmers can access the rebate that was originally oversubscribed by the state government. This is important because this is a way for the federal government to directly help farmers in my region address their water security issues. That means farmers being funded to put on their own land the dams they need to secure the water to continue to grow and to continue to supply to a market that is wanting their produce.
This government's once-in-a-generation spend on aged care will help in more ways than one. There's $17.7 billion in targeted spending that will improve the quality of life for more than 125,000 seniors living in Groom and increase employment opportunities in our already strong health sector. I went out to Beauaraba, a wonderful aged-care facility at Pittsworth. And I think it's not far from the truth to say this could be some of the best accommodation that there is in Pittsworth. It's a fantastic location. They don't want it to feel like a resort, but with the standard they provide; the excellent quality of service, provided by the local staff, it's so wonderful to experience, coming in and seeing the smiles on their faces and watching the good work that's happening there. This encourages me that this is the standard we can aspire to and it's wonderful to see it in Pittsworth. It's so wonderful to see the support that the local community give to this aged-care facility. I would very much like to thank all those local donors I met on the day, who are there to help and support and who know very clearly that this is the standard we must aspire to.
More than 1,300 local families will benefit from the increased childcare subsidy. As a father of three kids I certainly am aware that the cost of child care is something we must always keep an eye on. I think of putting my kids into the local Kath Dickson facility in Toowoomba and how great that was but also what the burden was for us to be able to put our kids into that and the cost. It's wonderful to see the government addressing that.
I want to turn to the point that I think I was most happy to see in my region from this budget and that's the funding that's going to go towards our local defence industry. Down the hill from us we have the Amberley air force base and it gets a lot more attention. But in the seat of Groom we have two barracks, with one at Oakey and one at Cabarlah. These both play such an important part in our local communities, supporting not only jobs but the supply chains of local communities who provide work, services and products into these places. The defence industry has been fantastic in supporting our local manufacturing industry and using local manufacturing to supply its needs.
We have $60 million in this budget going towards defence bases in my patch. We have $31 million that will be going to upgrade engineering services and buildings at the barracks at Oakleigh, with these works commencing mid-year for completion in 2023 and another $29 million for infrastructure upgrades at Cabarlah. This is part of a $270 billion spend in defence over the next 10 years. I'm so excited about this. This was something that I spoke about in my maiden speech: the opportunity for us to grow our defence capabilities in the Toowoomba region, for this to become something that we become very, very good at. This becomes a speciality of our region. I've had great conversations, at length, with different suppliers who want to move to Toowoomba, who want to take advantage of our growing defence industry. I think this is a wonderful investment in our local community. I think that continued investment will only reap better dividends.
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (11:03): This is the eighth time in eight long years that I've stood in this place to respond to a Liberal budget—Liberal budgets mired in unfairness and riven with cuts, Liberal budgets that look after their mates, Liberal budgets declaring victory in battles yet to be won. This eighth Liberal budget is unimaginative policy pulled together by a tired government after eight long years. But all eight Liberal budgets have one characteristic in common: they don't deliver for Melbourne's west. They don't deliver for dramatically growing communities, like our city of Wyndham, which is growing at a phenomenal pace. It has just crossed over the 300,000 population mark. Liberal budgets don't deliver because they don't get us. And after eight long years it's pretty obvious that they won't ever get us. They're not on our side and they never will be.
The pandemic has given us many challenges, and no-one was hit harder in 2020 than my community—the people I represent. I could rattle off the stats, but it is the individual stories that paint the picture: sitting on the phone hearing about the deaths of parents in aged care and listening to locals struggling to make ends meet as they were forced onto unemployment support for the first time. I heard from others who were denied support because of the visa they were on or because of the owner of the company they worked for—not on the list of those deserving of support. I spoke to childcare workers deemed to be of less value than other workers, as they were cut from early support. And I heard about the challenges facing students in the virtual classroom, while carrying the burden of family job losses on their shoulders in their most important years. The challenges were deep, and they're not done yet. The scars are still there, and some wounds are yet to heal. But these challenges do present an opportunity—an opportunity to reimagine, to challenge the status quo, to change our society for the better, and to turn the tide of eight long years of Liberal neglect of the west and their fairness-free zone.
This budget was unimaginative and it missed the mark. In contrast, Labor is on the side of working families. After COVID, Labor will deliver national reconstruction that's squarely focused on jobs—good, secure jobs. Under Labor, no-one will be held back and no-one will be left behind. This budget was full of missed opportunities to provide a better future, but it also forgot to address the real issues we must get right to bring that future closer. There's no extra money to fix the shambolic vaccine rollout or to build purpose-built quarantine facilities. If anything has been proven by the mutant strains of this virus, it's that hotels are not built for quarantine. Our capital cities have been crippled, our businesses shut and family travel plans thrown up in the air. There have been 17 leaks from hotel quarantine right across the nation, and how many commitments to permanent quarantine have there been from this government? Zero.
Right now, residents across Melbourne are changing plans and lining up for hours to be tested. They're masking up and they're scrambling to source a vaccine program, and they're doing this again because the Prime Minister has failed them. Let's be straight: if Australians had been vaccinated to the levels we were promised, this would not be happening. If the Prime Minister had built for-purpose quarantine facilities, this would not be happening. But there have been no plans from this 'prime shirker'. Victoria took the initiative, offering to run a fit-for-purpose quarantine facility close to the airport, but Treasurer Frydenberg—who is from Victoria, but not for Victoria—failed to fund it in this budget. Quarantine is a federal responsibility. Section 51 of the Constitution says it in black and white. The Prime Minister, who didn't hold a hose as the country burned, has failed us again. It's all smirk and no work. I represent the community which had the highest numbers of cases across the country in 2020. Now, as we wait for more testing to be done, I know my community is waiting with bated breath, and with fear and anxiety, that it could all happen again. And that will happen with every outbreak until Australians are fully vaccinated. It isn't just the slow, incompetent rollout; it's the mixed messages being pushed by ministers and conspiracy theorists on the government backbench. That's what's hindering the vaccination program as much as the failed ordering and the failed delivery. The government itself is seeding a hesitancy to get vaccinated, and vaccines are our ticket out of this pandemic and into our future. The sooner we're vaccinated the sooner the risk of lockdowns and restrictions will go away, but this budget fails to realise and address that fact.
I must admit that there was something unique about this budget. It had a grand total of one commitment specifically for the seat of Lalor. Finally, the Liberals have been able to find us on a map, and I'm proud that it is a project I've campaigned for. In fact, I've raised it 15 times in this House since 2015. The federal government's commitment of $11 million for modernisation of the Werribee Irrigation District is welcome—if it's not just an announcement. It would have been welcomed in 2015, when I first raised it in this place. It would have been welcomed when the Victorian government made a commitment to their share in 2018. But, finally, we're here. I want to congratulate the farmers of Werribee South for their advocacy, their campaigning and their determination. It was an honour to break the news to them that their efforts had finally been successful.
But, unfortunately, that's about as far as the west got: minuscule funding for more investigation into the Outer Metropolitan Ring Road and funding on the never-never to create a wedge between Melbourne's west and Melbourne's north over a freight hub that Victoria will get on with. When we compare this to Labor budgets—federal under Gillard and state under Andrews—it's clear that only Labor invests in the west of Melbourne. It's because Labor gets our community.
This eighth Liberal budget not only failed to deliver on local projects in Lalor but failed to deliver for the locals in Lalor. Cost of living continues to go up as wages go backwards. Australians are struggling to make ends meet, and there are at least 14,000 of them doing that in Lalor right now. Choice has described the two major postcodes in our community as hotspots for mortgage stress, and the only support this Prime Minister can offer is a tax cut that will be taken away and a pay cut baked into the budget. Australians are suffering under a Prime Minister who fails to understand the pressures they face. They're struggling to pay rent and they're sleeping on their mates' couches. They can't get secure full-time work, and they're struggling to get the training to find that work.
For Australians out of work, there was no support to find them work. We must address the situation they now face. Australians who are on support payments need more than the $3.50 increase they were offered by this government earlier this year. It's not enough. It's not enough for the almost 11,000 locals in my community who are on JobSeeker, a number which is double the pre-pandemic number. This is a number to remember when members opposite start chest-beating while declaring the war has been won.
There's no plan in this budget for local jobs. Last Wednesday, once again, I was on the phone to the member for Gellibrand to discuss more jobs leaving the western suburbs of Melbourne. I enjoy the company of the member for Gellibrand, but I am getting sick of having these conversations. Toyota was dared to leave by a Liberal Treasurer, the Williamstown shipyards were left with no work in order to enable pork-barrelling in marginal seats in other states, the oil refinery was left with a support package that was too little too late, and Qenos was a victim of the refinery closure. Too many small businesses in the supply chain have been left as dominoes to fall. Four thousand four hundred manufacturing jobs are gone in the west of Melbourne, and highly skilled locals are out of work. These job losses could have been avoided. They would have been avoided if the Liberals were on our side. We need jobs in the west. We need jobs for the 11,000 locals on JobSeeker. We need jobs for those stuck in a jobactive system which ticks boxes to satisfy a heartless government but does nothing to get those out of work into jobs. We need jobs that will last.
I love my community. It's my home. I was one of eight children raised by my widowed mother in Werribee, an inspiration for when I was a single mother making ends meet for my boys. I went to our local schools as a student and taught in those schools as a teacher and a principal. I'm the daughter of a Werribee South farmer, and I stood alongside those farmers to fight a toxic dump. I'll fight for my community at home and in this House. This is my pledge to the people of our community: you have always come first and you will always come first. Our community is special and growing. Whether you're a fifth-generation local like me or one of our newest local citizens, you need someone on your side—someone on your side to tackle cost of living and flat wages, someone on your side when you're stuck in traffic on the freeway or trying to get kids into affordable child care, and someone on your side when your child is struggling in the classroom or, as an adult, is stuck in insecure work. I'll always be on your side, and only an Albanese Labor government will be on your side.
I want you to imagine for a moment, Deputy Speaker, a future under a federal Labor government. Imagine a future where renewables are seen as the powerhouse they could be for employment in this country. Imagine a future where the care economy is valued and our frontline workers who saw us through a pandemic are treated fairly, have a single job and are directly employed by their employer, not moving from job to job and risking taking germs of any nature from one aged-care facility to another. Imagine a future where people who work in child care are valued and we know they're valued because they're paid well. Imagine a future in this country where everybody knows that if they get up early go to work they'll get a decent week's pay; that a job will mean that they can pay the rent, take out a mortgage and have security; that next week they'll get up and go to the job again because they're not waiting for a text message from a labour hire company at 11 o'clock at night. They'll know every day they're going to work and they're not living the stress and the chaos of insecure work.
Imagine if we had a government right now in this place who saw this as a once-in-a-century opportunity to reimagine the Australian economy, to improve the Australian society, to create a fairer country for every Australian. Imagine a government that didn't use a pandemic as a reason to leave 30,000 Australians stranded overseas. Imagine a government that valued Australian citizenship and what it means. Imagine a government prepared to send repatriation flights not only when it becomes a problem in the media as a political fix. Imagine a government that's committed to supporting and assisting Australians overseas wherever and whenever they need it.
In my community, we know how important these things are. We know that the last time we had a Labor government, under Prime Minister Julia Gillard, the stronger regions grants that were given included everyone across the country. We know because we had things funded by a federal government eight years ago. We had the Regional Rail Link established in our community, which is now an absolute linchpin in Victoria's public transport network. It was established by a Labor government, but since its establishment there has been not one commitment from this government—not one new station, not a new carpark, not a new or larger train. This government has ignored Melbourne's west for eight long years. It's a tired government, and the people in my community are tired of it.
Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore) (11:17): The theme of the budget reinforces our focus as a Liberal-National coalition government, which is to act swiftly first and foremost to safeguard the health and wellbeing of Australians in our communities by implementing a vaccination program as we set about rebuilding our national economy by restoring jobs, promoting confidence and eventually re-engaging with the rest of the world. I support Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022, which proposes appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the ordinary annual services of the government. Other annual appropriations that are not for the ordinary annual services of the government are proposed in Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2021-2022 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022.
Total Commonwealth payments to my home state of Western Australia are expected to total $13.2 billion in 2021-22. Combined with record iron ore prices in excess of $200 per tonne, the WA state government is in a strong financial position to deliver quality services and infrastructure to the community. However, health services in Western Australia are in crisis due to delays in completing hospital expansion projects in Perth's northern suburbs. To support our infrastructure needs, I am pleased to inform the Chamber, the Commonwealth Grants Commission recently announced that the state of Western Australia will receive a GST payment of approximately $5.3 billion in 2021-22. This figure is $629 million more than anticipated in last year's budget. The increased revenue reflects the strength of our economic recovery, enabling the WA state government to fund projects around Moore.
My home state of Western Australia will receive $1.6 billion for projects designed to ease congestion, connect communities and improve road safety. This investment will support the national economic recovery in the short term and boost productivity in the longer term. At a local level, the budget delivers for the residents of Perth's rapidly growing northern suburbs, with major federal infrastructure funding for roads, the northern suburbs railway and community buildings. WA state Labor members of parliament within my electorate have recently complained that there is no specific federal funding for local infrastructure projects. To the contrary, record levels of federal funding have been delivered to the state of Western Australia. I cite two examples of federal funding—namely, the $158 million for the Joondalup hospital expansion and $10.4 million for the Yanchep health clinic. Both were delivered in 2019, yet the facilities have not been delivered more than two years later. Meanwhile, our local hospital emergency department waiting times have increased beyond the four-hour benchmark.
Hospitals, Medicare, mental health and disability support services will always be guaranteed under a Morrison government. Health and hospital funding to WA is estimated to be $2.8 billion in 2021-22, including $42.7 million for the COVID-19 public health response. Health funding for WA is estimated to increase by $474.3 million from 2021-22 to 2024-25. Major commitments in the 2021-22 budget include $2.7 billion for national health reform funding, including $42.7 million for the cove 19 public health response, $9.7 million for public dental services for adults, $20.3 million for community health, hospitals and infrastructure projects. Since March 2020, over 3.4 million Telehealth services have been delivered to patients in WA as at 31 March 2021. The government is continuing the temporary Medicare benefit schedule for telehealth items for general practitioner, allied health and specialist services to 31 December 2021. In my electorate, construction work on a major $256 million upgrade of Joondalup hospital is about to commence. The government has committed to funding essential medications recommended by the medical experts, putting life-saving treatments within reach of everyone. Over the last year, more than 1.6 million low-cost subsidised prescriptions have been filled for residents in my electorate under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
The government will provide $260 million nationally across 2021-22 and 2022-23 to states to support the safety of women and their children from family, domestic and sexual violence. The Patricia Giles Centre operates in the northern suburbs of Perth, particularly within my electorate, providing a range of support services to assist victims of family and domestic violence in our community. The centre provides safe accommodation, housing support, counselling, a crisis response service, group programs, and Newstart kits for women and children escaping family violence and abuse. Australian police deal with domestic violence every two minutes. Violence against women is estimated to cost the Australian economy $22 billion a year. A total of $14.2 million was provided to WA over the past budgets to respond immediately to increases in family, domestic and sexual violence as a result of COVID-19.
With one in five residents aged over 60 in Moore, a record investment in aged care will assist approximately 18,877 senior citizens living in my electorate. This investment will deliver more home-care places and more funding for residential aged-care facilities while equipping regulators to monitor and enforce the standards of care. I am pleased to report that leading aged-care providers are investing in the development of new aged-care facilities currently in the planning phase and about to commence construction in suburbs including Joondalup, Currambine and Kinross. This will increase the supply of modern, purpose-built aged-care accommodation available locally, helping to shorten waiting lists.
The Joondalup Business Association is the premier advocacy organisation for small businesses within my electorate, led by president Neil Gerrard. In Joondalup, which is the business hub of Perth's northern suburbs, the continuing tax incentive of the Morrison government will allow around 15,000 businesses in my electorate to write off the full value of any eligible assets they purchase, including productive machinery, office equipment, tools and commercial vehicles. Additionally, 4,400 businesses in Moore will be able to use the extended loss carry-back measure to support their cash flow. This will help businesses invest more in the local economy and create local jobs in Joondalup. The federally funded Business Station has provided valuable support to newly established businesses. I acknowledge the exemplary work of Colin Jorgensen, Mark South, Trevor Gaynor and David Legg.
I am pleased that last week's federal budget included $1.2 billion for promoting Australia's digital future, providing the framework to ensure that we develop a world-class digital economy by 2030. Last week, I attended the opening of Sapien Cyber, based on the ground floor of the new science building at the Joondalup campus of Edith Cowan University. The facility was opened by the Governor of Western Australia, His Excellency, the Hon. Kim Beazley, a former member of this House. I also acknowledge the presence of the chairman, the Hon. Stephen Smith, a former defence minister and member of this House. I also acknowledge the exemplary contributions of: ECU's vice-chancellor, Steven Chapman, CBE; the chief executive officer, Glenn Murray; and the chief operating officer of Sapien Cyber, Rochelle Fleming. This is establishing a state-of-the-art facility which is a collaboration of academic and industry experienced practitioners, building upon Edith Cowan University's 20 years of world-leading research and cybersecurity in the form of a new commercial entity model. It will enable the local business community to effectively prepare for, defend against and respond to cyberincursions and protect against losses to business continuity, safeguarding reputational and financial loss.
I have a vision that the city of Joondalup will develop into a centre of excellence for innovation, technology, research and development. Our educational institutions, such as Edith Cowan University, will continue to collaborate with industry to promote the commercialisation of intellectual property. Our city has the potential to evolve into a digital hub, supporting software development, cybersecurity and advanced information technology. We have the highly skilled and educated workforce necessary to attract advanced industries into the heart of Joondalup. Attracting both government funding and private sector investment is essential to realising this vision. The information technology sector in Joondalup has been supported by the federal budget as part of our digital economy strategy. I look forward to supporting the work of Sapien Cyber in the digital sphere, safeguarding our IT infrastructure which the economy of the future will be built upon.
In an effort to return more of their hard-earned wages to their bank accounts to spend according to their choice in the economy, approximately 58,300 taxpayers in Moore will benefit from tax relief of up to $2,745 this year. This is the result of extending the low- and middle-income tax offset to bring forward stage 2 of the tax relief plan carried out by the Morrison government. The tax relief plan has already benefited 69,800 people in my electorate. Statewide, it is estimated that more than one million low-income and middle income earners in WA will receive tax relief of up to $1,080 for the 2021-22 financial year. That's up to $2,160 for dual-income families.
For young families, child care is now more affordable and accessible in this budget, directly benefiting 1,320 families in the Moore electorate. It will allow parents to return to the workforce, contributing their skills and boosting productivity.
Education and skills funding for WA is estimated to be $2.8 billion in 2021-22. This includes $2.5 billion for Quality Schools. Education and skills funding for WA is estimated to increase by $337.9 million between 2021-22 and 2024-25. We are fortunate to have a range of quality schools, both private and public, in our suburbs. Many of them are having their facilities upgraded, and they are delivering excellent outcomes for our younger generation. Funding for private and public schools in Moore continues to increase as part of the Quality Schools package, placing importance in the education system. Major commitments in 2021-22 include $2.5 billion for Quality Schools, including recurrent schools funding; $164 million for national skills and workforce development; and $32.5 million for early childhood education.
The budget increases opportunities for apprentices and trainees, with an extended and expanded JobTrainer Fund supporting 500,000 new places to upskill young people. In Moore, an estimated 780 apprentices attending vocational education and training colleges located in the Joondalup Learning Precinct will benefit from these new measures through expanded wage subsidies.
In concluding, I commend these appropriation bills to the House. The legislation enables the provision of improved services, facilities and amenities for the benefit of my local community. This budget will ensure that our nation comes back even stronger, securing Australia's recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (11:32): There were two tests that the government was expected to meet when it set out its plan for the future in its budget speech a fortnight ago. The first was a plan for vaccination, because we all know there will be no recovery, whether it be economic or health, unless we get the vaccination rollout sorted. It's so far off track at the moment it's not funny. Before coming in here I tried to get myself enlisted for a vaccination—and this is not about me; it's just an example. I fit within the category, I'm eligible, but 25 June was the earliest I could get a vaccination. I live in a large regional centre. I can only imagine the struggle people have in accessing a vaccination urgently if they're living in regional or remote Australia or in a vulnerable community.
If you want an example of why this matters, Mr Deputy Speaker, look at what's going on in Victoria today. There is a heightened degree of anxiety and concern because of the COVID-19 outbreak that has spread from a quarantine facility, out of South Australia, into the Melbourne community. We hope and pray that it's contained, but the fear and apprehension that it may not be contained is having significant flow-on health and economic impacts. People will be reluctant to make holiday plans. People will be reluctant to make business plans. People will be reluctant to make restaurant bookings. Businesses will be reluctant to bring people together for important conversations. Families will be reluctant to get people together for family gatherings.
This underscores the importance of us getting the vaccine strategy right and it puts a spotlight on the abject failure of the Morrison government to use the budget speech, a speech which sets out the priorities for the next 12 months and beyond, to say: 'This is our target. This is our strategy.' An opportunity for clear communication to the Australian people was there for the taking, but the bloke who doesn't hold a hose also wasn't going to provide the people of Australia with a clear plan for how we get out of this horrible mess that we're in. It's not too late to turn this around, and shortly I will make some suggestions about how that can be done.
The other big missed opportunity in the budget was a clear economic plan for the future. When you listen to the Prime Minister, you get a sense of a bloke who thinks the best part of the journey is the part of the journey you can see through the rear-view mirror. All the good stuff that's gone on is the stuff that's behind us, and the vision for the future simply isn't there. You can see it in his language about a snapback or about returning to how great things were before the pandemic. Look, this is a great country. I'm a proud citizen of this country and a proud representative of my district and there's so much to love about Australia. But we're kidding ourselves if we say everything was perfect before March 2020, because it certainly wasn't. There were high levels of insecure work and casualisation. Wages were frozen in place for over a decade. Business investment was falling off a cliff. Productivity had been flat in this country for over five years, and there was nothing coming from the government to turn it around. We thought the Prime Minister's address to the nation a fortnight ago was going to draw a line in the sand and say, 'This is the way forward,' but instead we heard crickets. There was nothing there. It was a vision to get to the next election but not a vision for the people of Australia. It was a vision for the Prime Minister's political fortunes but not a vision for the future of the Australian people.
Thankfully, two days later we saw an alternative vision set out by Anthony Albanese—a vision for Australia built on building more things in Australia and rebuilding our manufacturing industry. We've set out a plan to rebuild train manufacturing in this country. It's crazy that we are ordering a whole heap of new rolling stock in this country but we're importing it from overseas when we have the skills here in Australia. But we see a lack of imagination and of a plan for pulling it together, and Anthony Albanese has said that he's going to deliver that plan and that imagination.
It's obviously not just about trains. It's about saying, 'Why can't be we build electric vehicles in this country?' It was Joe Hockey who chased the car industry offshore. We want to bring it back onshore. We want to ensure that this is a country that can build cars again. We have the know-how. We have the raw materials. Every single component that goes into the batteries that drive the cars of the future is dug out of the ground in Australia, but we export it out of the country in an unimproved form. We think we are so much better than that as a country. Let's have some vision. Let's have a plan. Let's have some energy. Let's build batteries and the cars that go around those batteries, because we are a smart nation if we are led by smart people with the vision to do that.
At the moment, if you pick up a newspaper in any town in the country on a Friday or a Sunday, you'll see stories about house prices going through the roof. On every Saturday afternoon through the country, there are young couples returning from housing auctions with their hearts broken and their dream of getting a home absolutely smashed, because they are seeing the prices demanded at those auctions rise to 10, 20, 30 or sometimes 100 per cent above the advertised indicative price. The smallest of hovels are selling for the most extraordinary amounts of money in our capital cities, and it's not confined to the capital cities. I was talking to a young man from my electorate a couple of days ago. The house that he made a bid on was sold for over $80,000 above the reserve price. He didn't have a hope.
So that's why Labor has a plan for housing and ensuring we get a roof over every head. We want to break the cycle of homelessness and the disadvantage that that creates, with 30,000 new houses, 10,000 of them reserved for frontline workers and families fleeing domestic violence. That's a vision for housing and a vision for the country, and there'll be more to come, because every single policy that this government has put out there has made the problem worse, not better. If some of the rebels and clowns on the government's back benches get their way, housing prices will double, pushing the price of housing even further beyond the reach of people attempting to get into the housing market.
Labor outlined a vision for apprentices. It is a tragedy that we have fewer apprentices enrolled in a course of training today than we did in 2013. If you're wondering why you can't get a plumber or an electrician or a carpenter out to do a home renovation or to fix the faulty taps or to sort out the lights, it's because we're not training them. If we aren't training them, we won't have enough electricians. We don't have enough tradespeople in this country. It means the prices are going through the roof for the simplest of projects, and it means we are denying young Australians who want to get a start the opportunity to do that. That's why we are focusing on our electrical and new energy apprenticeships. But it won't stop there. There'll be more because we believe in giving a young kid a start. Immigration has always been a part of the national vision in this country. One in four people in my electorate came from another country—a good cross-section of the Australian community—but, if we are saying that the solution to our skills crisis is to import skilled tradespeople from other countries instead of training them here ourselves, we are falling so far short of what we can do as a country and we are denying young Australians their opportunity to get a start in a great career or a great business and make a great future for themselves. We can be so much better, and we have a plan to make that happen.
I want to take the opportunity to say a few things about some local issues that we were hoping would attract funding within the budget and didn't. We were told that this budget was going to be a women's budget, and I was excited about that, frankly. I didn't care whether it was a Labor budget or a Liberal budget—a women's budget that was going to fix some of the endemic issues facing women struggling in my community. Fantastic! I was eager to hear of funding being granted to a project that has obtained bipartisan support at the state level and at the federal level. I'm talking, of course, about the Illawarra Women's Health Centre and a proposal for a trauma recovery centre for women and girls and families fleeing domestic violence in the Illawarra. It's an Illawarra led initiative of national significance because it will provide a pilot and it will test a model that can be rolled out throughout the country. It simply must be funded. The numbers speak for themselves. The New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research showed that, in the five years to December 2020, there was a 15 per cent increase in reported sexual assaults and a 7.7 per cent increase in other sexual offences in the Wollongong region. This is the reported number; of course, we know that so much of this, tragically, goes unreported. We want to stop this; we want to nip this in the bud. We want to ensure that we are not adding to those statistics, but it would be negligent of us and reckless of us if we thought for a moment that the problem was going to go away overnight. Hospitalisations due to domestic violence have risen by 30 per cent in the last decade. Right now a woman is hospitalised ever two hours in Australia.
The problem is that the services just aren't there, and the Commonwealth has a role to play in this. Did you know that, in the budget that was supposed to be a women's budget, the government has set up a system where it's a lot easier to get the funds for a building. So you can fund a building through a Commonwealth government program, but you can't open that building because there are no funds available for the staff. What is the point of a building if nobody works in it? So we are calling upon the Morrison government to listen to their own side, listen to our side, and listen to the experts. Yes, it's great that we are funding buildings, but we need the staff to operate those buildings, otherwise the lights will be left off. So we want to see the Commonwealth take up the offer. I have written to the Prime Minister, and I'm thankful that he responded to our correspondence. I have written to the Prime Minister and I said: 'I want to bring a delegation from the proponents from the Illawarra to speak to you so you can hear firsthand about their proposal, the problems that they're facing, the fact that buildings without staff is as good as doing nothing.' It's proposition for the Prime Minister to put his stamp on a proposal, which would be great for the Illawarra, but also great for the nation, setting a pilot and an example of how we deal with this terrible scourge of domestic violence by providing women, girls and their families with a pathway out of a desperate situation. Surely as a nation we're good enough to deal with this.
I have spoken at great length about the vaccine rollout. It's a complete and utter debacle. I want to say a few words about quarantine. I want to make this point: hotels aren't hospitals. Hotels aren't quarantine stations. It strikes me as quite strange that if you wanted to bring a cow or a horse or a dog or a cat into this country it would have to go into a Commonwealth controlled and operated quarantine centre. But if you're a person trying to enter or re-enter this country at the moment we put you up in a hotel and we think that's secure enough and that's good enough. Why do we keep treating livestock differently and in many respects better? The Commonwealth is taking greater responsibility for livestock than it is for people. It's extraordinary. The Prime Minister runs around and says, 'Not my responsibility. Get that hose away from me. Quarantine is not my responsibility.' Right now we are treating livestock with more care and responsibility. We think the biological threat presented by livestock is more important than the biological concerns, the health concerns and the public health concerns of people. It's extraordinary.
There is not one cent in this budget to turn this around and that is a diabolical situation, because it is naive of us to think that this is a problem that is going to go away in a few months time. It simply is not. All the health advice that is coming through is saying: 'We've got to get the vaccine rollout done. We got to get high proportions of the population sorted. We're going to have to get on top this quarantine thing and this vaccine rollout because this is probably not be the last round'. Whether it's a variant of COVID-19 or whether it's another mass health event, we have got to develop our competency of this. We have of the infrastructure and the capacity. This is not a one-off event. It's extraordinary that within this budget you can spend $100 billion of new spending—a trillion dollars worth of debt—but not one cent to fix a problem that is a Commonwealth responsibility. It's extraordinary that we have a situation where we're treating livestock better than we are people. It's untenable.
Mr CONAGHAN (Cowper) (11:47): This budget is a recovery budget. If we wind the clock back two years we find ourselves in a very, very different place. The coalition government's economic leadership was steering us towards a run of budget surpluses. Just two years ago nobody was speaking about a pandemic, just two years ago, nobody was speaking about a recession and just two years ago nobody was speaking about a world in catastrophic turmoil. Twelve months ago we weren't talking about it, we were actually living through it. In the midst of all of this the coalition government chose to change tact and chart a new course for survival, chose to engage the auxiliary engines and chose to sail through the storm. Most of all, the Morrison-McCormack government chose to back the people of Australia. We chose to back our skills, chose to back our resilience and chose to back our businesses. The measures so boldly taken by the coalition government have helped us weather the eye of this storm, but we are not there yet. We must ensure a strong recovery. We must continue to back our people and our businesses and let Australians play their part in this important recovery process.
The tax incentives in this budget will support the recovery of our economy by putting more money back into the hands of individuals and businesses, helping to drive businesses and create jobs. This government is a government that believes in tax cuts, not tax increases. Our local workforce has been adaptable, flexible, understanding and committed during this pandemic, and it is important to recognise the efforts and sacrifices made by so many. Bringing forward stage 2 of the government's tax relief plan and the extension of the low- and middle-income tax offset will benefit around 56,000 taxpayers in my electorate by up to $2,745 this year. This means more money for the household budgets for families and individuals across the region, so they can keep more of what they earn to spend on what is important to them. This is why campaigns such as the Go Local First campaign are so important to promote local spending so that these benefits stay in the region and get passed on to our local businesses who are the engine room of the economy and who employ 80 per cent of our workforce.
This budget is also a plan to help our businesses recover. In my discussions with business owners and chambers, they are overwhelmingly grateful for the COVID support measures of JobKeeper and a cash flow boost which has helped them keep afloat and in a position to emerge and secure a path for recovery. The temporary full expensing measure will allow over 19,000 Cowper businesses to invest in eligible assets to the end of 2022-23. These write-offs have stimulated the local economy. I speak to people excited to tell me about their new equipment, new machinery and new business vehicles. They tell me this incentive has allowed them to expand their businesses, invest in technology and employ more people. Over 5½ thousand businesses access the temporary loss carry-back measure to support cash flow and confidence. This measure provides Australian business with certainty after a year of uncertainty.
I spoke recently in this place in support of the digital games development industry and the incredible range of job opportunities it provides across the nation, including in the Mid North Coast. I'm pleased that this budget recognises the potential of this industry to capture a further share of the global games development market through the introduction of the first national digital games tax offset as part of this government's $1.2 billion Digital Economy Strategy. This has been described by the industry as a landmark step that will assist offset costs of game development and support growth in the sector. I'd like to thank Interactive Games and Entertainment Association CEO Ron Curry for writing to me and for his advocacy for the industry. This budget supports passionate entrepreneurs like Ron. He believes:
This new federal investment will underpin a new wave of Australian video game development, leading to even more amazing Australian-made games to take to the almost $250 billion global video games market—which is arguably the largest entertainment market in the world—and bring new Australian voices and stories to a truly global audience.
This is a plan for the future.
The Mid North Coast of New South Wales is known as a great place to retire, and the demographic in my electorate is skewed towards older Australians. In fact, almost 30 per cent of my electorate is over the age of 65. In responding to the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, the government is delivering a record additional funding of $17.7 billion to deliver a comprehensive aged-care reform package ensuring that we have high quality and sustainable aged care systems into the future. In fact, spending on aged care in 2021-22 is expected to be $25.9 billion, almost double the $13.3 billion spent in 2012-13. This will support older Australians so that they can stay in their homes longer and receive the care they need by providing an additional 80,000 home-care packages, bringing the total to 275,000, and, importantly, also delivering support for informal and family carers. This will directly benefit the 6,800 seniors receiving or awaiting home-care packages in my electorate of Cowper. This will ensure those choosing to remain in their homes receive the same level of respect, care and dignity as those choosing to enter an aged-care facility.
The reforms will also ensure the aged-care sector's sustainability by growing and upskilling the aged-care workforce to provide the level of one-on-one care required to ensure good quality of life. There are significant aged-care skill shortages on the Mid North Coast, and these reforms will ensure that additional places are provided through JobTrainer, adding more than 2,500 aged-care and residential care workers in my electorate.
I've received a lot of positive feedback on the government's reforms to aged care, including from the CEO of the Older Persons Advocacy Network, Craig Gear, whom I will quote:
This is a win for reducing elder abuse, improving the aged care experience and keeping older Australians connected to their communities …
This government wants to ensure that aged-care services are accessible and equitable for all Australians, regardless of their background or where they live. That is why $630.2 million is being allocated to help Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and special needs groups, as well as people living in regional, rural and remote communities, access aged-care services. The reform measures contained in the budget mean we are well down the pathway to realising a transformed aged-care system that is well resourced and provides high-quality, safe and compassionate care for the growing number of older Australians.
This budget allocates an additional $1.7 billion in child care, building on the $10.3 billion already provided annually. This is important in Cowper, where we have 87 registered childcare providers making a wonderful contribution to the lives of children and families on the North Coast. These vital services allow parents and caregivers greater choices. The additional funding in budget measures provides incentive and confidence for parents to either return to work or to work additional hours without additional burden. Of significance is the removal of the childcare subsidy annual cap of $10,560. This will make a positive difference to many of the 6,290 families utilising child care and family care in Cowper. Commencing in July 2022, the childcare subsidy for second and subsequent children in care will be increased by 30 percentage points, up to a maximum of 95 per cent.
The Morrison-McCormack government's total investment in early childhood education and care improves the affordability of child care for families with multiple children aged five and under. These measures will benefit around 1,370 families in the Cowper electorate. It gives families greater choice and flexibility to manage work and care. In addition to this, I make note of the $2 billion funding agreement to guarantee preschools for Aussie kids. The Morrison-McCormack government is allocating $2 billion over four years to guarantee $1,340 for every Australian child to attend preschool in the year before school. Imagine the head start that that will provide for kids entering kindergarten. Even better, imagine the fair start it will provide for all Australian kids. This will be a game changer for many kids in many families. The education system in Australia will reap the benefits of this life-changing education initiative. It is the first time in history that Commonwealth funding for preschools will be ongoing. This means that federal government funding for all stages of education in Australia is now guaranteed.
In this budget, tax relief for brewers and distillers will see the excise refund scheme cap increased from $100,000 to $350,000. This means all eligible brewers and distillers will receive full remission—up from 50 per cent—of any excise they pay on the alcohol they produce, up to a cap of $350,000 each financial year. This aligns the brewers and distillers with the wine producers rebate, placing all alcohol manufacturers and wine producers on equal footing. Around 600 brewers and 400 distillers will benefit from the $225 million in tax relief under this plan, and the measures will ensure the sustainability of the independent brewers and distillers in my electorate. It will support jobs and further grow Australia's alcohol manufacturing sector.
Local brewers in my electorate who will directly benefit include Sam and Amanda from the crew at Bucket Brewery in South Kempsey, Bellingen Brewing Co. in Bellingen, Black Duck Brewery in Port Macquarie, Moorebeer Brewing Co., Wicked Elf Beer in Port Macquarie, Maria River Distillery and King Tide Brewing in Coffs Harbour. Our incredible local brewing and distilling talent create award-winning products, investing in our communities through tours and tastings, sourcing local ingredients where they can and employing local people. This is value-adding at its best.
Importantly, this budget is the first step in delivering on our towards zero target to end violence against women and children. It represents the Commonwealth's down payment on the next national plan, which will commence in mid-2022, with further investment to follow after consultations, including the National Women's Safety Summit, to be held in July this year. Our investment includes a range of measures that will go to improving frontline responses, providing financial assistance and support, leading prevention, targeting services to women from diverse backgrounds, building on existing support in the family law system, providing better data for policy development, addressing women's safety at work and improving online safety. One of the highlights is that the government is investing up to $261.4 million under a new national partnership agreement on family, domestic and sexual violence, to be negotiated with the states and territories. This funding will bolster frontline family, domestic and sexual violence specialist services to ensure women and children can access timely support.
In conclusion, as a nation, we've fought through a year of uncertainty. Now we have a budget to provide certainty. This budget is the next stage of the government's economic plan to secure Australia's recovery. The tax incentives in this budget will support the recovery of our economy by putting more money back into the hands of individuals and businesses. The budget creates jobs, guarantees essential services and builds a more resilient and secure Australia. It does this with personal income tax cuts, business tax incentives, new apprenticeships and training places, more infrastructure, and record funding for schools, hospitals, aged care, mental health and the NDIS. This budget brings security and confidence in Australia's recovery, and I commend these appropriation bills to the House.
Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat) (12:03): This month's budget was an opportunity. It was an opportunity to chart Australia's path out of COVID; to deliver a recovery focused on good, secure jobs and fair pay and conditions; to build the long-term productive infrastructure Australians need to boost our productivity; and to improve public transport and get workers home more quickly, safely and cheaply. It was an opportunity to support our regions—all of them, not just those that vote for the National Party—and to deliver accessible, affordable child care; affordable housing; decent aged care of a quality that we would be happy to have our own parents in; and more support for the transition to clean energy that is happening in this country and across the world. This month's budget was an opportunity to build our nation back better, not just to fix the problems created by an eight-years-long government that has been patching up the problems that it created.
I heard the member who spoke previously say, 'Isn't it fabulous that we've now guaranteed child care for 4-year-olds'? Who were the people who didn't guarantee it, who were putting it on life support year on year? It was the Morrison government. I hear them talk about what they've done for child care. Because of the reforms they have put in place, we have seen child care become unaffordable and unviable. Who did that? It was the Morrison government. This is what this budget is. It is them fixing up problems they have created because of their own values system, because they have cut programs.
Who was it that, in fact, cut the instant asset write-off? It was these guys. The Morrison government did it. Now they're saying: 'Let's forget about all the last eight years and all the terrible things we did, all the terrible cuts and the loss of apprentices and trainees. Let's pretend none of that happened and let's fix all that and then we want you to congratulate us for fixing all the problems we created.' That's what this budget does. It says, 'Here are the problems we're fixing,' but it actually doesn't say: what are the things that we want to see this country develop and do into the future? How do we make sure that we have secure jobs in this country? How do we make sure that we actually build this nation better for those who are coming after us? That is what this budget doesn't do, and it is a huge missed opportunity.
Again, it is about the nature of this government. It's focused on marketing and spin. After eight long years, it's no longer interested in anything other than being in power. That is what the purpose of this government is. When you look back on this eight long years, you go: 'What was the point of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government? What was the point of this government?' It was to keep themselves in power. It was not to improve the nation, not to improve productivity or to actually make Australians' lives better. It was just simply to stay in power.
That's despite spending almost $100 billion—it's unimaginable—and wracking up $1 trillion of debt. Remember it called us the party of debt and deficit, with the debt trucks going around? It has no economic credibility now. Despite doing that, the budget actually reveals that real wages will go backwards. Despite spending $100 billion and racking up, again, a record $1 trillion of debt, it doesn't leave any legacy. Despite the big promises, it actually cut infrastructure spending by $3.3 billion over the next four years from what it was promising it would be spending.
The day before the budget, the Prime Minister and his ministers told every Australian who would listen that the budget would include a new $10 billion for infrastructure projects around Australia. It made for quite a few headlines, but it simply was not true. The government wasn't investing an extra $10 billion in infrastructure. In reality it was delivering a $3.3 billion cut to infrastructure spending over the next four years. Ever since the budget was published, the government has been trying to say: 'It's not a cut. This is how they always spin these things.' But it's there on page 84 of Budget Paper No. 1. It states:
… payments relating to the Infrastructure Investment Program, which are expected to decrease by … ($3.3 billion over the four years to 2023-24) …
I don't know what a decrease is other than a cut. It's a cut. No number of weasel words can hide the fact that it is a cold, hard cut. Nor can the government hide that, of the new projects and new funding announced in the days before the budget, well over half of the funding isn't included in the budget at all. It's beyond the forward estimates, on the never-never, on that sort of fiscal cliff that they leave to incoming governments, saying, 'You figure out how you're going to fund any of that into the future.' The money isn't actually there.
The government's infrastructure announcements were a fraud, once again, but the government didn't care about that. It wasn't worried about delivering infrastructure. It was worried about the announcements. It put all of the effort into the announcements, into the media, but not into the delivery. That's why it rolled out overhyped and overpumped announcements for each state and territory. I want to take you through those.
In the Northern Territory, 99 per cent of the money they promised on that day is not actually in the budget. How much of the new money do you think the Territory will get over the next four years? It's $4 million. It doesn't go very far when you're talking about infrastructure. Instead of getting highway upgrades now, they're been pushed off to the never-never. For Victoria, 87 per cent of the promised money isn't in the budget. The $2 billion so-called commitment to a new intermodal freight hub in Melbourne's north or west is off budget. It has no settled location. It isn't expected to even begin until 2027. It will be dependent on matching Victorian government funding. The department was unable to tell us whether it is even actual money or whether it's going to be an equity funded commitment. We just don't know. At the moment, it's not worth the paper it's written on.
In New South Wales well over half of the newly announced funding isn't in the budget. The biggest-ticket item for New South Wales, $2 billion for the Great Western Highway upgrade, is again not in the forward estimates and isn't expected to be completed until 2028 at the earliest. In estimates this week, nobody had a clue when the money would even start to flow. In New South Wales not a single cent of new money has been committed to public transport projects, despite public transport being a major priority for the state Liberal government. When this was pointed out to officials, you know what they said? They said: 'Oh, don't worry about that. Buses can go on those new roads. That's our public transport commitment.' It pretty much sums up the approach this government has to public transport.
In South Australia over a third of the money promised is not in the budget and the biggest promise, the north-south corridor project, is nothing more than a reheated announcement of a project that had already been announced back in 2019 and still won't start until 2023. Even the South Australian government has told us that. There were two announcements but no work on delivering a thing. What good is that for commuters today?
In Tasmania it's the same thing. The promise to upgrade the Midland Highway has been reheated more times than a dodgy takeaway to once again borrow the phrase of the member for Lyons. The half-billion-dollar Bridgewater bridge project continues to languish, and the government can't even reach agreement on which congestion-busting projects in Hobart it will fund.
Queensland missed out, with less new infrastructure funding per head than any other state or territory. What money does flow Queenslanders will be left waiting years for. It's the same story in Western Australia, where only $81.1 million of new spending will go out the door.
What all this adds up to is longer communities, less safe roads, more crowded and inaccessible public transport and fewer jobs for Australians who need them today. After eight long years, this government has no ideas left beyond making announcements they know they won't deliver on, writing cheques that simply cannot be cashed.
Infrastructure is important. It's an enabler. Infrastructure connects Australians and opens our economy. It connects people within cities, within states and across the nation. It's the road that gets our kids safely home from school. It's the train that gets us quickly and efficiently to work in the morning and home in time for dinner. It's the airports and flight routes that allow us to visit our loved ones in distant corners of this vast country. It's the highway which safely allows truck drivers to transport our goods across the nation. It's the freight routes that get our farmers' produce to customers here in Australia and around the world. It's the work site where apprentices learn their trade and it's the driver of growth where government investment is harnessed to grow Australian industries and to create new ones. It's about creating jobs in local communities. That's what we're missing out on under this government. There is no procurement policy, no link of these billions of dollars of infrastructure that they say they're spending to actually increase the number of apprentices and trainees in this country, and then they have the gall in this budget to cut?
Their billion-dollar broken promises each and every year have had a real impact. It's an impact felt in fewer jobs, less time at home and more costs for commuters. Its impact is felt in project delays and cancellations. We got a prime example of that just last week with five more commuter car parks across Melbourne cancelled, two in the electorate of Dunkley and one in Macnamara. If you want to see an example writ large of just how this government operates when it comes to infrastructure, you only have to look at this Urban Congestion Fund and the commuter car parks that are part of it. This was a fund announced in the 2018 budget, a few years ago now. In the 2019 election campaign the Liberal Party ran around the country. There were a few seats they were a bit nervous about, particularly in inner-city Liberal leafy suburbs. They sprayed out this Urban Congestion Fund money all over the place, 83 per cent of it in coalition and targeted seats. They sprayed it on projects that they've not talked to state governments about and not talked to local councils about, and now they're having to clean up the mess because they can't deliver on them. That's the problem. This week at estimates the government couldn't rule out that there would be more cancellations of those Urban Congestion Fund projects.
The Morrison government never had any intention to deliver some of these car parks it's cancelled. In the heat of the election campaign, as we saw, they went around making these promises, and yet you only have to look at where these announcements are to see how they treated taxpayers' funding when it came to this. Once the election was over, their interest in actually delivering seemed to wane. No wonder Australians don't trust this government and its promises, because they're not worth the press releases that they're written on.
We know that, just yesterday, survey results released by the Australian Automobile Association showed that the average Australian household spent $354 per week on transport over the first quarter of 2021. This represents a 14.3 per cent increase over the previous quarter, the largest jump on record. With the Morrison government cutting infrastructure spending by $3.3 billion in the next four years and cancelling projects across Melbourne, costs for Australian commuters are only going to rise even further.
Again, we've seen over the government's term in office that it likes to talk about its delivery of infrastructure but it loves even more to talk about the projects that Labor delivered, claiming them as its own. We've seen the Bolivia Hill upgrades in New England, the Princes Highway duplication and Bruce Highway projects—all projects that a Labor government actually delivered.
Briefly, in the time I have left, I want to talk a little bit about regional Australia and regional development. In particular, one of the major problems that we're having in our communities at the moment is around affordable housing. The government's approach to regional development, frankly, is incredibly disappointing. Instead of investing equally in the regions, they use the budget to top up the slush funds that are ready to be pulled out again ahead of the next election campaign. Ahead of the last election, coalition seats or target seats received 94 per cent of projects and 94 per cent of all money through the infrastructure component of the Building Better Regions Fund, and the government have topped this fund up with another round in the budget. A hundred and twelve of the 330 projects approved under that round of the program were approved by a secret ministerial panel against the recommendations of the department. Independent grant processes are designed to try and make sure that communities are supported across this country and that the projects have proper value for money. The government is in the process of assessing round 5, and we'll be scrutinising the allocation of those funds very closely. For my own community of Ballarat, it's incredibly disappointing to see the Morrison government treat people in my community with contempt. What it's done with its regional portfolio, frankly, has become quite obscene. The sort of money that you see poured into National Party and Liberal Party seats—the slush funding—has gone absolutely beyond a joke, and I'm very glad that the Audit Office is looking closely at the Building Better Regions Fund.
What the government should have done in this budget is also commit funding for social housing in our regions. We know that housing has become simply unaffordable for many people who live in our communities. Access to affordable rental accommodation and to low-cost affordable housing for home ownership is simply not there at the moment, and this government had no answer to that. The policies they have put in place are, in fact, actually inflationary and are making it harder for people in my community to obtain housing. Labor's going to change things, and Labor's very determined that there be better and more affordable housing in the regions.
Mr RICK WILSON (O'Connor) (12:18): I rise today to support Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022, which is effectively the appropriation for this year's budget. Last week, I was out and about in my electorate. I visited the towns of Manjimup, Collie, Esperance and Mount Barker, and I also briefed the Albany Chamber of Commerce and Industry about this year's budget. So I rise today not only to support the budget but to provide some feedback from those great, hardworking men and women of my electorate of O'Connor and their view of the budget.
We can't really talk about the 2021-22 budget without putting it in the context of where we've come from. It was only a little over 12 months ago that people across my electorate and, indeed, across Australia were closing their businesses down. They were being told by state and federal governments under emergency health laws that they had to close their businesses. Gymnasiums, coffee shops, restaurants and hotels were in dire straits, and no-one really knew where this pandemic was going to take us. Businesses were suffering from enormous uncertainty, and the government had to provide some support and provide it very quickly. Of course, the JobKeeper program was announced in early or mid-April last year, and the first money started to go to businesses at the end of April.
Just the other day I was at a luncheon where there were two ladies who own significant businesses in the town of Albany. One owns a series of car dealerships and employs 61 staff. She told me that the day before JobKeeper was announced she called in all her staff and said: 'I'm sorry but I'm going to have to put you off. I can't offer you any ongoing work in the middle of this pandemic.' The following day we announced JobKeeper. She was able to call her staff back in and say: 'Forget what I said yesterday. You're back on for at least three days a week.' As we all know, the economy started to improve through May and June. June was one of the strongest Junes they'd had in some considerable period of time. Beyond that, the business is now going as well as it has ever gone.
The other lady owned a caravan park. She had told her 41 staff a couple of days before we announced JobKeeper that they would be out of work. She was able to call them back in. As we all know, particularly in Western Australia, domestic tourism has never been stronger, and they've had a wonderful 12 months since then.
We've got to look at this year's budget and some of the spending initiatives in the context of where we've come from. Looking at the big picture, during the March and June quarters of last year the Australian economy contracted by three per cent. To put that into context, during the global financial crisis the Australian economy contracted by 0.1 per cent. That gives an indication of the magnitude of the economic crisis we were facing 12 months ago. What we're seeing today is nothing short of an economic miracle.
Obviously, people are interested in their own personal financial situation. As I went around last week talking to people in my electorate, the feedback I got was that, among the nearly 59,000 people across O'Connor who will receive it, the low- and middle-income tax offset of up to $1,080 for a single and up to $2,160 for a couple is very well received and very much appreciated. Those low- and middle-income families will be out spending that money, putting it back into the local economy and supporting the local businesses that employ them. So that was very well received and I got some terrific feedback on it.
As I've spoken to chambers of commerce around my electorate, the thing they're very appreciative of is the reduction in small business taxes. For the 19,000 small businesses across my electorate that turn over less than $50 million per annum, the tax rate has this year come down to 27c in the dollar, and it will fall to 25c in the dollar in the 2024-25 financial year. They very much appreciate that, and they're very keen to invest the extra income back into their businesses, grow their businesses and grow jobs across my local economy.
One of the big initiatives around investment has been the instant asset write-off. Not only has it been a boost to those businesses that are investing in new equipment, growing their businesses and growing the number of people they employ; it also has been terrific for the dealerships and businesses that sell equipment. Across my electorate, the biggest complaint of machinery dealers is they just can't get stock to sell to farmers. They're run off their feet with orders at the moment. It's the same with car yards. As I've driven down Albany Highway in Albany, where there's a strip of car yards, I've noticed there are no vehicles in the yards. They can't get stock. So they are having some of the best of times, but times would be even better if they could get stock.
There is the extension of the loss carry-back. Businesses that paid tax in 2018-19 and 2019-20 but are suffering losses this year will be able to access the loss carry-back measure. My heart goes out to the travel agents in my electorate, who are really doing it very tough. They are the types of businesses that will be able to access the loss carry-back measure and get a tax refund this year, which will put a bit of cash flow back into those businesses. Hopefully, for those travel agents and other businesses that have been impacted particularly by the lack of international tourism that's happening at the moment, that cash flow will keep them on their feet until things turn around. There are around 20,000 businesses in O'Connor who will access that particular facility.
As I spoke to people across my electorate, particularly those in businesses, the biggest issue they have is finding skilled workers. Albany, Kalgoorlie and Esperance are the three largest towns and cities across my electorate, and unemployment has a three in front of it in all of those towns. It's as low as 3.2 per cent in Albany. Of course, a big component of this year's budget is our commitment to the JobTrainer scheme, which has been doubled, so we're making available up to 450,000 new training places. I hope that, for many of those people across my electorate who are currently looking for work—and there are not that many of them—there's an opportunity to get new training and an opportunity for those businesses to put people on and put them into training places. Hopefully, we'll see some other people who are currently in work upskill and move on to better-paid positions. We'll also be providing a 50 per cent wage subsidy to support 170,000 new apprenticeships. There are already 3,235 apprentices in O'Connor. I love to see these young people set their life's path on a trade. We need skilled tradesmen in my area and in my regions to support the mining industry, the ag sector and the general community as a whole. Anything we can do to get more of these young people into jobs so that they can live and train in the towns they grew up in and so that they don't have to leave and go to university in the metropolitan areas is all to the good. I'm very pleased to see that we're making more of those apprenticeships and traineeships available for people across my electorate.
In terms of infrastructure, I spoke to many of the local governments across my electorate and they're very, very pleased with some of the programs that we've put in place. I'll run through some of those announcements. There is the Roads of Strategic Importance initiative, which is about moving product and produce from the inland areas where it's produced to the ports, and the Central Wheatbelt freight network has received $160 million. That involves a group of about 15 local governments across my electorate and also in the electorate of Durack—my very dear friend Melissa Price's electorate. That will allow the local government authorities to upgrade their road networks where they're used by freight that's actually travelling through their shires—not produced by their ratepayers but costing their ratepayers to maintain those road networks. The Roads of Strategic Importance initiative will assist them to do that. What is particularly popular amongst the local governments is the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program. Across my electorate, currently 38 local governments receive $38 million in total across those local government authorities. This is untied spending of about a million dollars per local government authority. I've got a couple of examples of some nice little projects that were conducted by some of the small shires with a very small rates base who wouldn't normally have the money to carry out those projects. The Shire of Cuballing has probably got a couple of hundred people living in it and even fewer people who actually pay rates. They were able to spend $73,800 on a main street upgrade, an upgrade to a rest area, and upgrades of playgrounds and toilet facilities for people who stop in the town and the local community to use. That's a little project that wouldn't normally have happened if they hadn't received some money from the government. Just up the road, the Shire of Brookton spent $180,000 to upgrade their local caravan park, which is about attracting, and providing a good amenity for, visitors and also to provide some temporary accommodation for seasonal workers. Those are the sorts of nice little projects that wouldn't normally be funded without the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program.
We've also announced $130.4 million for our regional connectivity program, and a very important component of that across my electorate is $80 million for round 6 of the mobile phone blackspot program. We all rely on mobile phone communication today. We all take it for granted that we'll be able to pick up the mobile phone wherever we are and make a call or download some data or do some business. If you live in the electorate of O'Connor there are some large areas that still don't have consistent mobile phone coverage so we'll be looking for some more support for new mobile phone towers across my electorate out of that particular program. The $250 million for round six of the Building Better Regions Fund is a very important fund for the larger projects across my local government area. An example of a project that has been completed previously: the Shire of Broomehill-Tambellup, through the Great Southern Housing Initiative, have built 56 houses for shire workers, community workers, in those small towns where the market has failed. There's no private investment in new housing in those particular places. It's nice to see that that money was invested in those housing assets for local government and other workers in those small towns.
Although it wasn't part of this year's budget necessarily, although the ongoing funding is, another example is the HomeBuilder program. In the city of Albany in the December quarter we saw a 300 per cent increase in the number of housing approvals. So there were 279 new houses approved in that quarter, which has absolutely put a rocket under the local building trade industry. They are so flat-out. They're able to be well paid. They're taking on new employees, new apprenticeships. The extension that we have given will keep them busy for at least the next two years. I'm very pleased that we have been part of that.
I want to quickly mention agriculture and the resource sector—two of the main industries across my electorate. Part of this economic miracle that we've seen over the last 12 months in this nation has been driven by both agriculture and mining. My electorate certainly played its part in that terrific season last year across the Southern Wheatbelt in my electorate. Record grain crops were produced. The biggest problem we've got at the moment is getting that produce to port. There's shortage of truck drivers and a shortage of train drivers. So we need to get more people into those positions and trained up very quickly.
In the resources sector, the gold mining sector, which is centred around Kalgoorlie, had its best year ever. There have been some big projects started and there's plenty of work in the pipeline. There's a huge contribution to the national economy out of my electorate and I'm very proud of them.
In conclusion, this year's budget is about building on the economic recovery that we've started. We're not quite there yet, and we've had a wonderful result, but this budget continues to support the families and businesses across O'Connor that have been part of this economic miracle.
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (12:33): What is the purpose of all of this: of government, of parliament, of all of the work that people come here and do? Why do we do it? If you believe the Liberal Party, their sorts of views of the world, they would like government to just provide for national defence, make sure that there are enforceable property rights and do not much else. Other than that it should be everyone for themselves. That's their world view. But our world view, as Labor, is we think government should be here to make people's lives better, to lift the living standards of the Australian people year after year, generation after generation—that's the purpose of all of this. All of this activity, all of this work should be so that the next generation has a better life than the previous one did.
In a budget you find out what's really important to a government. In this budget we found out that they're casting around. They don't know what's important. It's no surprise. They have been in government for eight long years. They're a tired government. They're a government without a real vision for the future of this country or an agenda of a future of their own administration. You can see that from the real lack of legislation before the parliament in the sitting week—one of several in the next few weeks.
So we know that the government is casting around. They're old. They're tired. They don't know what they're doing. At the same time, you've got a Labor opposition, which is seeking to become a Labor government, that strongly believes that we can build on our past—our history as reformers. Our history is as the party that has always brought this country into the future, modernised and built living standards. We can do that if we can form an Albanese Labor government. Anthony, as the leader of the Labor Party in this place, made a series of announcements in the budget reply about what we can do. The great thing about them is that, like the best tradition of Labor throughout our history, he has looked at the contemporary challenges. What are the challenges that we face right now, and what do we need to do to face them and make things better for Australians?
I've been reflecting on our reformist past, on our history of making things better, and I always come back to thinking about my own family. I was thinking about my grandfather. My grandfather's dad worked on the railways. It was not a particularly good, long or healthy life. He'd been a World War I veteran. He'd worked on the railways. He'd died young. My grandfather, his son, grew up in a really poor family; they'd lived in a tent at one stage. He was born in 1932, so, as a child, he grew up in very difficult economic times. He grew up and his first real job out of school was as a fireman on a steam train from Mt Isa to Townsville. That was his job. He worked in this job, and it was hard work, exhausting work, hot work. My other grandfather, my father's father, had a very similar background. His dad had been a shearer in Barcaldine. They'd moved up to Far North Queensland, to a rural area on the tablelands, and my grandfather became a greengrocer.
These men had difficult lives, tough lives—lives that were lived through tough times. My maternal grandfather ended up buying his own business. He saved up through that hard work and he then started his own very successful business. You've seen the capacity for social mobility that some people have in those situations, but what does it take to make sure that everyone gets the opportunity for social mobility? What's the difference between their generation and my generation? Their kids, my mum and dad, came up through these families that were not well off. They finished school at year 10. Like virtually everyone else they ever met, they didn't go beyond year 10. I think that, as a kid, when I was growing up, the only people I knew who were adults who'd even been past year 10 were my teachers and my GP. It wasn't common to go past year 10.
They finished school in the 1970s, and what happened in the 1970s? Gough Whitlam's government came in and brought in sweeping changes that created the circumstances for social mobility so that kids from working-class backgrounds could get into universities, expand their opportunities to get trades and expand their opportunities in life. Then, in the next generation, my generation, we got to go to year 12 and we got to go to university. We wouldn't have done so if it weren't for Labor governments. We wouldn't have had those opportunities if it weren't for the Whitlam government and, then, the Hawke-Keating government.
I said earlier that the great tradition of Labor governments is to look at the circumstances and think about what needs to be done to meet contemporary challenges. You had Whitlam saying that we needed to open up education. For Hawke and Keating, the great economic challenge at the time was the fact that inflation was ridiculous. We had this terrible inflation crisis in this country. We had to bring Australia's economy into the modern age, and they modernised. That's what they did. They faced these challenges, and they did it in a Labor way. At the time, it was really fashionable around the world—you had Margaret Thatcher; you had Ronald Reagan—to go to very, very extreme liberal positions. As I said, there was this idea that you just let everyone fend for themselves. That's not what happened here, because we had Hawke and we had Keating. We had great Labor heroes who said that not only did we need to modernise our economy; at the same time we also needed to continue the Labor project of increasing living standards—building those living standards and making lives better.
So, at the same time that they were tackling those economic challenges, they understood the importance of the social wage and of the conditions that we had and that we needed as Australians. Think about Medicare. Think about universal superannuation. Think about the accord. All of this work was done to say not only are we going to face the contemporary economic challenges but we're going to make lives better for every single Australian. That's what they did, and that's what reforming Labor governments do: they manage the economy, and they manage the economy for the benefit of every person and every household, because we believe in better living standards and in leaving a better place for future generations than we found.
I have to say that this government is a such a strong reminder of why we need great Labor governments. We have a situation now where this tired eight-year-old Liberal government has just been unable to come face to face with the key challenges. Inflation was the key economic challenge in the 1980s. What's the key economic challenge right now? It's wages and slow growth. We've been having year after year after year of pathetic wage growth and sluggish economic growth more broadly. That's what we are facing as a country. We're in a situation where we've had eight years of a national government that has been unwilling to even admit that it should be doing something about wages, because it thinks it's up to everyone to fend for themselves. In fact, the former finance minister even said that low wages growth was a deliberate design feature of their economic approach. They're not fixing wages growth, because they don't think it's their job to fix it. That's what's going on here.
This budget, the budget that we are responding to right now, forecasts a cut in real wages. What is a cut in real wages? A cut in real wages is a decline in living standards. It's a decline in the standard of life for Australian households. It's a decline in the ability of Australian households to provide a better life for the next generation. That's what a cut in real wages is. What are the government doing about it? We have a bloke who, as Treasurer, presided over cuts to penalty rates and, as Prime Minister, is presiding over a budget that forecast a cut to real wages after year on year on year of pathetic wages growth.
What do they do? You saw them on budget night, Deputy Speaker, sitting behind the Treasurer, looking like a wet weekend, so grim were their faces. They looked miserable. You'd think that they'd lost the last election, not won it. They were so miserable. The Treasurer was standing up. I don't think he'd ever anticipated, as a Liberal, that he would come in and hand down a budget which racked up a trillion dollars in debt, spending $100 billion with nothing much to show for all this. I've got to tell you that, if Labor were in government, we'd certainly have some legacy out of that sort of thing, but there is nothing much to show for it from this Treasurer. Behind him were the wet weekend crowd, all sitting there looking grim because they don't really want to be doing this. They came here to make sure that we didn't do things. They don't have a positive vision of their own; they just want to stop us. The reason they can't grapple with the big challenges, can't manage the economy and can't write a budget that actually sees an increase in living standards, not a decline in living standards for Australians, is that they are not up to it and they don't believe in it. Their hearts are not in it and they never have been.
We want to see a government that will take real action when it comes to wages, because this is a key economic challenge. What do you think happens in our economy when wages growth is sluggish? I will give you a tip. What's the biggest component of GDP? Is it consumption? What do you reckon happens to consumption when people's pay isn't keeping up and people aren't getting ahead? When you don't get that pay rise, do you buy the extra coffee? Do you buy the extra video game? Do you buy the extra leisure activities? Do you go and have the slightly longer or slightly better holiday? Do you go and spend more at the beautiful amusement parks that we have in beautiful Queensland? What happens to consumption when wages growth is sluggish is that consumption doesn't grow as it should, and that's a problem for economic growth. This is why we need to face up to this challenge. It's a contemporary challenge. It's a challenge that Labor is continuously pushing the government to deal with, and it's a challenge that the government are fundamentally incapable of responding to, because they don't believe in it. They don't care about it. It's not what they want to be doing. They don't care about your wages. All they are delivering is a real wages cut.
In responding to the budget, I also want to say a big thank you, not to the government—because, frankly, they've had two jobs this year, quarantine and vaccine rollout, and they've managed to botch both—but to all of our communities who in the face of the COVID pandemic, despite the national government's woeful performance in managing it, are so resilient and are working so hard. Our communities are doing their absolute best. They need a government that's going to do the right thing when it comes to the vaccine rollout and quarantine. They're not getting that at the moment, but our communities are persevering, just like communities around the world.
I have to say that locals in my communities on the south side took to this pandemic with their characteristic sense of fellow feeling, community, looking after each other, reaching out a hand and keeping in touch with older people, people at risk of being isolated and people at greater risk of being affected by the pandemic. We see people all the time doing their bit, wearing masks when they're needed and respecting the lockdowns to make sure that there's less of a disruption down the track. We have seen frontline workers in so many occupations doing their best and putting themselves in harm's way to look after the rest of us. We are so grateful. I want to say on behalf of our community that we're all so grateful to you for what you're doing.
I want to record again my thanks to everyone who works in our hospitals, GP clinics, pathology services, pharmacies and other health services. I wanted to mention that I recently visited World Wellness Group. They have been administering vaccinations and doing their part to counteract vaccine hesitancy in culturally and linguistically diverse communities. They're a great facility and I congratulate them on the work they're doing. I have been in contact with so many frontline health workers with our local hospitals via the metro south district and also our GP and primary healthcare community through the PHN. I want to say thanks to Mike Bosel and his team at the Primary Health Network. They have been work with the community towards making sure they can do their best to support the vaccine rollout.
The pandemic doesn't mean that everything else stops, of course. I wanted to say thanks to everyone who's working on the non-COVID health response as well. I want to say a big thanks to Sophie at Coorparoo Discount Pharmacy for my recent flu vaccination. She did an admirable job in administering it very painlessly—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 12:46 to 12:57
Ms BUTLER: One of the quite stark things about this budget is the fact that it's really confirmed that the Morrison government has no intention of delivering on its proposal—or so-called proposal, I guess—to introduce a national integrity commission. The budget papers confirm that not a single staff member has been allocated for this commission for at least another 14 months. It's been 2½ years since the Prime Minister promised a Commonwealth integrity commission and more than two years since he and the then Attorney-General promised that legislation would be brought into the parliament before the end of 2019, but this long-promised national integrity commission has failed to materialise. In my portfolio of water, in fact, the previous interim inspector-general for the Murray-Darling Basin was meant to be able, once it was established, to refer matters to the to-be-established National Integrity Commissioner. Well, that position was never created, nor was the integrity commission ever created.
It's just promise after promise after promise from this government. They're all promise, no delivery. They're all about the photo op and never about the follow-up. It's a real problem because Australians are actually crying out for an anticorruption commission at a federal level. We've seen all sorts of scandals: sports rorts, the airport purchase where the government managed to spend about 10 times the value of the land when purchasing that particular land, rorts in other funds where the just the majority of the money is allocated quite brazenly to Liberal or Liberal-target seats. Australians actually want a national integrity commission and anticorruption commission to scrutinise government to make sure that we can have confidence that money is being spent well and that people are doing the right thing in government. That's really important, I think, to all Australians. It's a real shame that this budget reveals once again that the government has no intention of delivering.
Mr STEVENS (Sturt) (12:59): I rise to support the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022 and the associated bills. Equally, I indicate that I won't be supporting the amendments of Mr Bandt and Mr Chalmers, whatever they might be. This bill, substantively, is the budget that was handed down by the Treasurer a fortnight ago. This is a budget that is, in equal measure, great for the country, great for my state, and great for my electorate of Sturt, so I'd like to take the opportunity, in the time I have to contribute to this second reading debate, to talk through each of those three elements, perhaps in reverse order.
In my electorate of Sturt, this budget continues to invest in local infrastructure. We have three major congestion-busting initiatives in the budget under the Urban Congestion Fund in the electorate of Sturt: the Magill Road-Portrush Road intersection, the Fullarton Road-Glen Osmond Road intersection and the Fullarton Road-Cross Road intersection. All three are excellent outcomes for my local electorate, and all three are going to help families get home more quickly and more safely, as well as increase productivity. The Portrush Road-Magill Road intersection is on Highway 1, the national highway network. That's the one that's most advanced so far. I know this stretch of road very well. In fact, a little over 20 years ago, I grew up probably less than 100 metres from Portrush Road when it went through a major upgrade by the then Howard government around the turn of the millennium—the year 2000 or so from memory. It might have 1999 or 2001, but it was around about then. Now we're continuing to invest in that corridor, and there is a $98 million investment jointly between the Commonwealth and state governments for the Portrush Road-Magill Road intersection. It is a fifty-fifty funding partnership, and progress is very well advanced.
There has been a little over 12 months of hard work on land acquisition for that project. Land acquisition, as we all know, can be difficult at times, and it's important that you take your time when you're undertaking land acquisition to do the best you can for those who are having their properties acquired and support them as best you can through the process of relocating. I believe that in all cases we have met that important test of being modelled through that process. It is a responsibility of state government, but of course I've been very close to it as the federal member. We now have the land acquired, and the tender has been awarded. The major relocation works have been undertaken. The big 66 kilovolt line that had to be realigned has recently been powered up by SA Power Networks. So the fun part begins. All the hidden works that no-one would notice are now done, and we're going to see a transformation of that intersection over the coming months.
Every day, 65,000 vehicles use that intersection, so I'm thrilled to see that that project is progressing very rapidly now. In August, we should see some of the early new access roads opened on that project—some of the left-turn lanes from Magill Road onto Portrush Road. Once the surface pavement is done there, they'll be open to traffic and my residents will start to feel the benefit of that project. By the end of the year, the practical completion of that intersection will have been done, and it will be early in the new year that the final beautification of the streetscapes et cetera will be finished. I'm very proud that we've been able to deliver that in my first term as the member for Sturt. It's one of the most significant infrastructure investments in the electorate of Sturt for a long, long time, so it's excellent to see that, that commitment having been made at the last election, whenever the next election may be, I'm very confident that that project will be largely completed. I'm glad that we've been able to keep our commitment to the people of Sturt in a great partnership with the state government.
The other two intersections that I touched on are on Fullarton Road. Both the Glen Osmond Road-Fullarton Road and Cross Road-Fullarton Road intersection projects are proceeding well. They're at earlier stages than Portrush Road-Magill Road because, again, land acquisition has been sensitively handled. One of those in particular had a significant heritage issue which we have been able to overcome very successfully, and I'm glad about the outcome. The old Waite gatehouse is now going to be relocated on the Adelaide university site instead of being demolished, which was contentious, locally, from a heritage point of view. We've been able to work through that challenge and, I think, get an excellent outcome. Not only is the intersection upgrade, which is vital and which we all support, going ahead but also we have been able to ensure that a critical part of our heritage is going to be protected and, in fact, enhanced because, in relocating that building, we're going to turn it into something that can be used for the local community by local community groups.
I had the Treasurer in my electorate last Monday, and one of the projects I was able to take him to was the Kensington Gardens Reserve upgrade. I've spoken about that quite a few times in this chamber, and it's great to see that project is well and truly past the halfway point. The site demolition and remediation has been completed. As I said before in relation to the Portrush Road-Magill Road intersection project, the fun part starts now. The tree planting is commencing. The civil works have been done for the wetland construction, so now it's about vegetating the site. We're also getting the new tennis courts, which are being graded as we speak. It is a great outcome for the local sporting infrastructure at Kensington Gardens and for the surrounding suburbs and also a great outcome for families that use that community asset for a whole variety of things, including sport and recreation. As I say, there's not just tennis there; there are also cricket, rugby, walking the dog, keeping fit and all sorts of other activities. Of course, it's a beautiful, pristine, locally protected environmental asset as well. The Stonyfell Creek wetland project, as part of that, is an excellent environmental outcome locally.
We committed $5 million to the Max Amber Reserve to rebuild the clubrooms there for the Athelstone Football Club and the Athelstone Cricket Club. Again, now the foundations have been poured for that project, so site demolition is concluded and all the re-alignments et cetera are done. We've poured the slab and construction is apace. Hopefully, in six months time we'll see that site completely transformed. With next year's football season and the subsequent cricket netball et cetera seasons, we'll see a great outcome for the local community in the Paradise-Athelstone area, not just those who are members of the various sporting clubs that play there, although they of course are going to get an excellent outcome. Again, we're seeing a piece of vital community infrastructure reborn, and it's not just the sporting clubs that'll be able to have access to it. The RSLs, the Rotarys—all those volunteer organisations in our communities that work so hard as volunteers to serve in their various capacities deserve our support. I'm so proud that again we've been able to work as a funding partner with the local Campbelltown council in that case to see that $10 million upgrade proceed. Again, I anticipate that will be completed before the next election, whenever that will be—another example of making a commitment, following it through and delivering it for the people in Sturt.
Finally in Sturt, the Magill Village project is also well underway. It's in exactly the same category as those I just touched on. We made a commitment of funding before the last election and we're seeing these projects well and truly being constructed now and being delivered in my first term as the member for Sturt. So Sturt's done very well in this budget. South Australia has done well in this budget. The city deal which we signed a few years ago between the South Australian state government, the Adelaide City Council and the federal government is a fantastic transformation of that old Royal Adelaide Hospital precinct in the heart of the city. It's actually just outside my electorate, unfortunately. I wish my boundary were a few hundred metres further west, and then I could say that it was in my electorate. But nonetheless the people of Sturt, like the people of Adelaide, will benefit enormously from this city deal project.
Again, progress there has been very rapid. Subsequent to the city deal being signed, we also made decisions at the Commonwealth level around the Australian Space Agency, which is now open and operating on the site in the McEwan Building. Of the five heritage buildings there, four have been completely restored, and they're all full of a wide variety of private sector businesses with people with new ideas in the industries of the future. It's a fantastic incubator site for new ideas and people that want to start small but have ambitions of building very large businesses. They've got a home there at lot 14 on the old Royal Adelaide Hospital site thanks to the partnership that we have in place between the state, federal and local governments. There is more than $150 million of Commonwealth funding, and in the upcoming year alone more than $40 million in the budget is going towards that precinct, which has a wide variety of very exciting developments as part of that project. I won't go through them all now given the time I have left, but I'm very proud that we've delivered that partnership. It's a great example of three good governments working together—the city council, the Marshall Liberal state government and the Morrison Liberal federal government. These are things that people in my community talk about when they say they're pleased to see governments working together and having some vision for the future and understanding how you can leverage government expenditure to also unlock private expenditure to grow our economy. That's the point I want to turn to now at a more national level when it comes to this budget.
Last week, as I said, the Treasurer was in Sturt. Apart from some of the other things that I've already mentioned, we went to a great local business in my electorate, a cheese manufacturer called La Casa Del Formaggio. La Casa Del Formaggio—'the house of cheese' in Italian—is a second-generation business. I think they're in the 33rd year. They make a fantastic product. It is one that they're selling right around the country. But, of course, they have ambitions to sell it right across the globe. What do they love about the budget? Well, the budget backs them. The budget gets behind them and says to them, as a business, 'Hey, we want to support you and help you make decisions to grow and expand your business. We want to be partners with you and give you the confidence to make decisions so that you will grow your business, expand your markets, employ more people and grow our economy.'
One of the things that they, like tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands—possibly towards a million—of businesses in this country, are taking advantage of is the instant asset write-off. Who wouldn't be looking to the instant asset write-off as an enormous opportunity to bring forward investment decisions? Obviously, it puts them in a position where they can now invest in the expansion of plant and equipment. They can invest in eligible assets to grow their production capacity, knowing that they can immediately write down that expenditure in the year that they incur it. This has meant that they have made the decision that they will dramatically expand their operations at this business, which has given them confidence. They're going to employ more people. They're already employing nearly 200 people, but if their plans are successful, if they export and if the demand is there for them to increase production to that extent, through this expansion they'll be able to employ many, many more, possibly hundreds, into the future. They're very honest about making that decision because it gives them an opportunity, and they're not going to miss that opportunity.
They're an example of a business, like so many other businesses, that is saying, 'Wow, when there's a government out there that understands what it is to back businesses and that sends us a message that says you want us to make these investment decisions, you've got to take some risk. When you're in the private sector, you've got to put your money on the line.' But, as a government, we're saying, 'We understand that risk. We understand some of those hesitations. We understand what you're weighing up. Hopefully, it will go well, but it could go wrong. What can we do to help you have more confidence in making that decision?' The instant asset write-off is one of the best examples of us saying to businesses, 'We want to join you and support you in making those decisions, taking those risks, expanding your business, investing in your business. We'll give you a higher incentive than usual to go ahead and make those decisions.'
This unashamedly needs to be a private sector led recovery post COVID. When you have a private sector led recovery, the best thing is that it's not sugar-hit, one-off expenditure. It's investment that lasts for years and decades into the future. We're talking about stimulating our economy in a way that's going to have a constant, permanent, future dividend. We're not sending cheques to dead people, putting pink batts in roofs and doing all those sorts of things that we recall were so unsuccessful in the global financial crisis response of a previous government that shall remain nameless. Instead, we're backing the private sector to make their own decisions and invest in those decisions. We're not telling them what to do or how to do it. We're just giving them the incentive to make the decisions that they have thought about but haven't yet had the confidence to go through with, and this has made a huge difference for them.
I saw it in black and white last week when the Treasurer and I went to just one business of the hundreds, if not thousands, in my electorate that are going to take up this opportunity. It's one of the great measures in the budget. It's going to provide enormous, front-loaded economic stimulus. But, as I said, the dividend from it will be constancy, because it's getting people to invest in assets that can grow their business, and that growth, and the benefit of that growth, will be enduring well into the future. So I commend the work of the Treasurer in this budget. I'm proud to be part of the Morrison government, the team that has delivered it. I'm very pleased in particular at the fact that businesses in my electorate and across the country are going to be able to use this budget as an opportunity to make decisions and lead us out of the economic challenges of the coronavirus pandemic.
Mr GILES (Scullin) (13:14): I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022 and other bills that accompany the budget just handed down, in support of the second reading amendment moved by my friend the shadow Treasurer, the member for Rankin. In my remarks, I'm going to focus particularly on the things that aren't in the budget but should have been, because that goes to the heart of what is wrong with this government: its failure to take responsibility for things that need to be at the core of the work of a national government at this point in time.
But, before I turn to these issues, I want to reflect on the circumstances back home in Melbourne's northern suburbs, where a number of my constituents are literally fighting the coronavirus right now. The hubris that was on display in question time yesterday from the Prime Minister and the Minister for Home Affairs about their alleged role in this is something that I feel needs to be reflected upon. The Minister for Home Affairs is actually a member of this government whom I have some regard for, but I hope that she reflects on the contribution that she made in question time yesterday—firstly in, frankly, boasting about the success of the vaccination rollout at a time when there is so much anxiety in Melbourne's northern suburbs, as is shown by media reports today and reports I've had from constituents about people who have not yet been vaccinated and their connection to transmission. For her then to go on to accuse the Labor Party of undermining this effort is quite extraordinary, particularly as, just before she made this contribution, Senator Rennick, a member of the government, delivered a profoundly unhelpful message on Sky.
The government should take responsibility for the two fundamental jobs it had to get this country through the pandemic: to deal with the vaccination rollout and, of course, to look after quarantine. If we look at the vaccination rollout issues, we see a series of promises that have been broken from the get-go. We were to have been at the front of the queue. Of course, we weren't; we were pretty close to the back. What makes that even worse is that we have not, seemingly, taken advantage of the experiences we have seen overseas.
We are determined to do everything that we can to encourage every Australian to keep themselves and their communities safe. I urge everyone in the Scullin electorate, and in Melbourne more broadly, in particular to do everything that they can. If they're eligible, they should get vaccinated right away, and they should keep following public health advice, which people have been doing. I'm so proud of the efforts of the people I represent, particularly right now, when people are under strain. I'm so proud of the efforts of all Australians. But they deserve—we deserve—a government that's on our side right now.
When it comes to the vaccination rollout, we have seen failure after failure after failure. I urge government members: it's not too late to redouble your efforts. Think about the sort of positive messaging that we need to do. Let's think about the campaigns that have been rolled out in other countries which have been successful in combating hesitancy. Let's think about effectively targeting all the communities that make up modern multicultural Australia and harnessing their strengths to boost the uptake while, of course, we make every effort to boost the stock that will enable an effective rollout. The government must redouble their efforts. They've got to stop hiding from responsibility and take up their responsibility to keep us all safe, particularly the people I represent in this place, who deserve a little bit more respect than was shown yesterday in question time.
The other issue is, of course, quarantine. It continues to baffle me that our government won't take up its constitutional responsibility. The Prime Minister even now continues to hide behind the leaders of our states and territories. He can't continue to do so. This latest outbreak is evidence of exactly that—of why we need the appropriate facilities. I urge the governments to keep working with the states, who have been so constructive, as we in federal Labor have been, to make sure we all get through this.
It is time for the Prime Minister to step up and take responsibility. Quarantine is self-evidently a national responsibility. The consequences of not having assumed this responsibility are great. They are great today as people in Melbourne are dealing with a state of high anxiety. They are great today because so many Australians are separated from their loved ones. I refer in particular to those people in India right now who have been abandoned by this government, as have so many other strands Australians. Also, we need—and I suspect that in the government ranks there is some sympathy for this point of view—to find ways to safely open up to the world again, and the longer we delay national quarantine arrangements, the more challenging it will be. So I urge the government members here to think about assuming this most fundamental responsibility.
In terms of the appropriations that are contained within the budget, what they demonstrate is that this is a government of tactics and not strategy. It's a government that is resolutely focused on the political problems of today, not the challenges of building a more secure, more prosperous and more equal tomorrow. We see it when we look at some of the significant expenditure items contained in the budget—those that relate to aged care, to child care and quality early learning, and to mental health. In all three of these areas there is a response to a huge real issue. But when we look at aged care we're not seeing an adequate response to the royal commission recommendations. We're not seeing an adequate response to the devastation we've seen. I think about facilities like Epping Gardens, in my own electorate, or St Basil's, not in the Scullin electorate but a place that's so important to the Greek community in the northern suburbs. We need to do justice to what has happened and make sure that every ageing Australian is supported to continue to live their later years in dignity. But what we have seen is indignity upon indignity for vulnerable older Australians and contempt for the good people who work with them. This budget doesn't fix that problem. It applies a bandaid to a political issue, when what we need is fundamental structural reform—reform that does justice to our collective sense of what it means to be an Australian and the responsibility of a national government to look after older Australians and those we engage to look after them.
With child care, similarly, we see a fundamental distinction between the vision on our side of the House for a society that's fair and productive and a business-as-usual approach on the other. After the government denied there was a problem, the budget response acknowledges the problem but does not offer a solution. To compare the two approaches is to do a great injustice to the fantastic work of the shadow minister, the member for Kingston, and the entire Labor team, who are focused on building a society that is both equal and productive. We are focused on boosting employment participation, particularly amongst those with caring responsibilities, and recognising the extraordinary benefits of high-quality early learning for our children. We want to make sure that every Australian child has the benefit of the best start in life and that every Australian parent has the opportunity to participate, on their own terms, in the workforce and be a present parent with their children. It is beyond disappointing that this is not something that is recognised by members opposite, who, again, see a political problem to be fixed rather than an economic opportunity and a great social transformation to get on board with. I say to members opposite: it's not too late; you can join us on this.
In terms of mental health, similarly, I'll say that there are welcome investments here but they are incomplete. One thing the budget could have done was to acknowledge loneliness as a fundamental issue that we need to talk more about in our national politics, and I acknowledge that there is bipartisan interest in responding to this. Other governments, including the Conservative government in the UK, have done so. Throughout the pandemic we have seen an increase in the prevalence of loneliness amongst Australians and an increase in our understanding of how it damages individuals and our communities—the mental health impacts and the physical wellbeing impacts. There is a great cost to individuals through failing to acknowledge that loneliness is a crisis, and there is a cost to our society as well.
In terms of my portfolio responsibilities, this budget provides no answers to the questions Australians are asking. In his second reading speech introducing the budget, the Treasurer didn't say the word 'cities'. He didn't say the word 'suburbs' either. Yet these will be the engine rooms of our economic recovery, and they are, of course, the places where the vast majority of Australians live and work. We've seen revelations as to how our cities function and how they might continue to function through the experiences of lockdown restrictions. There is a huge challenge to get them moving again effectively and a huge challenge, which should be embraced by all sides of politics, to use the experience of last year and the opportunity we are presented with to build cities and suburbs that are more productive, that are more livable, that are more sustainable and, fundamentally, that are also more resilient to future shocks. This is a missed opportunity in the budget, to the cost of millions of Australians.
The previous speaker mentioned the Adelaide City Deal. In Labor, we have been very interested in city deals or city partnerships as the way to drive growth in our cities and make them more livable and sustainable too. What this budget shows, though, is a government that's walking away from city deals. It's a government that's walking away from a national urban policy; it's a government that's walking away from the vast majority of Australians who live and work in our cities and suburbs. Instead of this sort of framework, which has been embraced by some on the conservative side of politics, we are seeing a recourse to slush funds—slush fund after slush fund—in terms of the sort of approach that joins local and state governments with national government, community groups and the private sector in pursuit of shared objectives. This is a fundamental dividing line between the two sides of politics that needn't be. We should have a bipartisan focus on supporting genuine city partnerships, not squirrelling billions of dollars away in funds that, frankly, are there to be rorted.
We think about the Commuter Car Park Fund, in particular, and the Urban Congestion Fund. The Urban Congestion Fund pushed millions of dollars out the door in advertising long before a single project was underway. It is going to consume so much of the work of the Auditor-General, instead of dealing with real issues in our communities, fundamental issues that affected the quality of individuals' lives and that should be addressing the biggest handbrake on productivity growth in Australia right now, which is congestion. But, instead, it's always cheap politics. In the rush towards the last election so many projects were announced that were never going to be built, including in my electorate, but right around Melbourne, in particular—projects that the government are now walking away from because they were just shameless bids for votes.
I also want to touch on how this budget sees multicultural affairs. The short answer is that the government are carrying on as they have been. Throughout the pandemic we were unusual—indeed, almost unique amongst OECD nations—in how we treated people who were trapped here. International students were told to go home, and people on temporary visas were denied any support. A decent society constructs a safety net that catches everyone. We learnt during the pandemic how leaving people to fend for themselves isn't just morally bad and isn't just bad for them; it impacts the whole society if it forces people to engage in dangerous work in the midst of a global pandemic. The government have doubled down on this, because the only big saving in the budget is the forecast saving of more than $600 million in terms of extending the waiting period for newly arrived migrants.
Lastly, I will turn to one thing that's missing in the budget, and I reflect on this particularly. We have a reckoning going on about gender and a reckoning about race that we will respond to on this side of the House. We will take seriously the recommendations of the Respect@Work report and commit to them in full, as Anthony Albanese did. We will take racism seriously and respond to the movement of change that is Black Lives Matter. Today, on Sorry Day, I say this again: we are the only party committed to implementing, in full, the generous offer that's the Statement from the Heart, as we must.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Falinski ): It being close to 1.30 pm, in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 13 May, the debate is interrupted. The chair will be resumed at 4 pm this afternoon.
Sitting suspended from 13:29 to 16:00
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Zimmerman ): The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Melbourne to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Rankin be disagreed to.
Mr YOUNG (Longman) (16:00): When a local community wants a new footpath, improvements to their local park, a road upgrade or improvements to local sporting facilities, they'll most likely to turn to their local council. But last year, when the COVID-19 pandemic struck and jobs were at risk, it was clear that the federal government needed to play our part to keep people in those jobs. One of the ways we did this was through the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program, announced last May. This program supports local councils to deliver priority local projects across Australia, including in my electorate of Longman. Not only does this fantastic program support jobs and help local economies weather the pandemic; it ensures that towns like Caboolture, Dakabin, Burpengary and Beachmere get local improvements that make them better places in which to live.
The great thing about this program is that there's no politics involved. It's just two levels of government—the council and the federal government—working together to get stuff done in the community. Due to its success and the clear benefits it has for local communities, the program has since been expanded not once, but twice, bringing the total investment across Australia to $2.5 billion. That $2.5 billion investment is the federal government saying, 'Yes, we understand the importance of grassroots improvements like new footpaths or roads and park upgrades to local people.' New playground equipment at the local park might not sound as impressive as a billion dollar highway upgrade or a new inland rail service, but, for the parents who bring their kids to the park on the weekend to spend some time with family outdoors, it's just as important.
In the first phase of the program, Moreton Bay Regional Council received $1.66 million to help fund four projects in Longman. A further 12 projects were funded in phase 2 of the program, with a federal government investment of around $5.3 million. Longman will also receive a share of $10 million allocated to Moreton Bay Regional Council in phase 3 of the program. Two of the four projects announced in phase 1 have already been completed, including a 3½-kilometre concrete footpath along Bigmor Drive at Elimbah, between Pumicestone and Mansfield roads. Mums and dads with prams and people with mobility issues will now find it easy to get to shops and parks, thanks to this new footpath. It also provides safe pedestrian access to the massive new commercial development next to the iconic Big Fish Tavern, anchored by a new Bunnings Warehouse, which, by the way, will employ hundreds of locals.
Central Lakes Park in Caboolture near Summerfields Drive received a big overhaul, with new playground equipment, barbecue facilities and landscaping. This was a project that locals had been asking for for around five years, and I was delighted to help the council get this one over the line. Not long after the work on this upgrade was completed, I attended a Neighbourhood Watch event at the park, and it was great to see so many locals out there enjoying the new facilities. Ultimately, that's what this investment is all about—making things better for locals and supporting local jobs during construction.
The two other projects from the first phase are well underway and should be completed within weeks. These include a new fauna crossing at Wamuran to help keep our local wildlife safer near the roads, and new LED sports field lighting at Bob Brock Park in Dakabin. These new lights will enable local sporting clubs, including my old soccer club, the mighty North Pine Gorillas, to train across all the fields at the park after dark. It will particularly make a big difference to the junior football teams, who now have a lot more room to train rather than being crammed into a small space. While these phase 1 projects are nearing completion, this week we are announcing the list of projects to receive funding under phase 2.
The $1 billion phase 2 extension of the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program was announced as part of the 2020-21 budget. We will provide Moreton Bay Regional Council with around $5.3 million for 12 fantastic projects in Longman that will again support local jobs and improve local communities. Perhaps the biggest project on the list is an overhaul of the Petersen Road sporting complex at Morayfield. We are contributing $1.5 million towards this $4 million project, which will help it get done much sooner than would otherwise be possible. This is a project I have been fighting to get funding for since last August, and I'm really pleased to see it get some love under this program. It will involve demolishing the old clubhouse and constructing a new clubhouse that will be shared by the more than 1,650 members of the Caboolture Rugby Union Club and the Caboolture Touch Association. The new building will also have offices, a kitchen and tiered seating for spectators.
This project has been in planning for some time, and I'm delighted that the federal government has been able to pitch in for this project through the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program. Other phase-2 projects include three new footpaths—one on Bribie Island Road at Ningi, another at Elkhorn Avenue at Bellara and a third on the D'Aguilar Highway between Scotts Lane and Mount Mee Road. The latter project, in particular, is much needed in that area and will ensure pedestrians, including schoolchildren, can get to where they're going much more safely. All three projects will improve pedestrian access for parents with prams or people with mobility issues.
Funding will also go towards the installation of a new playground at the Aird Street park, Sandstone Point, making this great little local park more enjoyable for local families. Carramar park in Dakabin will get $200,000 towards a new playground, barbecue facilities, pathways and landscaping. Nearby, in Alma Road, we are helping fund a new pedestrian refuge near the Woolworths development so locals can safely cross Alma Road, which can get really busy during peak times. We are also helping to fund netball courts at the Burpengary sports complex and a basketball court at Cash Street in D'Aguilar. The skate park at Sheep Station Creek in Morayfield will also be upgraded from a district facility to a major skate facility. The federal government is chipping in $1 million for this project—and I won't be getting involved on the skateboard for fear of breaking my neck! Once completed, it will be a great place for local kids, encouraging them to get outdoors with their scooters and skateboards and keep active. Finally, we are funding 50 per cent of a streetscape upgrade for Biggs Avenue in Beachmere and $400,000 towards improved pedestrian and cyclist access along Station Road in Burpengary. These projects will be of big benefit for local residents in Longman who live near or use these facilities and infrastructure.
I was also pleased to learn that, as part of the recently announced 2021-22 budget, Longman will share in another $10 million under the next phase of this program, which will be delivered to Moreton Bay council at the start of next year. The Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program is already delivering for locals and their communities, and it will continue delivering for sometime yet. So far it has delivered funding for 16 important local projects in my electorate, two of which have already been completed and two of which will be completed shortly. Work on the further 12 projects from phase 2 of the program will get underway between now and the end of the year, when funding for phase 3 of the program will become available to the council. This program and others, like those in the federal government's Stronger Communities Program or the Powering Communities Program, support real, grassroots, local projects. They deliver the improvements that our communities ask for, and that's what my job is all about—getting local projects delivered for the people of Longman.
Helping get people who want to work into a job is one of the most important roles of any Australian government. Our government doesn't just talk about getting people into work; we put in place the policies that help employers to thrive. When businesses are flourishing, they are more likely to invest in their businesses, create new job opportunities and employ new people. I'm aware that, in my electorate of Longman and in many other towns and cities around the country, employers are struggling to find staff who are willing and qualified to fill the roles they have available. Therefore, the Morrison government, in the 2021-22 budget, has allocated $6.4 billion to help people learn the skills that employers require to fill these positions. We are delivering more apprenticeships, building on successive reforms, investing in skills and providing further investment in free or low-fee training places.
Almost half of this $6.4 billion investment will go towards extending the Boosting Apprenticeship Commencements program. This demand driven program is expected to support more than 170,000 new apprentices and trainees across the country. In Longman there are already around 1,300 apprentices and trainees working across a whole range of different roles, from carpentry to boilermaking and cooking to administration. This program works by paying businesses a 50 per cent wage subsidy over 12 months for new apprentices and trainees signed up by 31 March 2022. The subsidy is capped at $7,000 per quarter per apprentice and will lead to even more opportunities for young people—or even older people—who are looking to get into the workforce or embark on a different career. The extension of this program will deliver on our commitment to the building of a pipeline of skilled workers by further supporting growing businesses to take on new apprentices and trainees. This government is also delivering pathway services for 5,000 women to take on a non-traditional apprenticeship. On top of this program, we are committing a further $500 million to be matched by the state and territory governments to expand the JobTrainer fund by 163,000 places. We are also extending this program until the end of 2022. JobTrainer will support hundreds of local jobseekers, school leavers and young people by providing access to free or low-fee training places in areas of skills shortages. This could be training in digital skills or upskilling in critical industries like aged care. An extended and expanded JobTrainer fund will support new training places in Longman to provide jobseekers and young people with the skills they need to fill the job vacancies across Longman. JobTrainer is also delivering an additional 33,800 training places so that care workers can improve their qualifications.
Getting people into a job is such an important step towards making Longman a better place in which to live. There are also around 64,800 people in Longman who will enjoy tax relief this year, which reinforces one of our core beliefs in allowing people to keep more of what they earn. The coalition understands that money in the people's hands is far better than in any government's hands. I'm proud to be part of a government that manages the economy in a manner that gives us the ability to invest in the people in my community of Longman and the entire Australian population.
Ms STANLEY (Werriwa—Opposition Whip) (16:11): I rise to make my contribution to the debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022 and related bills. If the past year has shown us anything, it's that Australians need a secure job, functional and efficient government services and investment in future technologies. Even with the advantage of hindsight, this government still got it wrong. Another missed opportunity will leave millions of Australians behind. After eight years of cutting government services and wages, this government has handed down a budget that has no plan that extends past the next year. With $1 trillion in debt, the government has no plan to tackle the jobs crisis, build for the future or help struggling families and small businesses.
What those opposite do have is a plan for the next election. It is the same continuing regressive government that will leave Australia on the edge of the global stage and leave Australians, especially our younger generation, worse off. You don't have to look far to see who this government is trying to make better off. Among listed businesses, one-fifth of JobKeeper went to companies whose profits were rising. In numbers, that's $15 billion to $20 billion of taxpayers' money which was intended to go to struggling businesses that instead became corporate welfare—$1,000 of corporate welfare for every Australian adult. Taxpayer money is not Liberal Party money.
This mishandling of funds for government services continues with the government's updated aged-care policy. The policy ignores several recommendations of the royal commission. It is an announcement with no delivery. The aged-care sector has been in dire need of support for years and, in eight years, this government has done nothing, even though it has had 22 different reports. With the royal commission confirming this, indeed, is an archive of shocking stories due to government neglect, the government chose to disregard the recommendations and leave the sector pleading. We know how much the system is failing. Services such as home-care packages just aren't available for people in certain areas. The government can announce home-care packages, but they don't seem to be able to ensure they're delivered. Every week in my electorate office, I get inquiries from those who are approved for My Aged Care packages but who are still waiting for funding. Worse still, if they are successful and the funding is available, there are no services for them to access. If you need the lawn mowed or some help with light housework or shopping, the waitlists in my part of the country are so long that they're not even adding names to them. It shows a system in crisis.
It's time that we accept a higher standard for our older Australians. We need structural change. Aged care needs to be managed, rather than allowing private companies to profit off the sector. It's clear from the royal commission's finding that this is not an area we can simply let the market decide. The stories of neglect, malnutrition and other horrors from our aged-care facilities must be addressed urgently and properly. The government has had eight years and 22 reports to provide the support and changes that the sector desperately needs. Those families and individuals deserve this now. The budget will not remove the My Aged Care waiting list. It does not address staff shortages or train staff that are needed to provide support.
Along with senior Australians being actively short-changed by the government, people with a disability are also feeling the weight of deliberate inaction. Established under a Labor government, the NDIS aimed to allow Australians with a disability to fulfil their potential and fairly choose what they want their lives to be. However, under successive coalition governments this important system has been undermined and mismanaged. This government in particular has spent the past two years dismantling the NDIS to cut costs at the expense of what should be the best disability scheme in the world.
Recent reports have revealed that the government rewrote an independent review of the NDIS recommending compulsory independent assessments for participants. This in turn was used by the government as an excuse to justify cuts in services. The review included so-called evidence from the assessment that involved only 35 people living with a disability. It is a disservice to all those living with a disability and the workers and carers and families in this sector. Even more reports have surfaced that expose the new minister's plans for the NDIS razor gang. Leaked government documents have outlined guidelines for all frontline staff to hold back from people utilising the scheme.
I've spoken to many who utilise the NDIS—both providers and participants or their families—who are frustrated by the time it takes for reviews and the potential disturbance and changes to packages that they fear will adversely affect their loved ones. They want to do the best for the people they care for and they are concerned by the uncertainty. I've had people in my office end up in tears. They should not have to come to me because they are so stressed and distressed about what is happening to their loved ones and what the future may bring.
The NDIS, done properly, can change the lives of the people that it supports. The party of great economic managers yet again does not seem to be able to manage those funds correctly. This time it is over 430 vulnerable Australians who are paying the price—all of this following the $4.6 billion cuts to the NDIS in the 2019 budget. The government is willingly abandoning people living with a disability, the carers that support them and the workforce underpinning the sector. Disability groups across the country have expressed their disappointment with the findings, along with several state and territory ministers, and I stand with them and the people that they care for.
The centrepiece of the jobs policy, the JobMaker hiring credit, promised 450,000 jobs to reinvigorate the Australian economy. Unfortunately, it only delivered 1,000 jobs. Over 90,000 jobs have been lost in Australia since the coalition has been in government, and 140,000 fewer people are doing apprenticeships and traineeships than when the coalition took power. These numbers are expected to grow, especially in south-western Sydney, where they are determined to cut staff and services, leaving teachers overworked and underpaid and students undertrained. The coalition even dared manufacturers to leave the country, so they did. Australia is suffering and will continue to suffer those consequences—consequences such as being last in the OECD when it comes to manufacturing self-sufficiency.
More urgently, vaccinating the population and ensuring safe quarantine are the two necessities in opening our economy and truly entering a post-COVID world, and this government fails to deliver on both of them. The Morrison government promised four million people would be vaccinated by the end of March. We're now nearing the end of May and we still haven't reached that target. The failure to secure more than two vaccine deals has been part of that. The government failed to get vaccines to GPs, creating confusion about the rollout going forward. The failure continues into quarantine. Quarantine is a federal responsibility. While the states have been doing a good job, it is up to the federal government to show leadership and make sure that it is done properly. Labor has consistently called on the government to implement a national quarantine strategy for the safety of returning citizens. Over time, the government has failed to meet its own targets and deadlines during this pandemic.
The former head of the Department of Health, Jane Halton, briefed the Prime Minister three times last year, suggesting national quarantine facilities would be beneficial for emergency situations, yet the government left quarantine to the states. This budget was a perfect opportunity to create such a system; however, again, it hasn't happened. Even in my own electorate the lack of adequate health services is evident. The government is unfairly delivering a second-rate service in Sydney. Liverpool Hospital does not have equitable access to funds. It also has a greater-than-average challenge in its efforts to meet the health care of the community, significantly diminishing Australians' quality of care and quality of life in the electorate.
The overall problem is a lack of funding—funding for services and funding for infrastructure. Recent reports have highlighted the need for alternative routes to the future aerotropolis rather than the metro link through the St Marys corridor. The St Marys rail line has been the subject of criticism, as the reports show the project's costs will far outweigh its benefit. I've urged the government for several years to build the railway in south-west Sydney so it will link Liverpool, Campbelltown and Kingsford Smith Airport to the new Western Sydney airport. A land corridor is already preserved for the project and would easily and quickly connect the airport to south-west Sydney, where the people who will be working at the airport actually live. But, instead of sustainable solutions, the government and their state counterparts can't see past short-term political benefits, so, they haven't done it. It's a disturbing trend in south-west Sydney.
Austral is a suburb in the south-west growth area. Once a semirural community on Sydney's fringes, urban sprawl has inevitably caught up with Austral. What hasn't caught up are the amenities to support it. First there are public schools. Public schools are over capacity, and that is already an ongoing issue over most of New South Wales. But two schools in my electorate are more than 200 students over capacity and three further schools are more than 300 students over their capacity. A school will in the next year be building demountables on the small bit of playing surface that they have left. In the coming year, Austral will see the construction up to 17,000 new dwellings, putting the population on par with Wagga Wagga and Albury, both of which have their fair share of amenities—and rightly so. Suburbs such as Austral also deserve their fair share.
What those opposite seem not to understand or seem to disregard is that good government changes lives. Policies and decisions of good government can make all the difference. They build a strong economy and a fair society. They open the door to education, employment, good housing, proper healthcare and, more importantly, a better life for everyone. That's why Labor is committed to investing $10 billion into social and affordable housing now and into the future. The Housing Australia Future Fund will build 30,000 social and affordable houses, including 4,000 for women and children escaping domestic violence, in the first five years.
Labor is committed to investing in apprenticeships and encouraging apprentices to train for the new energy jobs of the future. Where there are incentives, there's Australian ingenuity and jobs. Australians need a government that invests in them and one that believes in its services and that it should be leading. Labor is committed to protecting Australian workers from exploitation by consulting with states and territories, unions and employers to develop laws that criminalise wage theft nationwide and end worker exploitation. We are also committed to investing in our young Australians to drive a new generation of innovators, creating sustainable and good-quality jobs for the future.
Building social and affordable housing, investing in skills and training, protecting Australian workers from exploitation, strengthening laws to prevent sexual harassment at work and investing in young Australians will strengthen our recovery and create a better Australia. These are the policies that back every Australian. Even though the recession could have been worse, it matters that the recovery could be much better. Australians deserve a good government that works for them to deliver secure jobs, has functional and efficient government services and invests in future technologies. They need a government on their side.
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (16:24): I am not supportive of the amendments, but I am supportive of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022. The last 12 months, it must be said, have been among the most testing periods, outside of war, since the Great Depression. By comparison, the GFC, the global financial crisis, shrank the world economy by 0.1 per cent, and the world economy lost 3.4 per cent in 2020 alone. And let me tell you that the damage is not over yet, because the COVID virus is raging across the world.
We should be enormously proud here in Australia of the collective performance in combating the COVID virus—of our businesses and our workers, including healthcare and aged-care workers and volunteers. I think most Australians, are admiring, if not proud, of the job the Australian government has done. It has fought on every front to protect Australians. Our economic success is all but unparalleled around the world, and that has been built on the foundations of our success in containing the virus—keeping the virus out of Australia and getting it under control when it breaks out. Really instrumental in our ability to do that, I think, was the recognition by the federal government, three weeks in front of the WHO, that we were dealing with an international pandemic and that we should shut down Australian borders while we worked out how we deal with it.
Things have changed throughout the last 12 months. There have been constantly changing circumstances, if you like, and predictions are only sometimes useful. What I think has been really useful is the establishment of the national cabinet and the government's ability, combined with the states, to change the way we're dealing with the pandemic on a weekly basis as the pandemic has changed. That's what you would expect good governments to do, and this has brought into place a structure that we have not had previously, where the state and federal leaders are meeting on a regular basis. I think that has been very important.
The government recognised early the importance of, and possible problems with, international supply lines on essential articles, particularly in the medical field with personal protective equipment and ventilators, and it supported the ability to manufacture our own vaccines. All this was recognised early and acted upon. That led to us establishing a capacity in Australia to manufacture the AstraZeneca vaccine. It would be fair to say that there have been a few glitches with AstraZeneca. Certainly there are microscopic, or very low, chances of actually causing any illness or damage to most people, and I must say that I've had my shot and come through it very well. I had a small sore spot on my shoulder for a few days, and that's about it.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Zimmerman ): Didn't you have the flu shot?
Mr RAMSEY: No, I've had both. But imagine if, in Australia, we had a crisis like the one in India, where close to 4,500 are dying daily; in Brazil, where 900 are succumbing; or in Russia, with 360. Italy, which was the first hotspot outside China—so they've been in it right from the start—is still losing 70 people a day. The US is still losing 230 a day and Japan is losing 100. Some estimates suggest that perhaps only 30 per cent of the deaths associated with COVID-19 worldwide have been reported. It's a pandemic up there with the worst in human history. It's not yet as bad as the Spanish flu, for instance, but it's not over yet, as we can see. I urge my constituents to switch on SBS television every now and then and have a look at how this battle is going overseas. In comparison, Australia has not had a COVID death since November 2020. It's an absolutely astonishing performance.
It is on that health dividend that we've been able to build a financial and employment miracle here in Australia, a miracle that nobody predicted—not Treasury, not the Reserve Bank, not the OECD and not the IMF. The bounce-back in the Australian economy has been extraordinary. The management of the health risk has allowed for some of the smartest government expenditure we have ever witnessed in our lives. The GDP shrunk by 0.3 per cent in the March quarter, then seven per cent in the June quarter, which was originally predicted by some to be as much as a 10 to 20 per cent reduction, but the government acted quickly. The centrepiece of their actions has been the JobKeeper package which assisted businesses to keep workers on their payrolls and associated with their businesses. Workers kept getting paid even if there was no work. It was absolutely revolutionary but it worked. So 3.8 million workers were kept in place. More than a million businesses accessed the assistance.
Special packages were designed for child care, the aviation industry, the tourism industry, cinemas. Payments were made to pensioners—two lots of $750 and then another two lots of $250. Jobseekers were given solid support through the supplement and relieved of their mutual obligations for a while. Eventually the supplement expired and their base rate was raised permanently. Stimulus was provided through the HomeBuilder package. Cashflow boost payments were provided to businesses. Lessors and renters were protected. Banks provided interest holidays. Tax relief and an ability to clawback taxes previously paid were put in place. The federal government has been on everyone's side and guess what? It has worked. It has worked a treat.
We've had two quarters now, September and December, which have provided GDP growth of greater than three per cent. It has never happened before. In early June the March quarter figures are due and businesses in Australia are betting they're good. I am also of that opinion. Almost certainly the economy will be larger than it was in January 2020, prior to COVID-19, and certainly the unemployment figures are good. Early Treasury forecasts suggested that we could have an unemployment rate as high as 15 per cent. In the first two months of the pandemic 1.3 million Australians had been stood down or lost their jobs. Following the government's actions unemployment eventually peaked at 7.4 per cent and is now down to 5.5 per cent. As I said, nobody predicted an outcome that good. Given the extraordinary claims made by the opposition of impending doom, with the expiry of the twice extended JobKeeper, last month's unemployment figures of 5.7 down to 5.5 per cent are extraordinary. The opposition, and I said this in the chamber once before, have proved to be more Cassandra than Nostradamus. Seriously, they must feel silly. It should teach the members of the opposition to read something besides the Guardian and the Labor Party talking points.
In Grey we have seen unprecedented support. I can't tell you how proud I am to be a representative of our government in Grey—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 16:32 to 16:43
Mr RAMSEY: There's been unprecedented support of Grey, particularly but not only for roads. The Augusta Highway duplication project is to receive an extra $148 million from this year's budget to accompany the $64 million already in the pipeline and pledged from the time of the last election. This won't do the whole project—it's 200 kilometres long—but it will certainly go a substantial way and will allow for the planning to do the work between Crystal Brook and Port Pirie on the same duplication project. A total of $212 million now will be enhanced by a 20 per cent contribution from the state. I'm very pleased to be able to announce an extra $64 million for the sealing of the Strzelecki Track, which brings the commitment from the federal government to $164 million. I expect that, with the state contribution, this will go very close to completing those works. That's another very important project not just for Grey but for the whole of South Australia.
There is a further $12 million allocated for the upgrades of the main APY Lands access roads. That should bring that project close to fruition as well. There's another $5 million for extra works on Eyre Highway, and there's already over $100 million in works taking place there at the moment. There's $5 million to do a study of a bypass of Greater Adelaide. Adelaide is not in my electorate—one of the few places that seems not to be!—but I would expect that bypass to come through the southern portion of Grey on the Adelaide Plains. So there is $1 billion for roads, either under construction or in the pipeline, in Grey at the moment. There are substantial upgrades to the Eyre, Stuart, Todd, Horrocks, Barrier, Augusta and Spencer highways. They are all having significant work done on them, and they are by no means an exhaustive list of the works being undertaken in Grey. I've never in my lifetime seen this kind of federal contribution to a seat like Grey, and it is greatly appreciated.
Councils didn't miss out either. There's a continuation of the special local road component for South Australian councils. It is a fund that has been in place most of the time since 2002—it lapsed for a couple of years. It recognises a flaw in the formula that divides the financial assistance grants for councils when they apply for local roads, so I was very pleased, along with the member for Barker, to lobby for and achieve that outcome. There's another $250 million for another round of the Building Better Regions Fund. This fund has been an absolute star in the electorate of Grey and, I think it would be fair to say, right across regional Australia. We've seen some great projects get off the ground, things that could never have been done without the support of the federal government. There are a couple underway at the moment, and another round will be announced soon. I think it's gratifying for those of us who represent regional Australia to see that that fund is being continued.
Already in Grey we've had 564 apprentices start under the Boosting Apprenticeship Commencements scheme. That's good news, and it's particularly good news that the scheme is being expanded by another 70 per cent. I'm expecting another 300 or 400 apprentices to get a start in Grey, and certainly we could do with those skills. There's another $84 million to the Regional Connectivity Program, which recently announced the first round of funding in the electorate of Grey. There was a fantastic upgrade of the link between Hawker and Leigh Creek. The upgrade of that link will allow Telstra to provide more mobile phone services in areas that have been too difficult to service before. And there's an upgrade for the Wudinna township. It's somewhere that I always thought should have been on either a wireless network or fibre to the node, but it has been serviced by satellite because of backhaul difficulties that existed around the township, or its location.
In general terms, Grey, like every other electorate, will benefit from the $17 billion boost in aged care, a response to the findings of the royal commission. That is an enormous boost, but it should be noted that real growth in aged-care funding has increased by 50 per cent—from $14.2 billion to $24.3 billion—between the time we came to government, in 2013, and the current year. Those who want to throw stones should contemplate that figure. In that period of time the increase in the population of those aged over 65 was 23 per cent. So there has been a very real increase in the amount of money going on aged care, but there's more to do, and we accept that. Home-care packages have almost doubled in the time we've been in government, and there are more to come. As demand grows, we have responded. We've taken the steps, year after year after year, to increase the in-home aged-care packages and support the residential aged-care sector, and this budget takes us to unprecedented levels.
There is a $1.7 billion package to support women's health and wellbeing, to provide more assistance to women fleeing domestic violence and to provide a pathway for women to increase their superannuation savings. Women in Grey, like those everywhere else, will benefit from that package.
There is another $1.7 billion going to the childcare sector, reducing pressure on families and bringing more women back into the tightening labour market. This is a very important point. With no immigrants coming into Australia at the moment, we are going to have to mobilise our entire workforce to meet the demands of our economy in the near term, so women are desperately needed.
The NDIS has received significantly more funding, and there is very significant extra support for mental health, including extra headspace units. I already have a number of headspace units in my electorate—it's geographically vast—and I will certainly be working to ensure one of these is situated at Port Pirie, which is more than a hundred kilometres from any other service of that type. Around 14,000 or 15,000 people live in that area, and I think it will be ideal. I hope we can land it.
There are, of course, the tax cuts—the further extension of the accelerated tax write-offs—which are stimulating more jobs and building a bigger economy. By and large, my electorate has welcomed this budget. I'm struggling to remember a negative call, it must be said, Mr Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the government. I'm certainly looking forward to getting on with the job.
Mr DAVID SMITH (Bean) (16:50): The Labor Party won't be opposing the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022 and the related bills, but we do wish to highlight areas where this budget does not meet our national need or that of my electorate of Bean. I know the Prime Minister recently quoted from Talking Heads, in a moment almost as weird as the former prime minister John Howard professing a love for Bob Dylan—the music, not the lyrics. This government really is the Phil Collins of governments; it has an invisible touch. It doesn't hold a hose, it doesn't hold a syringe and it can't build quarantine facilities. It can let close to $100 billion walk out the door in this budget without addressing systemic issues with aged care and early childhood education. It's best work, like JobKeeper, is cover versions with a limited shelf life.
It is a budget that is part political fix—covering up the cracks of eight years of neglect and eight years of cuts, and designed to get this tired government to an election. It is part missed opportunity, with $100 billion spent with little reform, little wage growth or productivity growth to go with it and no vision or plan to drive such productivity. And it's part generational irresponsibility—loading up future generations with a debt burden that doesn't transform our energy network, build our national infrastructure, invest in our universities and world-leading research, or drive investment in climate action and well-paid skilled jobs. And it's part wrong priorities—a lack of priority towards addressing affordable housing, long-term underemployment, and job uncertainty, and even the most basic requirement to invest in our national culture and technology institutions. We weren't left with a plan or a vision to build a better Bean community or, indeed, to build a more prosperous nation. We were left with an invisible touch.
Indeed, the government itself seems reluctant—even embarrassed—to get out there and sell this budget. It's like they know already to disbelieve the litany of announcements after the experience of JobMaker last year. They even forgot to rattle their jewellery on budget night. You could feel the disbelief coming in the air that night and it was clearly not a moment that they had been waiting for all their life. Perhaps I'm a touch harsh. I promise not to quote from 'Sussudio'. Sure, there have been a couple of valid and genuine attempts to sell these bills in the chamber but none have dealt with that fairytale on wages growth that the government has been running in their budget predictions now for the last eight years. Year after year, the budget predictions on wages growth have been wrong and never in the favour of workers and working families. This budget makes it pretty clear that Australians won't be expecting wages growth; in fact, they'll be going backwards over the forward estimates while the cost of living increases. Those in Bean have had little to no increase in take-home pay now for a long time. Indeed, over eight long years of coalition rule, real wages have grown at less than one per cent per year. We shouldn't be surprised by this, as former finance minister Mathias Cormann admitted in 2019 that low wages growth is a design feature of coalition economic policy, and it is clear that this remains the case. None of the funding for aged care or child care is linked to the provision of ongoing higher-pay outcomes for the low-paid workers across these critical sectors or addressing the workforce gaps. There are limited retention payments to a small part of the aged-care workforce, but that doesn't substitute for appropriate pay increases across the sector.
Where the government could lead by example with their own workforce, the outcomes have been consistently low across government service. Those in the Public Service know this all too well. We have seen protracted bargaining, little progress on real wage growth and a focus on the big four consultancies and labour hire firms over the in-house policy and program capability of the Public Service. The budget papers themselves 'bell the cat' on wage growth. For what they're worth, the major economic parameters say that, for the 2020-21 financial year, the consumer price index will be up 3.5 per cent while, comparatively, the wage price index will rise by a mere 1.25 per cent. That's a wage cut for many workers across our economy, and this trend is set to continue until the lofty distant period of 2024-25, when we might finally see wage growth at a mere 0.5 per cent larger than CPI.
However, if we cast our mind back to the Treasurer's opening line of the 2019 budget, words that aged like the finest home brand milk, 'The economy is back in the black,' we find how reliable this government is with economic projections and estimates. The reality is that you can't trust the government on wages. They are the most underwhelming of barbecues, all sizzle and no sausage. If the government wanted to do something for wages, we would have seen initiatives across the board.
Where could they have started? They could have started with our own staff. Unfortunately, that is a group that knows firsthand the reality of a policy to limit wage growth and provide conditions that improve work culture—or try to. Bargaining representatives have worked in good faith to attempt to deliver a fair enterprise agreement for our staff over the last 18 months. Following the defeat of the government's last agreement offer, the first 'no' vote since 2003, delegates on all sides returned to the bargaining table to try and find a way forward. They gave clear advice back to the government on what the sticking points were, but, unsurprisingly, the government took little notice of that feedback and put up an enterprise agreement that has few significant changes from what was offered in December. Indeed, it's likely to have a lower wage outcome.
Too many government members praise their staff to camera, yet won't support a better deal on wages and conditions. The government's offer to be voted on next week is pretty much the same meal ticket, with a couple of peas on the side. In a clear indictment of the government's proposed EA, there were few employee representatives from the bargaining committee that were willing for the new offer to even go to a vote. If any member of this chamber takes the time to read what has been put to staff, they will see that it fails to offer a salary adjustment to all staff in years 1, 2 or 3 that, according to forecasts, keeps up with inflation. And it fails to provide any certainty about what their remuneration will be in years 2 and 3. It puts no floor in a floating wage price index.
Our staff aren't asking for significant pay increases but rather for a basic floor in their salary and a wage that roughly keeps pace with inflation and recognises their exceptional skill set. Yet this is how the government leads by example as an employer. When a government nickels and dimes their own workforce, you know what they want to do with the broader workforce. I add my voice and call on other MPs to join me in stating that our staff, regardless of their side of politics, deserve better.
More broadly, if we are interested in lifting wages, we need to also extract greater value from our existing resources, particularly our most valuable resource—our people—and to recognise these efforts through relevant support in wage cases and agreements. Labor's plan for high productivity starts with skills training. Rather than relying on recruiting overseas, we should boost the training and higher education sector, with TAFE and our universities at its centre, to accredit more Australians for jobs that will provide security and long-term careers. And we must start the repair job across our higher education sector.
At least 17,000 jobs at universities have been lost because of the decision to prevent universities getting JobKeeper and not provide appropriate support, despite the catastrophic consequence of COVID for revenue from international education. Hundreds of jobs have been lost in our region alone. We're talking about world-leading researchers, lecturers and tutors who've lost their jobs, but also many other workers—admin staff, maintenance staff, everyone who keeps a university up and running, and the small businesses that are part of the economic ecology of a healthy university campus. They've all got families and bills to pay. Those issues are set to continue as international student revenue continues to dry up and support from the government falls by a further 10 per cent in the next few years. Because of the government's decisions, universities have been forced to abolish and merge courses and cut faculties across the country in areas such as neuroscience, engineering, maths and Asian languages—areas that will be essential to Australia in coming years and decades. And there is no clear plan for this workforce beyond university, despite the critical role they are capable of playing.
Instead of building back better from COVID-19, this budget is leaving us without the skills and research we need to drive growth and productivity and to prepare for the jobs of the future. We know that universities and skills investment drive economic growth. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, international education was Australia’s fourth largest export industry, contributing almost $38 billion in export earnings to the economy every year and supporting over a quarter of a million jobs across the Australian economy. In the ACT, this is worth more than $1 billion alone. Every dollar invested in higher education research and development is linked to a $5 return to GDP. Every dollar invested in university, teaching and scholarships by government contributes $3 of additional taxation revenue.
In the 2020 budget, the government provided $1 billion to partly cover the impact of falling international student revenue. But, this year, the government cut that funding despite the fact that a consequence of the federal government mismanagement of the vaccine rollout and quarantine means we still have no idea when international students will be able to safely return. They cut that funding. Indeed, the international student model may now be broken. Emergency funding to support research also ended after a year while the universities are still clearly in the grips of crisis.
Another area of missed opportunity in the budget was child care. Not only was the opportunity to fundamentally and permanently reform child care missed but the approach to only provide increased subsidies for families with more than one child in the system has created confusion for families as to whether the reforms will leave them better off at all. As a result, hundreds of thousands of Australian families will miss out.
By contrast, Labor's plan would help more than 90 per cent of families in this country as well as provide support for out-of-school-hours care and vacation care, areas that won't benefit from the Morrison government's changes. Our plan doesn't wait until you have a second or third child in care for you to get any benefit. Unlike the government's policy, our plan helps every child get more support and access to early education. We note that we need structural reform to help people get into the workforce, and we know that we need children to access quality early education. Both measures drive participation, productivity and long-term national prosperity.
Unsurprisingly the government did not address housing affordability or homelessness in any meaningful way. Instead, they have introduced further measures that will push housing prices higher. Housing affordability and access to social housing are twin policy challenges here in the ACT, and leadership on this policy area is needed. Labor's policy will also create jobs and, at its core, transform lives. Across the nation, this initiative will build homes for women and children fleeing domestic and family violence and older women on low incomes who are at risk of homelessness. It will also provide accommodation for veterans experiencing or at risk of homelessness. We know that one in 10 homeless Australians are veterans. Importantly, we'll provide much needed funding for the repair, maintenance and improvement of housing in remote Indigenous communities. As Denita Wawn, the CEO of Master Builders Australia, said:
Last year when the country was in the grip of the pandemic and the economy was locked down, Master Builders in conjunction with the CFMEU, called for a $10 billion social housing stimulus fund …
The Opposition Leader and the Shadow Minister for Housing and Homelessness have listened. We applaud the Opposition's $10 billion social and affordable housing fund.
I should note that the budget does have some limited infrastructure spending in Canberra, most of it being reheated announcements. But, again, this government won't properly invest in institutions like the National Archives of Australia, despite numerous government reviews. Indeed, the National Archives of Australia is being forced into crowdfunding to do its essential work.
We're not going to hold up this appropriations bill, but we should see it not just in light of the holes in the budget that was handed down two weeks ago but in the context of those eight years of missed opportunities, mismanagement and political fixes and the failures in this last 18 months on quarantine and now the vaccination rollout. It's enough of the invisible touch.
Ms LIU (Chisholm) (17:04): I came to Australia when I was just a young, bright-eyed student. I had hopes and dreams, but, beyond that, I didn't have much else. Over time, I built up a family, a career, and a fulfilling life. For me, this encapsulates the Australian dream—the idea that hard work yields results.
I know that so many Australians are hardworking people. I've worked alongside countless men and women who have toiled away so that they can reach their dreams too. The desire is there, but it's important that the jobs are there to match. High unemployment is a wicked trap that Australia, like the rest of the world, needs to take care not to fall into. In the wake of the pandemic, it's imperative that our government ensures that Australia's employment market is full of opportunities for those who work hard.
The latest budget makes serious tracks towards investing in the jobs of today and the jobs of tomorrow. This budget recognises this importance of creating jobs and the role that has in rebuilding the economy. Over the early days of the pandemic, Australians were concerned and terrified over the thought that they would lose their jobs, that they wouldn't be able to put food on the table for their families and provide for those they loved. Over the last year, the Morrison government has put jobs on the priority list for Australia. We listened and we responded to the concerns. Back in August last year I saw the unemployment rate skyrocket to 9.2 per cent. Today, the unemployment rate has been reduced to 5.5 per cent. Other countries have not been so fortunate.
Creating jobs for Australians is key to securing our economic recovery. Part of this process is giving Australians the skills and training they need to get a job today and beyond. The Morrison government's commitment to this idea is through record investment in skills and training. In this budget our government has doubled our commitment to the JobTrainer Fund. We are supporting a total of more than 450,000 new training places to upskill jobseekers and young people.
Our government recognises the valuable role our tradespeople play in our communities. They are vital in the function of our society. Therefore, we are building on the 100,000 new apprentices we have already helped into a job in the first stage of the JobTrainer program. Now, what does that mean? It means that the Morrison government will create 170,000 new apprenticeships and traineeships with an investment of $2.7 billion.
Our government wants to see those who exist in marginal positions in Australia given the opportunities they deserve. We focus on helping more women break into non-traditional trades, with training support for 5,000 places. We are supporting more STEM scholarships for women, in partnership with industry. We will provide 2,700 places in Indigenous girls academies to help them finish school and enter the workforce. Importantly for those who find themselves without work, the government has strengthened the safety net, increasing the JobSeeker payment while enhancing mutual obligations.
We are a government that believes in the power of choice. We want Australians to be able to choose what they believe is best for them and we want to empower them in their decisions. We recognise that, for many Australians, owning a home is important. We want to give Australians the choice and power to afford their own home. That's why the Morrison government has rolled out a number of programs to assist hardworking Australians with achieving their dream. Our government has expanded the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme to include an additional 10,000 guarantees with homebuyers offering as little as a five per cent deposit. We are increasing the First Home Super Saver Scheme from $30,000 to $50,000 for voluntary contributions that can be released for a first home.
Additionally, we have created jobs in the construction industry while giving home builders a hand under the HomeBuilder policy. The results speak for themselves. We have the highest level of first homebuyers in a decade, with more than 155,000 in the year to March 2021. Our carefully devised policy is having real and positive impacts on Australians. I am beyond happy that our government is having such a good and tangible impact on our great country. Giving Australians the chance to afford their own homes means giving them more incentives to work. For young families this dream can be difficult to achieve. Some families may not have the support network to take care of their child while they are out working. Subsequently, this can take one parent out of work to look after their child, making it that much harder for them to save for the things that matter. As a mother, I understand these difficulties. I also understand how this issue tends to disproportionately affect women, reducing the rate of workforce participation for women and subsequently their economic security. This is an issue that the Morrison government cares deeply about.
To drive women's workforce participation and ease the burden on young families we are making a further and targeted $1.7 billion investment into child care, greatly increasing the affordability for low and middle income families. Beyond women's economic security, their safety is just as important. While I'm out in my community visiting organisations that work with women who have been victims of domestic violence, I am constantly reminded that there is so much more work to do in this space. I understand that as a government we have a responsibility to ensure all Australians are safe, especially women. The Prime Minister and Treasurer understand this too. That is why I'm so proud to see $1.1 billion delivered to help ensure women's safety in our community. We will be investing in more emergency accommodation for women when they need our help the most and more legal assistance to make sure women are supported in the long-term. We are making sure that there are more counsellors available to women. We are making sure that women have access to more financial support. Women who are escaping abusive relationships need support on so many levels, but the tangible and immediate way we can help is to make sure that they have the financial tools to escape violent relationships. A coalition government will always ensure that those Australians who need our help will get it.
When I was running to become the member for Chisholm I made a commitment to deliver a headspace facility in Chisholm. I made this commitment after consulting widely with my community, especially the Monash Youth Committee. I listened to my community and I acted. I was overjoyed to visit the Syndal Headspace with the Treasurer recently and proud to show him the good work that the facility has started doing. I look forward to their official opening later in the year. I don't need to remind any member of how tough this year has been on the mental health of Australians. This government is listening and responding. The 2021-22 budget is guaranteeing this essential service by investing $2.3 billion in the National Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Plan. This facility could not come at a better time and it is so valuable to the Waverley area. I will always listen to my community and deliver on genuine need. If you need the help of headspace Syndal, you can visit them at 265 Blackburn Road in Mount Waverley.
I visit aged-care facilities in my electorate all the time. I have over 65 of them in my electorate of Chisholm. I love sitting down with residents and listening to their stories. Their shared wisdom is so important to me. When I come to this place, I always advocate for the needs of older Australians. Committing a further $17.7 billion to our aged-care system is the right thing to do. When I head back to Melbourne, I can look my constituents in the eye and tell them we are doing the right thing by older Australians. While we are ensuring there are higher payments for residential care, this government will ensure that older Australians wishing to stay at home are also supported. We have added another 80,000 new home-care packages. This brings our total commitment to 275,000 home-care packages. We are looking into the future as well. By committing to 33,000 new training places for personal carers, we are making sure we have the right staff well into the future. My regional colleagues will be pleased to know that we are upgrading care in regional areas as well. The aged-care sector does amazing work, but this government has seen a need for stronger regulation which will ensure that good operators are protected and able to continue to do the good work that they do.
I got into politics because I wanted to bring my community together. I want to bring Chisholm together. It is well known that my electorate of Chisholm has a large migrant population that wants to call Australia home. There is a rich community of local clubs and societies in Chisholm for new migrants to get involved with. One of those clubs is the Bennettswood Bowling Club. I was thrilled to be involved in their new members open day, and it is brilliant to see so many new faces from a diverse background give lawn bowls a go. For many of them, it was their first time holding a ball and experiencing lawn bowls. The coalition will always back these local organisations that add so much to our community. Over $26 million will be spent under the Stronger Communities program in the 2021-22 budget.
This budget is comprehensive, considered and exactly what Australia needs at this exact point in time. It drives the needs of all Australians and ensures that everyone is given opportunities. This budget makes me proud to be a Liberal woman in the Morrison government, looking out for the interests of all Australians.
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (17:19): You'd think that with $100 billion of spending and $1 trillion of debt there would be an embarrassment of riches in this budget for my electorate, but that isn't the case. Some of it might be secret spending, saved up for those magic election announcements coming out of a $10 billion slush fund. But let's look at a couple of the key areas that I know my community expects this government to deliver on and where this government has failed. The spend falls well short of not just what people expected but what the people of the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury deserve.
I'm going to start with child care. It is always flattering to see a government take large chunks of a policy that we've developed in opposition and present it as their own. So, yes, we're very flattered that that occurred. However, you really can't compare the two policies. One policy supports a very small number of families. Our policy would make a difference to 97 per cent of families with young children. So, to start with, you're not comparing apples with apples. So what's different about the policies? It can be very easy to go, 'It sounds the same,' so I want to spell it out. The fact is that Labor's plan helps 97 per cent of families in this country and in the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury who currently face a real challenge with accessing child care and affording it. Of course, it is not just child care; it is early education. We know how important it is to have early education. Quite frankly, as a country it saves us money further down the track the better our early education is. So Labor's plan has a long-term vision that actually provides the structural reform that we need to help people have quality early education for their children and get back into the workforce. Labor's plan doesn't make you wait until you have your second or third child before any savings or benefits kick in. Labor's plan helps every single child get a quality early education and get access to something that they might otherwise miss out on.
I also want to address a myth that the Liberal Party has been peddling, and that myth is that Labor's plan doesn't give as much to low- and middle-income people. Let's be really clear: for every family with one child, which is 75 per cent or three-quarters of families in early education, our plan helps every single one of those families up to a combined family income of $530,000 a year. In addition to that, if you have two children in early education and care, you're better off under our plan. So it has been very disappointing to see that. If someone is going to take your plan, couldn't they at least take all of it? Our plan was really well thought through and contributes to quality early education and an equity of access for people to be able to have their kids looked after in quality care. That's the disappointment about the childcare policy. It's failing to really deliver on reducing the cost of early education for most families.
The second area that there were big expectations and a big build up for was aged care. Of course, we've had a royal commission. After eight years of neglect, people expected and in fact deserved to see some really good commitments here. But the government have failed to take much of the advice of the royal commission and the other 21 reports that they've received. Let's look at a few key areas that were covered in this budget. Nothing in aged care will change without reform to the workforce. There's nothing in this budget to bring about reform for the aged-care workforce. There's nothing to improve the wages for overstretched and undervalued aged-care workers. I speak with them a lot. My father is in aged care. They are really good people. They do a job that I would not like to do. They look after my dad. They give him bright moments in his day. But they know they don't have enough time to spend with him in the way that they would like to and the way that he deserves. So what this government has done is shirk the key responsibility, and that was the key recommendation to increase the mandatory care minutes in residential aged care. I'm going to spell that out so people can hear what was recommended.
The royal commission had two phases in the rollout of mandatory care time. From July next year, the royal commission said there should be a minimum care time of 200 minutes, 40 minutes of which needs to be from a registered nurse. That's per day. A registered nurse must be on site for a minimum of 16 hours during the morning and afternoon. Then there was a second phase where it ramped up even further, and there would be a registered nurse on site 24/7. So what has the government done? They've accepted this recommendation, but all they are funding is phase 1, and phase 1 won't come in from the middle of next year. It won't be mandatory until October 2023. Quite frankly, there are a lot of people in aged care who may not get to enjoy the benefits of this very small improvement. I think that's disgraceful. This is a time when there was a real hope that the government would seriously address such an important issue, and this budget fails.
Also in the funding—and this is what the government will tell you—there's extra money for better food. There is. The recommendations of the royal commission were for a $10 per resident per day increase to the providers to improve the quality of food, in terms of the nutritional value. It's a total cost of $3.2 billion The royal commission was quite specific on what the accountability needed to be for this additional funding. Without accountability, it's a gift to the providers. The accountability needed to include that it would be spent on raw food, preprocessed food, bought-in food, and kitchen staff with costs worked out across the average number of residents. That would all be accountability. But, in fact, all the government has asked providers to do is to let them know that they'll give an undertaking to report to the government on expenditure on food on a quarterly basis, and that's it. That's the only benchmark you have to meet. These are fundamental things that ensure the health and the quality of life for elderly people in aged care where their families have made a big decision to say, 'We can't look after them in their home, but we'd love them to feel at home in the facility that they're in.'
Let's talk about those who do want to stay in their home. One of the other big gaps is the home-care package waitlist of 100,000. I've got a constituent right now who knows that her mother requires a higher level of care but has been told, 'If you apply for more care, you'll just get pushed further down the waiting list,' because this government has not addressed the needs of people on the home-care waiting list. The recommendation from the royal commission is really, really clear: immediately increase the home-care packages available and allocate a package to all people on the waiting list who do not yet have a package or do not yet have a package at the level that they have been approved for. That was to be done by 31 December this year. What has the government funded? They've accepted the recommendation in principle but will only release 80,000 additional home-care packages over two years up until 2023. It's not enough packages and it's delaying even further and, honestly, making people wait longer. Again, we know some people will not live to get the benefit of these packages. Those are some of the giant flaws in the aged-care funding that's been provided by the government in this budget, and there are many others.
I want to move on to infrastructure. There was nothing in this budget for my community to bring forward funding for the construction of the North Richmond Bridge. Depending on who you listen to, the Morrison government calls it a third crossing, whereas the New South Wales RMS, who is actually building it, calls it a duplication, so I think we know where the spin is there. The planning of this duplication goes back to 2010 when the first federal funds flowed to the New South Wales government to start the exploration of what could be done to alleviate the appalling traffic conditions. We're now 11 years on from that and we still don't have anything. We don't have a plan; there is no plan. We don't know where this bridge is going to go, what it's going to look like or how flood resilient it's going to be—and, remember, this is the duplication of a bridge that went under really fast only nine weeks ago.
What this has shown me is that, when I made a commitment in 2010, the Gillard government delivered on that commitment, even though I didn't win the election. They delivered on every commitment I made. There was no underspending in Macquarie, because every commitment was met—every single one of them. The big difference is that this government is very good at making the big promises. You can give them that. They're great at the spin and they're great at the marketing, but there is no delivery, and we're seeing already. There is no delivery on this bridge.
We should put this into context. It isn't just in Macquarie where there's no delivery. The chance of us seeing these budget infrastructure announcements being delivered on is so slim. The Morrison government averages an infrastructure underspend every year of $1.2 billion, and in the last financial year it underspent by $1.7 billion, so it's hard to take seriously any of the promises that are made. Of course, the one in Macquarie is $2 billion for the Great Western Highway. That is for roadworks that the Medlow Bath community don't even want. They want a tunnel, yet that's not what they're getting funding for. So I think we can pretty quickly say that there's not a lot in the infrastructure spend.
It's been eight long years of promises not met—things promised and not delivered. We are still waiting for a headspace in Macquarie. There's been this promise that some money for extra headspaces might be there. We must be one of the communities at the top of the list of communities needing a headspace, yet there's still nothing from this government about that. My community will continue fighting for that. But not only has there been a lack of meeting promises; there's been record low wage growth. Things are tight. We've had natural disasters that make thing even tighter. And what's the promise in this budget? The promise in this budget is that wages will go backwards over the next few years. It's not just that they won't grow; real wages will actually go backwards. That's the thanks that people are getting.
What they're not getting in this budget is any commitment to improve or fast-track the vaccination rollout. There is nothing around that, nothing to make people safer there and nothing to allow more Australians to come home because we have an effect quarantine program. I have one family in my community hoping to get their three-year-old home from India. Through a very tragic set of circumstances, including their business catching on fire, they felt the only thing they could do was allow the child's grandmother, who happened to be out here, to take this child home. But that was more than a year ago, and they've not been able to get permission to get their son back. A decent quarantine system would alleviate the anguish that families are going through. There are families who haven't seen their children. In fact, some of the kids are saying, 'Australia has abandoned us.' They're working overseas or they've had secure work that has now gone. They honestly feel betrayed by this government and betrayed by Australia.
I'm not the only one in this place who has spent years of her life living overseas. I've spent four years living overseas during different periods of my life and I've never felt that I was locked out of my country. I've never questioned that, if I needed to be home, I'd be allowed to come home. But that's what we're doing. That is a first, and this budget does nothing to give people any reassurance that they would be welcomed home. I'm so disappointed by that. I'm beyond angry. I'm at that point of saying that I'm also disbelieving that that could be the case. While there'll be a lot of talk and a lot of bluster about this budget, I think it's just a disappointing budget, and I know my community is going to be feeling that disappointment.
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (17:34): Let's cast our minds back to the beginning of 2020. The idea that over the next 15 months Australia would go through its first pandemic in a century, have its first recession in decades and close its domestic borders for the first time since Federation would have been unimaginable. Then again, in the middle of last year we would have been surprised to know how far we have come by now. Back then, most of the east coast was approaching a second deadly wave of COVID, the economic forecasts were grim, unemployment was at record highs, and the imminent recession threatened to be long and deep. It is in this context that we have all rejoiced at the latest budget—well, maybe not all; there are some who are misinformed. It shows that Australia has weathered the storm of the recession and grown back stronger and faster than even the greatest optimists could have hoped. Australia is the only country in the OECD to have more people in employment now than it had before the pandemic. The recession is a distant memory. Walking around Bennelong, it can be tough to remember that we were ever locked down, with crowds in shopping centres and sportsgrounds more or less back to what was our normal.
While we bask in the glow of our miraculous recovery, it is important to remember how we got here. Bennelong was one of the first places in Australia to have live cases. False rumours in the Chinese community that COVID-19 was already circulating around Eastwood were leaving a huge dent in local confidence. I visited one of our many Chinese restaurants at the time of lunar new year. Rather than fighting for a table, we found that the restaurant, at this the busiest time of the year, was empty apart from us. This is a microcosm of what was happening across Bennelong and, indeed, Australia. Businesses shut up shop, people were laid off, social activities ceased and the motions of our community seemed to come to a steady stop. There was fear, uncertainty and pain in homes and businesses everywhere. The government has to be commended for the incredible and rapid stimulus that sped out to wallets across Australia. JobSeeker, JobKeeper, HomeBuilder and other noun and verb combinations were all rolled out to help communities caught in suspended animation. Through these schemes, families and businesses weathered the storm, and, when the waves of COVID passed, we were all in a good place to get back to work and society.
This year's budget is designed to secure our recovery and continue to support the areas of our economy and community that still need help. We can't take our foot off the accelerator until we have arrived at our destination. This is a strong budget which has enormous benefits for my community of Bennelong. It is worth us considering the tremendous impact this budget will have across a variety of sectors. One of the most substantial reforms the budget introduces is welcome tax relief across the board. Around 71,100 taxpayers in Bennelong will benefit from tax relief of up to $2,745 this year. This is as a result of the Morrison government's decision to extend the low- and middle-income tax offset to 2021-22 and to bring forward stage 2 of the government's tax relief plan. The government's tax plan has already benefited 86,600 people in Bennelong. For families and workers who have struggled to make ends meet during COVID, this boost in income will be a huge benefit.
In addition, the government's new JobTrainer Fund will support 500,000 new places to upskill jobseekers and young people. This includes more than 1,450 apprenticeships in Bennelong. Having seen how businesses in Bennelong have bounced back from last year's COVID recession, I am sure that this new funding to support upskilling will only further benefit our economic recovery.
In addition to financial benefits for taxpayers, this budget provides huge opportunities for businesses, both large and small, to retain more of their earnings and invest them in their businesses. More than 23,000 businesses in Bennelong are now able to write off the full value of any eligible asset they purchase. In addition, roughly 9,800 businesses in my community will be able to use the extended loss carry-back measure to keep their cash flows working smoothly. For many businesses, this last year has been very challenging, to say the least. The government understands the pressure that businesses face, and that is why the policies that have been announced are targeted at helping smaller to medium businesses bounce back and return to strong growth.
Another area which deservedly received great attention in the recent budget is aged care. The government will be investing an extra $17.7 billion in aged care, responding to the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, and establishing a once-in-a-generation reform for senior Australians. This budget delivered a record investment in aged care to help the 24,220 senior Australians living in Bennelong. This investment will deliver more home-care places and more funding for residential aged care and increases the amount of time that residents are cared for, while strengthening regulators to monitor and enforce the standards of care. I have seen firsthand the difference high-quality aged-care living can make to the lives of older citizens. We're fortunate to have so many fantastic aged-care facilities in the Bennelong electorate. I have enjoyed my many visits over the last decade as an MP.
Bennelong is Australia's capital of innovation, and it was fantastic to see our local innovative sector at the heart of the budget. Indeed, when describing the heights of Australian innovation, the Treasurer listed wi-fi and Cochlear—one invented and one now based in Macquarie Park. We're the home of Australia's medical industry, and this budget holds great promise for the companies of 'Pill Hill'. The COVID-19 pandemic has shown the great strength of Australia's medical and biotech industries. In recognition of the need to foster local innovation, the 2020-21 budget papers unveiled plans for a patent box policy. The government has promised $206 million to effectively halve the concessional tax rate for Australian developed and patented medical and biotech innovations, to 17 per cent compared to the 30 per cent standard company tax rate for large companies. These figures are encouraging and will be of an enormous practical benefit to many companies based in Bennelong. In addition, we hope to see the patent box drawing out more local innovation in the Bennelong area, securing Australia's economic recovery through fostering research, development and commercialisation of new Australian technologies.
As in every budget, there has been a slate of new drug listings, many of which are from local companies and all of which will benefit local residents. One of the happiest announcements is that of the product Emgality, made by the local company Eli Lilly. Emgality treats migraines and will go from costing $1,000 a month down to under $50 and will be available for thousands of Australians. Across Australia, there are nearly five million people who suffer from migraines, and more women than men suffer from them. This announcement will bring relief to thousands, and we are so grateful to the government for listing this and also to Eli Lilly and all of the numerous groups that have been lobbying for this for so many years.
As we have learnt in the last 12 months, investing in health and wellbeing pays enormous dividends. It's very encouraging to see that the government has made a strong and deliberate effort to upgrading several different aspects of our health infrastructure, including $1.9 billion on the medium- to long-term vaccine strategy designed to give Australia its own mRNA vaccine production capacity. Moreover, the government has made a substantial commitment to women's health. The budget provides $100 million for improving cervical and breast cancer screening programs. It has extended free mammogram services to all women in Australia, and it has assigned $47 million towards depression services for pregnant women and new mothers.
Additionally, the government's investment in child care and preschool has seen an expansion worth $1.7 billion as compared to the current budget. From next year, eligible families with two or more children in day care will see rebates of up to 95 per cent, making more than 250,000 Australian families better off by an average of $2,200 a year. The new policy will be directly and tangibly a benefit to over 1,400 families in the Bennelong area. Further, not only does the increased funding make child care more affordable and accessible for local families; the roll-on benefits will be felt elsewhere across the electorate, with the policy set to encourage greater workforce participation and generate jobs in the childcare industry in this time of economic recovery.
On top of the investment for hardworking Australians, this budget has also got important provisions for providing infrastructure in our local communities: $3.8 billion is being committed in New South Wales for projects that will ease congestion, connect communities and improve road safety. They will support the economic recovery in the short term and boost productivity in the long term. I've been fortunate in recent months to open a number of local infrastructure projects in my electorate which have been announced in previous budgets and which only now are coming to fruition. Carlingford Ovals has new lights, better drainage and is the first step towards the vision of a number of soccer and cricket grounds linked by lockers and catering facilities. It was great to open this recently with Rohan from the Roselea Football Club, and I look forward to seeing this club and these facilities.
Another I opened recently is new Scouts boatshed at Meadowbank Wharf, which has been needed for many years. The old boatshed was full, old and threatening to fall into the Parramatta River. The new one emerged over the course of 2020 and will be a fantastic asset for Scout groups across the electorate and the Meadowbank community. Congratulations to Alan Cunningham and Peter Buckley, after whom the shed is now proudly named, and all the Epping Scouts, who put in so much effort to get this important project off the ground.
Before I close, there is a disappointing note: again not to see a commitment to more sustainably funded infrastructure and a broader vision for Australia's settlement; I've spoken too often in this House about the need for high-speed rail linking our east coast cities, about the need to master-plan our infrastructure and open up our settlement, provide an endless supply of affordable housing, and fund it through taxing the windfall on property speculation. We have the opportunity to use the recent crisis to fundamentally change the way we fund infrastructure; stop the ad hoc, piecemeal, pork-barrelling way we have done it; and finally set out a vision for the future for this country. Once again, we have missed this opportunity.
In closing, the previous 12 months have put tremendous strain on Australia's businesses, which have had to navigate challenges: adopting COVID-safe practices, managing weaker demand and adapting to new economic landscapes. Similarly, people from all walks of life have had to deal with the pressures of a weaker job market, slower wage growth and the demands of the COVID economy. The government understands these challenges. I am proud to see that the budget recently announced by the Treasurer comprehensively addresses these difficulties that Australians are facing and puts a strong economic recovery at the heart of the budget's objectives. Australians together will come back stronger than ever.
Ms KEARNEY (Cooper) (17:48): I spent last week and the whole weekend talking to the good people of Cooper. I doorknocked, I caught up with people at shopping centres and cafes and I also had emails and phone calls, and all of them have raised with me the glaring gaps in this government's last budget. My electorate is widely representative of the broader population. It's fabulously diverse, from retired teachers, academics and knowledge economy workers to gutsy blue-collar workers who keep our manufacturing sector alive. I have high-wealth workers and individuals and small business owners, but I also have half my electorate earning the minimum wage: blue-collar workers from factories and distribution centres, in the retail sector, working machines and cutting for clothing and textile manufacturers, and repairing cars. I have proud multicultural groups from Africa, China, India, Vietnam and right across Europe, and I have a very proud First Nations community. They are hardworking and they love their community clubs and sporting clubs, and—it might surprise some in this Chamber—they vote Labor.
I am so eternally grateful for the healthy Labor vote that we have in Cooper. I do my best to represent them all, but it's not hard. It might surprise some people in this Chamber, but there are some things that are important to them all. They care about equality and respect for women, they care for the climate, they care about our elderly, they care about workers' rights and decent jobs, and they care about schools and hospitals. On just about all measures, this budget has let them down.
Now, let's go to climate. The Liberal Party's spectacular failure to tackle the climate emergency is terrifying. Lack of investment in renewables, no eye on the future. Not only will they not listen to science but they do not listen to that all-powerful, in their eyes, market that they so idolise. Labor knows that good climate policy equals good jobs. It is the way forward. Labor understands that we need to start planning now for the jobs of the future. We announced new energy apprenticeships because we want our young people to be ready to work with groundbreaking innovation. We're actually going to pay kids to study. We need people with the skills to make sure that Australia will be the renewables superpower that we want it to be.
We don't want to leave anyone behind. Labor will set communities up for the future. If we don't present a clear way forward, then action on climate change will never happen—like the appalling decision of the minister for resources, knocking back a wind farm that promised 250 jobs to the people of North Queensland and instead investing $600 million in a gas plant that will ultimately create 10 jobs and virtually never be turned on. The government's own environmental impact statement said it might be open seven days of the year. The New South Wales government has actually supported the installation of renewables and battery power to make up for the Liddell power plant closure. The federal Liberal government, on the other hand, wants a gas plant that will be a $600 million stranded asset. And there was no money for community batteries—something that people are screaming for. The technology is there, the know-how is there, the batteries are there, but where is the government's support to get such a program off the ground? Stuck in the dark, or in the dark ages. Labor will support community batteries.
While I'm talking about climate, I just want to give a big shout-out to the school climate strikers who flooded the streets all around Australia last week in their hundreds of thousands, demanding urgent action on the climate emergency. I marched in solidarity with them, with my union comrades, with Cooper constituents and with my 87-year-old mother-in-law, who cares equally about climate change. I was thinking about those kids when I moved a motion at our 2021 conference that said:
Labor takes an emergency footing in tackling climate change, adopting renewable energy at a rapid pace in order to address the existential threat of the climate emergency and to reach Australia's potential as a renewables superpower.
Getting to net zero by 2050 is a once-in-a-generation economy-wide reform, and we, Labor, are the only party up to this enormous task.
Another important thing that my electorate is very worried about is aged care. The Liberal Party announced a half-hearted response to the comprehensive royal commission. For example, they only announced stage 1 of the minutes-of-care requirement in nursing homes. They refused recommendations to put a registered nurse on every shift. You know, throwing money at providers will not fix a broken system if there's nothing there for the workforce which is crucially vital to quality care—no fix for better wages, no changes to auditing practices, no accountability for the billions of dollars of taxpayer money that goes to the sector. Labor will support reform in the aged care sector. We will support mandated minimum staffing levels and better pay for staff. We know that that is the key to quality care.
On the issue of equality, and in particular for women, again, the Liberal Party has failed to fully implement the Respect@Work recommendations. They said they had. Maybe they noted some or noted that some of them may not be implemented. It was pretty wishy-washy response all together. If you read the sneaky footnotes in their response then you really know that they're negating pretty much any strong action on that report.
For Labor women are at the centre of everything we do. They're not just an afterthought or an add-on or a political problem to fix. This government began its time in office with just one woman in a cabinet of 19. Since then it has fought tooth and nail to block any reform that would increase female political representation. Almost half of Labor Party senators and members of parliament are women, but, unfortunately, only about a quarter of coalition MPs and senators are. This means poorer policies for Australian women all around.
The last year, in the middle of a global pandemic and economic recession, the federal budget showed no meaningful measures to address the problems facing Australian women at work, in the family, or in retirement. Female Liberal members of parliament were forced to defend the budget by claiming road funding was a women's measure, because women drive on roads too. After the widespread panning of last year's budget, the Prime Minister is trying to show that he's finally learnt his lesson, but the budget is again full of half measures, backflips and old policies announced anew.
Australian women deserve real leadership, not cheap political fixes. We need a government committed to decent pay; to job security for women and to their independence in retirement; to properly funding essential services and care; and to safety at work, at home and in our communities. Real leadership means economic security and independence and safety for Australian women. This requires thoughtful investment, not photo-ops and political fixes.
For my First Nations community in Cooper and across the country there was virtually nothing to help close the gap, nothing for a referendum on a voice to parliament, no commitment to Uluru. We, in the Labor Party, are committed to justice. We are committed to the Uluru Statement from the Heart and we are committed to closing the gap.
On workers' rights there was a commitment in the budget from the government: there was a commitment to record low wages growth. That's it. That's what workers got. We know on this side of the House that workers need decent, secure jobs and that is at the heart of everything we do—jobs that pay the rent and put food on the table, jobs that mean you don't have to work three jobs just to make a living. Labor will actually criminalise wage theft.
In my electorate there is a big university, La Trobe University, and it employs thousands of people. For that sector, and for the university in my electorate, there's a big fat zero. In fact, they gave them a massive funding cut. This is on top of the devastation wrecked on the sector by COVID where we heard, on an ABC report the other night, that up to 70,000 jobs could be lost. La Trobe University has a very high proportion of university workers living in Cooper. They have lost their jobs or they've come to me saying how anxious they are that they are going to lose their job. So many small businesses and medium sized businesses in my electorate, and landlords for that matter, depend on the university for their business.
Now on to housing. The gift for the people of Australia on the issue of the high cost of housing, affordable housing, is to use up your retirement savings. That's their answer. They said, 'Don't rely on us to pull all the levers that a government can pull so that you can have a home and a decent retirement'. You don't have to choose between the two, but the government says you do—that's great. How about making housing more affordable? How about helping low-income earners rent? How about trying to house our homeless people, the biggest group of which are women over 50? Labor committed to a $10 billion housing Australia future fund with a special focus on older women. That is leadership. That is what the country needs.
Finally, I want to talk about the issue of child care, an issue that is so important to our economy and to the women of Australia who find themselves locked out of the full-time workforce because they simply can't afford child care. The Liberal government saw that this was actually a political issue. They saw that Labor was running very, very well with a decent childcare policy and they came up with another childcare policy that was half-hearted at best. It was a political fix. It was labelled a women's issue. Child care is not a women's issue. It is a social issue for all of society. We know that if we can properly fund child care the economy benefits, men benefit, all women benefit and our kids benefit. The Labor policy is so superior to the Liberal Party's policy that 86 per cent of families with children under six would be better off. This government has let the people of Cooper, of my electorate, down. It has let the country down.
Ms HAMMOND (Curtin) (18:01): I am very happy to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022 and highlight the impact that this budget will have in my electorate of Curtin. From the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic early last year, this government has understood it and dealt with it as both a health and an economic crisis. It has been and continues to be an extraordinary challenge for all around the world, testing our health systems, testing our economies and testing us individually and collectively.
At times such as these, the prime role of the government is to ensure the safety and security of the nation and its peoples and to preserve and protect their health and wellbeing. Any steps which are taken and any measures introduced by government, be they health, economic or national security measures, need to be carefully measured and they must factor in and effectively weigh up all potential risks and consequences. This risk action assessment can't simply be focused on the here and now; it must also factor in future consequences and future effects on the country and its people. While governments must govern for the here and now, they must also be stewards for the future.
By way of example, as we have seen over the past 12 months, border closures have been extremely effective in Australia at slowing the spread of the virus. But we also know that they have come at a cost. Some of these costs are comparatively easy to identify and calculate. For example, the decrease in tourism has had a huge financial impact on tourism related businesses. But there are also costs which are less easy to quantify, such as the long-term impact on our social fabric, on our wellbeing, as people have been unable to see or visit loved ones who are not resident in Australia.
This government has also understood, right from the start of the pandemic, that the assessment as to what steps to take is not a perfect science or something which should be set, fixed and forgotten. The key to responding in times like these is to take a measured and proportionate response and to retain the flexibility to change and adopt when the circumstances require. There is no hiding from the fact that our response to COVID-19 has come at a significant fiscal cost and that net debt is anticipated to grow to 40.9 per cent of GDP by June 2025. The dollars involved are enormous and, again, there is no hiding from the fact that it will impact on all of us for many years ahead. I would, however, note that this net debt to GDP will still be far less than that which is anticipated in both the UK and the USA.
As the Treasurer said in his budget speech two weeks ago, the 2021-22 budget is one that's designed to secure Australia's economic recovery. It is a budget which is focused on both the here and now and the future. A lot of money is being spent, but it is being spent in direct and targeted ways. This budget, and the economic plan which underpins it, will continue to set the right environment for the creation of more jobs, more innovation, more investment and greater confidence, all of which are needed to ensure that we continue to deliver essential services and rebuild our economy. There are too many initiatives in this budget for me to go through line by line. All of them, in fact, deserve to be highlighted. I want to mention a number of key initiatives which do impact on the people in my electorate of Curtin.
The first of these is tax relief. An estimated 10 million low- and middle-income earners in Australia will receive tax relief of up to $1,080 in the 2021-22 financial year, and there will be tax relief of up to $2,160 for dual-income families. There are over one million people in Western Australia who will benefit from this, and, in my electorate of Curtin, there are 52,400 taxpayers who will benefit. The second group of initiatives in this budget which are of particular importance to those in my electorate are those which go to incentivising businesses to invest, creating more economic activity and more jobs. During last year, over 9,000 businesses in Curtin accessed JobKeeper, and 24,000 employees were supported by this mechanism. Around 6,600 businesses benefited from the tax-free cash flow boost. Local businesses, such as the Herdsman markets, Deli Chicchi and Barchetta—all of which I visited in the last couple of weeks—used these initiatives to invest back into their businesses. This budget continues to deliver benefits to those businesses in my electorate. More than 25,000 businesses will be able to write off the full value of any eligible asset they purchase. About 12,000 businesses will be able to use the extended carry-back measure to support cash flow and confidence. Despite being seriously impacted by the pandemic and, I have to say, despite being continuously anxious about the potential for future lockdowns, the extension of these two schemes gives the businesses in my area the confidence to back themselves and their businesses for the future.
The HomeBuilder grant, as you know, Deputy Speaker Irons, has been extremely popular in Western Australia. There have been over 17,000 applications, and I would note, in this context, that the extension to the construction commencement qualifying date was a move roundly applauded by the state of Western Australia, which is suffering from a shortage of skilled labour at the moment—a fact which jeopardised the capacity of a number of builders to start work in the appropriate time frame, thereby jeopardising the grant going to the people who were relying on it. Likewise, the increase to the excise refund scheme cap from $100,000 to $350,000 is a significant initiative which will provide significant support to Australia's small distillers and brewers. I may be biased, but one of the best new distillers in Australia is located in West Leederville in my electorate. Bad Penny Distilling, run by locals Nicole and Damian Clement, uses botanicals sourced from Rottnest Island to create Rottnest Island Gin. Damian told me: 'These changes will make a profound difference to our business. It will enable us to market and promote our product more widely, invest in new equipment and infrastructure, and advance-purchase a new range of consumables. Most significantly, by helping lower our production costs, it will help lower the cost of our product to the consumer and aid us to compete more evenly with the large distillers.' As a big fan of Rottnest Island Gin, I am looking forward to the reduced prices.
The government has a long commitment to supporting medical technologies from their infancy—that initial world-changing idea—all the way through to commercialisation. We are doing this currently through the Biomedical Translation Fund and the Medical Research Future Fund, and through R&D tax incentives. The 2021-22 budget will continue to support Australian companies to keep their ideas in Australia through the patent box, which will tax income derived from Australian medical and biotech patents at a 17 per cent effective concessional corporate tax rate. Curtin is home to some of the best researchers, start-ups and medtech and biotech companies in the country. One of those is OncoRes, which is developing an intraoperative imaging technology that translates the surgeon's sense of touch, improving surgical accuracy and reducing complication rates. This will help them thrive and grow. As the CEO, Dr Katharine Giles, recently said to me, 'This measure makes it more attractive for us to grow as a business, and it's just another part of government support that is helping to create a strong anchor for us to stay in Western Australia.' Medical and biotech companies are also very enthusiastic about the government's new global talent visa and temporary activity visa, which will directly support their efforts to attract critically skilled staff to relocate to Australia.
On the topic of medical research, I want to note the significant investment this government continues to make in medical research. There will be $6.7 billion over four years, with an additional $228 million in new grants and program openings for our world-leading scientists to find cures and treatments. I want to give a particular shout-out to the Women and Infants Research Foundation in Subiaco, which is led by Professor John Newnham. They have been granted $13.7 million across four years to take the successful work that they have done to reduce preterm birth in WA to a national scale through the Australian Preterm Birth Prevention Alliance. This is literally a life-changing program, as preterm birth is the single greatest cause of death in young children and one of the major causes of lifelong disability, including cerebral palsy, blindness, deafness and behavioural and learning problems at school age.
The third measure I wish to highlight relates to our investment in skills and training to fill skills shortages and to provide Australians with the skills they need to get a job. The expanded JobTrainer fund will support 500,000 new places, upskilling jobseekers and young people. We already have 680 new apprentices in Curtin, and these new measures, with expanded wage subsidies, will lead to more opportunities for trainees and apprentices. The owner of a local training provider told me late last week that this program is, in his words, 'a real winner' and that many of his clients—from small firms to national firms, in fields as diverse as pathology, mining and infrastructure—were using this initiative, which is benefiting them and a countless number of Australians to develop new skills.
Finally, I just want to note the significant investment being made through this budget in the essential services that we rely on. Over the course of the last year, over 3.4 million telehealth services have been delivered to patients in WA. There have been over 180,000 telehealth consultations in Curtin, and these services have been continued. In the last year, over 1.5 million free or subsidised medicines have been delivered in Curtin through the PBS. This budget will see more, with the government listing more medicines to treat breast cancer, lung cancer, osteoporosis, migraine, eczema and asthma. This budget is delivering a record $17.7 billion investment in aged care. It is responding to the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety and is establishing a once-in-a-generation reform for our senior Australians. This will help the 23,000-plus senior Australians living in Curtin. There will be more home-care places, more funding for residential aged care and a strengthening of the monitoring and enforcement of standards across aged-care providers. There is a $2.3 billion investment in the National Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Plan. This is the largest mental health investment in Australia's history, and it is needed now more than ever.
By way of conclusion, COVID-19 has impacted all of our lives over the last 12 months, and it continues to do so. Through this budget, the government is continuing to ensure the safety and security of this nation and its people and to preserve and protect their health and wellbeing. It is addressing what we Australians care most about: our health and the health of our loved ones; our financial security now and in the future; and the financial security and stability of the country now and in the future. It is a budget which continues to create the settings for people to have the opportunity to fulfil their potential and to live their best lives, and to ensure those who cannot provide for themselves are supported to live in dignity.
Mr GEORGANAS (Adelaide) (18:14): Last week we saw a budget that was delivered by the government, and most Australians are looking at the budget to see how the economy will work for them and not the other way around. The same goes for the government that they have elected: they want to see how that particular government will work for them and how it will benefit them through the budget and the economy that was laid out in that budget.
We have seen that this government is continuously more concerned with self-promotion rather than the financial prosperity of all Australians and not leaving anyone behind. At a time when Australians are all doing the right thing and we've had a tough year where everyone has done the right thing—some were working from home, others had to take pay cuts and others changed their working arrangements to work less to keep businesses going—we must be doing everything we possibly can in this place to get the economy back up on its feet and also to set a legacy after the pandemic for the economy.
The Australian public, who have done the right thing, also deserve a government that does the right thing by them. Honestly, at the moment, I don't think that is happening and I don't think the Australian public have a government that's doing the right thing by them. A great example is infrastructure. It is the perfect example. In their pre-budget announcement, the government talked up $10 billion of additional infrastructure investment, but the budget papers, in effect, show a $3.3 billion cut to infrastructure over the next four years. This discrepancy that we saw pre budget and just after budget is perfectly reflected in my home state of South Australia. South Australia was promised $3.2 billion in major road project funding, and boy do we need it. But, in effect, just two-thirds of it is actually in the federal budget. When you look at the budget papers and you look at the detail, there's only two-thirds of the 3.2 that we were promised. What's more, only $130 million will be delivered this year and it's unclear where the remaining $1.1 billion will be handed over.
The government talked a great deal about specific projects in my electorate such as the north-south corridor, one of Adelaide's biggest infrastructure projects. It goes through my electorate of Adelaide. But, as everyone has confirmed since then, this is nothing but another re-announcement. It is funding from 2019. In fact, it's been announced and re-announced since Tony Abbott was the Prime Minister and whatever construction will be undertaken is unlikely to start until late 2023—and who knows when it will be completed? This comes on the back of a long string of delays, uncertainties and changed plans. The project could deliver much-needed jobs right now and infrastructure that's needed right now in the inner metropolitan area of Adelaide.
My constituents in my electorate, and all South Australians, deserve much better. As I said, this announcement has been announced in 2014, 2015, the 2016 budget, the 2017 budget, the 2018 budget, the 2019 budget and—we still go on—2020 and 2021. It is a rehash announcement. To complete the project from start to finish we need $8.9 billion, yet we only see an odd billion dollars going in over the next 10 years. So next year, I am predicting, if there is no election and the same government is in, we'll hear the announcement again and again and again. This is a great example of a government that's great on the spin, great on the announcements but very lacking on the delivery, which is the thing that counts and that changes people's lives.
I'm not sure if this government thinks Australians are that gullible, but I have news. I talk to people all the time in my electorate, and Australians, especially in my electorate, are anything but gullible. They know and they're on to it. They can see through these empty promises. I had a street corner meeting on the weekend after the budget was announced, and people had actually looked at the detail. They were coming up to me and asking about the north-south corridor and the money for it. People do look at the detail in the budget.
People are on to it, and they're especially on to empty promises like the 'once-in-a-generation' reform to aged care. That is another area that has turned out to be smoke and mirrors. The government have announced 80,000 home-care packages to clear the current waiting list. They're not going to clear the current waiting list with 80,000 home-care packages. We have over a hundred thousand people waiting for packages right now, today, and that list is growing. We then have people who have been allocated a package but haven't had it come to fruition yet, so you can add on another 10,000 to 20,000 there. That takes the actual number of people waiting for an aged-care package to about 130,000. There are 80,000 new home-care packages, and that's great, but that leaves close to 50,000 people waiting to get a home-care package so they can be looked after in their own home. That is not good enough. We need to look after these people. They are people who have worked all their lives, who've built the foundations of this nation, yet nothing seems to be happening. We plug holes in one area and a big gush opens out of another one somewhere else.
There is nothing in the government's response to address, for example, the workforce shortages in aged care. One of the major reasons that people are waiting so long for a package is that there aren't the people to deliver them. You can announce 300,000 packages, but the trained workforce to go out and deliver them isn't there. You can announce millions of packages. It sounds great and you can do some fantastic marketing and advertising with it—especially if you've got the skills the Prime Minister has through his marketing career—but the reality is: how does it affect the lives of people on the ground, those elderly people who are waiting for those packages and who need that assistance to stay in their homes? Many of them die whilst they're on the list waiting for a package, or they get weaker and frailer, which means they then have to go into an aged-care facility, something that costs the government quadruple what it would have cost to keep them at home. It is just not fair.
There is no guarantee that registered nurses will be onsite at all nursing homes 24/7, as was recommended by the royal commission. The royal commission recommended that a registered nurse be onsite 24/7. There is no guarantee of that in this announcement. And there will be no oversight of how providers spend the extra $10 per resident per day. A lot of these providers could refurbish their manager's office or fix the car park outside. It's absolutely wrong that there will be no oversight to make sure that the $3.2 billion, which comes down to $10 per resident per day, gets spent on the care of the elderly Australians who need it.
What's even worse is that there's no urgency to implementing any of these reforms, so unfortunately many of those people already living in aged-care facilities or waiting for packages will not live long enough to see if any of these reforms work. Many who want to avoid going into an aged-care facility won't be able to, because there will be no package to allow them to be looked after. Older Australians deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. From what I've seen in the budget announcements on aged care by this government, that is not happening. This government continues to let older Australians down. There are marketing ploys, like the announcement that was just made, but no delivery.
I'll give another example. The centrepiece of last year's budget was JobMaker. We all remember JobMaker. It was another great announcement and marketing opportunity for the Prime Minister, who went out spruiking it and doing interviews. It promised to create 450,000 jobs. That was the promise made at last year's budget: JobMaker will create 450,000 jobs. But they've only created 1,000 out of that program. Again, great sales and great marketing—as I said, the Prime Minister is skilled at marketing; that was his career before he came in to politics—but on the ground, where it actually affects people's lives and would make a real difference to someone getting a job through this particular program, only 1,000 jobs have been created. They sell a concept to hoodwink people, basically, with smoke and mirrors and then deliver zero.
We have one of the longest periods of stagnant and negative wages as well. It is not good for the economy when wages are stagnant or negative, yet there seems to be no urgency to deal with this. There seems to be no concern from the government. We know if wages are stagnant and everything else is going up, people have less to spend, there's less going into the economy and less circulating around the economy. That's not good for the economy; it has a flow-on effect. More and more working women are suffering under this government, especially under this government's poor workforce strategy. To top it all off, this government couldn't deliver on their own JobMaker target, the absolute centrepiece of last year's budget. You have to wonder how many of the promises of this year's budget, the 2021 budget, will go the same way. I've given a quick example of one particular announcement, and that was the aged-care announcement for the packages and the aged-care facilities.
Deputy Speaker, you might want to have a look at the government's childcare policy because that's obviously another discount policy that the government cobbled up to together in response to Labor's much superior policy announced by the member for Kingston, Amanda Rishworth, and Anthony Albanese late last year, which would abolish the cap and increase the subsidy to lower childcare costs for virtually every family. Obviously the Prime Minister got into a bit of a panic about that and thought, 'We haven't done anything on child care!' So they decided to cobble together this policy which will only help one in four of the families who would benefit from Labor's plan.
Childcare is one of the major costs facing working families. Currently it is a disincentive to many, many parents who wish to work more hours. This Liberal government has announced a policy that will not assist families, will not boost workforce participation and, again, only pays lip service to this pressing problem. Once again this government is letting Australians down, especially mums and dads who need child care. We know that getting mums and dads into the workforce and getting more hours to work increases productivity and helps the economy, which means they have more money in their pockets to spend and keep the economy going.
Another area is the environment. What about the environment? There's virtually nothing in this budget to address the problems with the EPBC Act. There's no rural energy or climate change policy. We even heard the announcement that they're going to spend over $600 million on a new gas-fired power plant. Why is that happening? Why are they spending $600 million on a new gas-fired power plant? Because the private sector refused to build it. What does that tell us? If there is no money to be made in it, of course the private sector will not invest in it. It makes no economic or energy sense; otherwise the private sector would be in there doing it. The Morrison government can't even commit to net zero emissions by 2050. On the opposition benches, on our side of the House, in Labor, we want to ensure that Australia is ready to transition to a low-carbon future and ready to transition into the jobs of the future, and that's why we plan to make electric cars more affordable and we support the rollout of community batteries.
In the few seconds that I have left: I think for too many Australians the answer to some or all of these questions will be no, from what we have heard in the budget. Many will not be delivered. Again, this is a budget that promises a lot but delivers zero. (Time expired)
Ms McBRIDE (Dobell) (18:30): They say budgets are about priorities. This afternoon schoolkids from my old primary school visited Parliament House. I asked them what mattered to them and this is what they told me. Jayden said, 'People doing the same job should be paid the same.' Eliza said, 'Women and men should be treated equally.' Jamie and Michaela both said that potholes in local roads need to be fixed. Leah said, 'We should find money to help people living overseas.' Summer said, 'All medicines should be free.' Stevie said that kids who are homeless should get the same chance at education as she does. All the kids agreed it was expensive to buy things and that, for those who had pocket money, it didn't go very far. What schoolkids in the electorate I represent on the north end of the Central Coast of New South Wales care about are things that everyone relies on. When they grow up, they should be able to find a good job locally. They should be able to buy or rent a home on the coast. They should be able to afford health care when they need it. What worries me is that this budget has let them down.
Australians felt let down when they found out the government expects real wages to fall over the next four years and has no plan to do anything about it. A government that for the last eight years hasn't supported increases in real wages and stood by while penalty rates were cut has done nothing to combat wage theft and is content to let another generation of Australian women face a gender pay gap without taking any meaningful action. As Eliza said to me this afternoon, men and women should be treated equally and that means in the workplace too. Eliza deserves better.
Older Australians should have the care they need without having to wait. Over Christmas last year, there were 1,057 of older people on the Central Coast waiting for a home-care package. Across Australia, there were 97,000 older people waiting for the care they need. The government's announced 40,000 packages this financial year and the next is, of course, welcome, but they won't clear the waiting list while more people join the end of the queue. Older Australians shouldn't have to wait for the care they so desperately need. Older people on the coast can wait 12 to 18 months for a home-care package, people like Alan. His daughter told me: 'My father is currently living with us as myself and my husband care for him. He was approved for a level 3 package seven months ago. Over the last six months, my father's needs and requirements have been increasing, placing a great deal of pressure. We contacted My Aged Care and have been informed that the package will still have a nine-month wait.' She goes on, 'This is really concerning as we're now trying to work out how we can support him appropriately.' She says, 'Both my husband and I work full time and this has created a great deal of stress and anguish.' Her father is still able to do much and they just wish for him to be able to maintain the independence he still has. That's what everyone deserves—people like Alan and the 97,000 other people like him across Australia waiting right now. They deserve to be independent. They deserve quality of life. They deserve dignity of care. Alan deserves better.
I am increasingly concerned about access to health care on the coast. You might ask: why does this matter? It's because in Australia your health and your quality of life is worse if you live outside a big city. Your life expectancy is shorter and your risk of hospital stays increases. People living outside of big cities face longer waiting times to see a GP or a specialist. The budget does nothing to fix this. The community and local GPs have described the shortage of GPs on the Central Coast as a crisis. I wrote to the health minister about their concerns and the reply from the minister's office said: 'Lake Haven and surrounding arounds of the northern Central Coast are non-DPA because they have been assessed as receiving adequate GP services for the needs of the community.' Well, Minister Hunt, this is what local GPs in my community are describing as a crisis. The shortage of GPs means many local GPs are working a 10-hour day in their practices and following up with shifts at the Bridges after-hours clinic on the grounds of Wyong hospital. If that clinic is overwhelmed, which it often is, people end up waiting in the emergency department of Wyong hospital, sometimes for up to 12 hours.
I worked at Wyong hospital for nearly 10 years. The staff there are dedicated and capable. They're doing the very best they can under enormous and growing strain, and the government doesn't recognise the problem—or, if it does, it doesn't care or isn't acting on it. In this correspondence, the minister's office said that if the situation were to change significantly, the status would be reviewed by 1 July. I'm urging the minister to act now and make the coast a priority so locals can get the care they need when they need it. It's better for them, it's better for our community and it's better for the budget.
Out-of-pocket costs are another barrier to local people getting health care. Despite a trillion dollars of debt, this problem isn't going away. Out-of-pocket costs have soared in the eight years that this government has been in office. The average out-of-pocket cost to visit a GP has increased by 29.6 per cent, while the out-of-pocket cost to visit a specialist has increased by 44.7 per cent. Costs for cancer patients needing radiotherapy have nearly tripled. The budget announcement of incentives for bulk-billing in remote areas is welcome, of course, but will do nothing for people living in the outer suburbs and the regions, where this crisis is growing. At the same time, real wages have stalled, so people are finding it harder to meet these costs. The concerns of locals were summed up in a letter from Joanne of Wyong, published in the Coast Community Chronicle this morning. It reads:
I am absolutely furious.
I've been sick for about eight weeks and because I have a cough, I’m not allowed to go into my GP's medical centre, even though I have had a negative Covid test.
I was forced by them into a telehealth appointment, the doctor even told me it was a waste of time because he couldn't examine me, and sent the pharmacy a script for some antibiotics, which he told me probably wouldn't work (and they didn't).
The medical centre advised me that there would be a $20 fee charged to my credit card as a "gap" and Medicare covered the rest.
Our family has been with the centre for several years, they only started charging a gap in April.
However, they charged me $50 … and when I contacted them I was told because I hadn't been into the actual centre for a year (yes, in a global pandemic and I was there in March 2020), that Medicare required them to charge $50 with no rebate …
Between the medical centre's charge and antibiotics, I'm $70 out of pocket and still sick.
Now I have another appointment as the doctor says I have to go into the centre and he will see me in person, ready to be charged another consultation fee for that privilege, bringing me up to $90 plus any additional medication.
By the time I see the doctor it will be four weeks since I tried to see a doctor.
Good job I'm not dying or unable to work.
This goes back to what Summer from St Cecilia's primary school told me earlier today. She said that medicines should be affordable. As Summer knows, this is just not good enough.
I'll now turn to roads and infrastructure. The government is spending a billion dollars on local roads across the country, right around Australia, but not a single cent is being spent on the northern end of the Central Coast. So I'm sorry, Jamie and Mikayla, there is no money to fix your potholes. The government must invest to clear bottlenecks like the Pacific Highway through Wyong and Bryant Drive in Tuggerah so locals can get around safely and to open up investment to boost local jobs. The government has announced spending to build better regions, but despite a rapidly growing population, there is, again, nothing for the northern end of the Central Coast. In fact, the last major roads project in our region was the M1 upgrade started by the member for Grayndler when he was minister for infrastructure.
It gets worse. When I put a question in writing to the Deputy Prime Minister last November, asking him to explain the allocation of road funding on the coast in last year's budget, which seemed skewed towards one end of the coast, his reply, which came six months later, was: 'The allocation of funds is a decision of the Australian government.' What does this say about the government's priorities on the coast? It says, 'I'm sorry, Jamie and Mikayla, there is no money to fix the potholes in your street in Tuggerawong.'
Everyone deserves a safe place to call home. This government has had eight years to fix the problems of housing affordability for renters and buyers on the coast, and it is just getting worse. It's harder to rent than ever before, it's harder to buy than ever before, and there are more people, especially women and young people, couch surfing or living in their cars. When a local family of two police officers and three kids can't get a start in the housing market, we have a problem. Vacancy rates are as low as 0.1 per cent in parts of the coast and rents have climbed by over $100 a week in just the last few months. In some cases, tenants are paying $430 a week for a small studio apartment. One of the many posts on my Facebook page on this subject was from Dana of Hamlyn Terrace. This is what she said:
We recently found ourselves seeking a rental after seven years and could not believe how competitive it was!
Two fulltime working incomes - rental mortgage history for over ten years and rejection after rejection.
She went on to say:
I couldn't believe it.
And it is tough. It is a growing problem. When two full-time workers with a rental mortgage history for over 10 years can't secure a rental, we have a problem that the government hasn't recognised or doesn't care about.
Homelessness on the coast is a growing, but often hidden, problem, as women and young people couch-surf or live in their cars. Last year, 10,000 women and children across Australia were turned away from refuges because there wasn't a bed, and the shortfall of social housing has climbed to 3,500, leaving many people waiting up to 10 years for a place to call home. To fix these problems won't be easy. It reminds me of Geoff, the social worker I worked with in Wyong hospital in the acute adult inpatient unit. He would hand someone a phone book and point them to the phone in the public mental health ward and say: 'You've got to try. You need to call. You need to find a place to stay.' What chance does someone who's been discharged from a mental health unit in a public hospital have in a competitive rental market? What chance do they have of having a roof over their head, being safe and being able to get the support that they need for their wellbeing? It is just not good enough.
Labor has a plan for housing Australians: a future fund which will change lives and create jobs. Over the first five years, it will build 30,000 new housing properties, including homes for women and children fleeing family and domestic violence and for older women aged 65 plus who are on low or fixed incomes or receiving a pension and who are at the greatest risk of homelessness. How can you rent in a competitive rental market and, at the same time, be living or getting by on an age pension? You can't. It doesn't stack up. It's just not good enough. There needs to be a plan for housing for people in communities like mine.
There really needs to be a plan for jobs. As I said earlier, people on the coast—such as the young people from my old school like Jaedyn, Aliza, Jamie, Mikayla, Leah, Summer, Stevie—deserve, when they grow up, to be able to go to Wyong TAFE or to the Ourimbah campus of the University of Newcastle or to go straight into work to be able to get the skills they need locally to be able to go into a secure job, have a good career and be able to support themselves and their families. But this government has no plan for jobs. The number of apprentices and trainees in Dobell is currently 25 per cent lower than when this government took office. So what chance do people like Jaedyn, Aliza, Jamie and Mikayla have? They deserve better. Kids on the Central Coast and kids in the regions and the outer suburbs deserve better. This government has overlooked the outer suburbs and the regions in its budget, particularly in coastal communities like mine.
I have met with local small business owners and visited manufacturers. They're punching above their weight. They're innovating, they're designing and they're building word-class products, but they need proper support. TrendPac in Berkeley Vale, a contract manufacturer specialising in personal care and home-care products, have been supplying large retailers since the 1960s, and they employ more than 220 locals. I met Larry and his team at Bioaction in Tuggerah, who have developed leading technology in wastewater management and protecting infrastructure, and they are providing skilled jobs on the coast. I recently caught up with Joel and Breah from the Marshmallow Co. in Wyong. They've built their business from the ground up with passion and hard work, and growing demand since 2020 has led them to new premises and a larger kitchen. TrendPac, Bioaction and Marshmallow Co. are capable local people who are innovating. They need better support. They need to be able to obtain capital for start-ups. They need to be able to scale up. They need to be able to face the challenges of businesses getting off the ground or expanding in regional communities. But there is nothing for them in this budget. Local manufacturers on the coast have the know-how and the ideas to compete with anybody locally, nationally and globally, but the government needs to do more to support them to scale up, to expand and to employ more locals.
As we recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, we need to be squarely focused on jobs—secure, local jobs in the outer suburbs and the regions. If you want good, secure jobs with fair pay and good conditions, you need a government which makes regional Australia and the outer suburbs in the regions a priority. If you want an Australia that makes things and supports local jobs, you need a government focused on skills and training, working in partnership with industry and with the education sector. This budget has once again left the people on the northern end of the Central Coast behind. Those young kids that I met from my old school, St Cecilia's in Wyong, care. I want to thank Jaedyn, Aliza, Jamie, Mikayla, Leah, Summer and Stevie. They know what matters. They know what the needs of our community are. The government should listen to them. They should listen to local school kids and really do better for regions like ours.
Mr ZIMMERMAN (North Sydney) (18:45): I welcome this opportunity to make a few remarks about the appropriation bills in the federal budget handed down by Treasurer Frydenberg a few weeks ago. Of course, this is a budget that is aimed at achieving two principal things. It's firstly about securing our recovery from what has been an extraordinary 12 months for all Australians and, indeed, the global community. Importantly, it's also a budget that thinks beyond that. Not only is it about securing the recovery, it is about what comes next and how we, in fact, rebuild an Australian economy and an Australian society that is even stronger than that which we entered the pandemic with.
I want to focus on some of those elements of the budget which I think are most important in that regard, particularly on securing the recovery. Obviously, the primary focus of the government continues, as it has been for the last 12 months, to protect and to restore jobs for those Australians that have been affected by the pandemic. And, of course, the budget builds on the work that we did over the last 12 months to secure that outcome. But I mention that it also focuses on the future. It is a budget that focuses on critical areas like the skills that Australia needs to meet the demands of a modern economy; like the opportunities that exist in a digital economy, which surely must be one of the areas in which Australia expands its strengths. It also focuses on that third pillar of the priorities that have been identified by the Prime Minister of making sure that Australia can capitalise on the energy transition that is underway, particularly as we head towards a net zero economy.
But before I talk about some of those things, I want to reflect on the context of this budget, because the last 12 months have been hard for Australians. They have been hard for the citizens of the world no matter where you live. It's quite extraordinary to think, particularly as a Sydneysider, about where we were just a little over 12 months ago. Those months of lockdown have left a scar and enduring memory for so many of us, as we saw the norms of our society, the norms of our economy, literally taken away from us overnight.
Of course, back in those days we wondered where we would be heading. We wondered what the impact of this pandemic would be upon us. Many of us, quite understandably, feared those daily news bulletins showing the increase of infection rates; feared what it would mean for our parents and loved ones; feared, in some cases, what it would mean for ourselves. But we also feared the economic consequences. I don't think any Australian of this generation will ever forget the sight of those queues outside Centrelink almost immediately the day after the lockdowns were implemented across Australia. They were scenes probably not seen since the generation who lived during the Great Depression. They were scenes of despair and heartbreak as people in otherwise secure employment and an otherwise secure trajectory in their lives saw that suddenly pulled from under them.
The predictions back then about the impacts of the pandemic were severe. We know that so many of our economic agencies, including Treasury, predicted that we could see unemployment rise to 15 per cent. We predicted the worst in relation to the impact that the pandemic would have on so many businesses large and small.
So we entered 2021—it's hard to believe we're almost halfway through—with a different landscape, a different environment. What has happened in Australia has truly been nothing short of miraculous but it hasn't happened by accident.
On the health front we have been an extraordinary success story and that's been the result of the combined efforts of federal and state governments, particularly working through the national cabinet. But just as importantly it's been through the success of Australians following the best health and scientific advice. Economically, we didn't see that 15 per cent unemployment reached. In fact, we saw half of that. And now today we enter an era where, in fact, as a first of all developed nations, there are more people employed in Australia today—over 70,000 more than there were before the pandemic. No other developed nation has been able to achieve that outcome.
Again, that hasn't happened by accident. It's happened through the combined actions of Australians and their governments. And it's particularly happened because of the structures that the federal government, the Morrison government, so quickly put in place when the magnitude of the pandemic caused the realisation that it would require a massive and unprecedented effort to support Australians. We have, in fact, seen over $300 billion spent over the last 12 months to try and secure the employment and the livelihoods of Australians and the businesses that employ them. That's why we are in the situation today, almost unique in the world, of being able to sit here on this continent of ours and not have to endure the pandemic that is raging around the world at levels as great as they have ever been, and not have to endure the economic consequences that are besetting so many other countries and causing such despair.
We know that we're not out of the woods. The events of this week have shown that we are not far away from more outbreaks, but we also know that, through the support of government, we can actually make sure that the type of protection that we saw last year continues. This budget does that in so many ways—be it the measures through which we have continued to provide tax support for low- and middle-income workers, or be it the support that we're providing for businesses, small and large, through things like the instant asset write-off. We are seeing it through the investment that we're making to support for today, but also, importantly, for tomorrow, the skills of Australians, the traineeships and the apprenticeships that will keep young people focused on the opportunities that Australia can provide them.
I continued to see that in my own electorate and over the last 12 months. I've seen the multitude of businesses—in fact, over 9,000—that relied on JobKeeper. I met with the business owners that said that their employees were only there because of JobKeeper. I have seen the businesses in some of our smaller industrial areas which, believe it or not, North Sydney has, that have been utilising our apprenticeship scheme. For example, a few months ago I visited a high-tech manufacturer of drones and met, in the aviation sector, some of the very skilled apprentices that were being brought on board. I have seen, last year and this, the benefits of the instant asset write-off scheme—businesses that have made the capital investment in their future. In fact, only last week I was talking to some businesses that were looking forward to taking advantage of the opportunities provided through its extension in the budget. For example, a business up the road from my office, famous in our area, Maggio's Cafe and Bakery, has just bought new dough machines to expand its operations, with the instant asset write-off providing that opportunity so that it can continue to provide significant sugar hits to the people of North Sydney in a way that has caused it to be much loved.
I have also seen the other side of the equation—that is, the heartache that the pandemic caused. I just want to pause to thank all the wonderful organisations in my electorate that supported residents in distress over the last 12 months. They are multitudinous, and I can't mention them all, but I particularly think of our local community services, like the Crows Nest Centre or Sydney Community Services, which services the Lower North Shore, or the role that many of our churches played. During the height of the pandemic, I had the great pleasure of helping find volunteers and volunteering myself for a local food bank run by the LifeSource Church in Chatswood. These are contributions that we need to capitalise on as we continue to emerge from the pandemic.
I want to touch now on three areas where I think this budget will deliver for the residents of North Sydney but also deliver for Australia. They are areas of the budget which I think are particularly relevant to my own electorate. Firstly, I do think it is so important that the government, as it has done in this budget, continues to focus on the opportunities of lowering the tax burden for Australians. What I am excited about is our commitment, brought forward last year to help as a stimulus measure, to provide real personal income tax reform. Of course, phase 3 is still a couple of years away, but that is going to be such a game changer, when we enter that era with so many Australians—in fact, I think 95 per cent of Australians—paying no more than 30c of tax in the dollar. That is a game changer for incentive, for reward for effort, and for encouraging Australians to be entrepreneurial, to use their initiative and to work harder.
I also want to focus on an area which perhaps hasn't received as much media attention as it ought, and that's the opportunities of the digital economy.
This budget contains a package of $1.2 billion to support the digital economy. It's a sweeping package which covers everything from an investment in artificial intelligence, to making sure that we have the skills, to renewing our commitment to getting more women into STEM, to supporting areas like quantum computing to support the workforce needs of the digital economy. I particularly want to focus on one area which I spoke about in this chamber the other day: the incredible opportunity that we have identified for new areas for endeavour in Australia. In this case it's through the support that we are now intending to provide to the interactive games industry through a 30 per cent tax offset. An offset, which we have shown time and time again has been so vital to our vibrant film industry, will now be applied to the creativity of those involved in interactive digital games. For my electorate, which is already a hub for that type of creativity, we're going to see that offset drive further growth, further opportunities for young people in particular, who have those unique skills which for sure elude me in relation to interactive games development. That is something I'm very excited about.
The other aspect of that budget which flows into the commitment that we're making to innovation, the digital economy and then more broadly to science and technology and which I'm particularly excited about is the government's commitment to a patent box. The term 'patent box' doesn't mean much to most Australians, but it will be a game-changer. It will provide a 17 per cent tax rate to those that are creating intellectual property in Australia and registering their patents in Australia. That is going to make a real difference to the research efforts that are made, firstly, in the biotech industries and the medical industries. We've flagged that we want to extend that to clean energy as well, which is just so important.
That leads me into the third area I want to talk about tonight, which I know is something my constituents are passionately interested in: what we are doing to support the transition to a low-emissions economy. Again this budget provides over a billion dollars to support the technology that we and the world will need to make sure that we achieve our goal of reaching net zero emissions. It builds on the $18 billion technology road map that the government has already released. Of course, there is a lot more to do, which I will continue to strongly advocate for, but these are important steps on that journey.
Finally, I want to touch briefly on some very practical ways in which my own local community has benefited from this budget. I particularly want to make reference to the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program, overseen by the Deputy Prime Minister and his ministerial team. It is providing stimulus on the ground for shovel-ready projects that otherwise wouldn't have been funded, to be delivered by our local councils. So far the four councils in my electorate have received $7 million through that program and through this budget will receive $2 million more. I have seen the practical ways in which they're applying that funding to projects which are going to make a real difference in the lives of residents in our area. Some councils are using it to upgrade roads and pedestrian footpaths. Others, like Willoughby council, are making our streets safer through CCTV in areas like the hub of Chatswood. We're seeing some councils spend it on sporting and recreational facilities. For example, in Lane Cove, the upgraded Tantallon Oval is being supported by this program. In North Sydney, a tennis court complex used by over 500 residents will be completely rebuilt with this funding. It was subsiding due to a pretty dodgy construction many years ago. Its future is now saved. That program is also supporting programs like playground upgrades—for example, the Helen Street playground in the Lane Cove municipality or the Grasmere Reserve playground in North Sydney.
It's also being used to support exciting projects—for example, revitalising some of the laneways of Chatswood to replicate what we so admire about Melbourne's achievements in making laneways so important and vibrant. It's also being used for the upgrade of community facilities like the Dougherty centre in Chatswood, which is being done by Willoughby council. These are all changeable outcomes of this funding, which is going to be so important to helping our local area recover from the pandemic.
I want to conclude with one final point. In this budget we invest in those essential services that are so important: aged care, NDIS, child care, education and record levels of hospital funding. But of course we keep the funding going for the health needs that have arisen because of this pandemic. Obviously, central to that is our vaccination program.
I want to conclude by saying that whilst we have achieved so much as a nation, our path to normality depends and rests on one thing and one thing alone and that is Australians taking the opportunity, when their turn comes up, when they become eligible, to receive the COVID vaccination. I did that last week. It's a sense of relief. It's a sense of protection that you have when you have had that vaccine—in my case the AstraZeneca vaccine. I want to say, as the events of Melbourne today have reminded us, it is not something that we should be delaying. We should be doing it today, if our turn has come up. Let's get on with getting Australia vaccinated so that all we've achieved can be locked in to the future.
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (19:00): I've been listening carefully to the speeches by members of the government all day today, and I have to say in many ways we really do live in two different worlds. For me, the budget that we have just seen the government deliver, at the end of its third term—looking for a fourth term in government—is a budget for the wrong decade. It's a budget that doesn't look ahead, that doesn't address the real issues facing our economy and our population. It doesn't address the issues of housing. It doesn't really act on climate change. It doesn't really address the needs of aged care. It doesn't address the needs of child care. It does some things. There are nice announcements in the budget that talk about these things, but when you actually get down to the detail there's very little there that will actually make a difference. It is an election budget.
When you look at the history of this government over the last three terms what you will see is in the first term of government they cut like crazy. They cut, cut, cut. We watched Prime Minister Abbott do it. We watched Prime Minister Turnbull do it. We watched Prime Minister Morrison do it—cut, cut, cut. Then in the third year, just before the election, out comes the money, in most cases to fix the crisis that they caused by cutting in years one and two. And this is what we've got now. We've got a much bigger spending splash, because COVID seems to have given them a change of heart and they now believe in spending enormous amounts of money—in fact, $1 trillion in debt with no sign whatsoever of ever being able to manage that debt. It's a bigger spend, but it's still essentially headline grabbing, let's win an election, spending. There is very little there that will actually make the changes that we as a society and as a country need.
I want to start with one of the biggest, splashiest announcements that the government have made, which is about aged care. We really do need to talk about aged care. We've known about the ageing population for many decades now. When he was Treasurer Peter Costello made a huge fuss about it, so did Paul Keating when he was Treasurer. We've known about it for a long time. Every year we have more and more people in the post-retirement age, if you like, and our costs keep going up and our needs keeps going up. We've known about it for a long time. The government has cut funding to aged care for three terms. Rather than grow aged care, rather than sit down and work out what we as a country need, they have cut the budget year after year in real terms. This is not a government that has displayed any commitment to aged care. In fact, there have been 22 reviews into aged care that have condemned the state of aged care during these three terms. There have been 22 reviews that have said something needs to be done. The biggest and most extraordinary one, of course, was the royal commission, which put out an interim report called Neglect. It said that 60 per cent of residents were malnourished, that people were lying in faeces and still the government did nothing. They did nothing and then they did nothing and then they did nothing. Then a few months before an election they decide to do something.
I say to anybody out there who is paying attention to this and listening to this: you need to consider whether you're going to trust a government that has been cutting the hell out of it for three terms. It comes along when the crisis is so bad that an interim royal commission calls its report Neglect. The report says that 60 per cent of residents in aged care are malnourished. Then you do nothing until an election is called and then you make a big splash.
Let's look at detail of it. I'm going to start initially just by looking at the home-care packages. We have known for years that there was a waiting list for home-care packages. Home-care packages, for people who don't know, are for when a person decides to age at home and they get people coming in to provide services for them on an aged-care package. There are various levels, from a really simple one where someone just comes in and gives a small amount of help, to level 4, which is really quite substantial. The waiting list for these have been going on for ages. I have been speaking about the waiting list on these for years now. It has sat at around 120,000 people on the waiting list for several years. In fact, the more you need the care, the longer you'll wait. If you really need a substantial amount of care, you're probably likely to die before you get it. That's where we have been for years, and the government has done nothing.
The royal commission made a recommendation that the government must immediately increase the home-care packages available, allocate a package to all people on the waiting list that do not yet have a package or do not yet have a package at the level they have been approved for by 31 December, and keep the waiting list clear. It's an absolutely clear recommendation by the royal commission. What we got from the government is an additional 80,000 home-care packages over two years. We have a waiting list over 100,000 now, and it grows every year because every year there are new home-care packages coming on and people coming off them. It grows every year, so 80,000 home-care packages over the next two years won't even clear the waiting list that we have now. It won't keep up at all. It will not solve the problem. It's a bandaid. It is a bandaid to stick on a crisis of this government's making. That's what it is. This government created this crisis by doing nothing and by cutting funding to aged care, and now they're sticking a bandaid on it and saying, 'Well, 80,000 home-care packages over two years.' It won't even cover the current waiting list. It won't do it. It is not enough. They are not doing enough. That's before you get into the other aspects of the home-care packages that need reviewing. This is simply: 'Stick a bandaid on it. It won't solve it, but it'll get us through the election. We can say we're doing it.' Watch what happens if they win again. Watch what happens if this government gets a fourth term. They will go back to where they have been for the last three years. This is an election budget. Make no mistake about it.
There is another aspect of aged care that the government is claiming to do something about: nutrition. The royal commission said that 60 per cent of residents were malnourished. They are literally starving in aged care. If people listening don't think it's going to affect them, one in two women and one in three men end up in residential aged care at the end of their life. So look around. If there are two of you in the room, one of you is likely to end up in residential aged care if you're women, and one in three if you're men. This is going to affect everybody. It's already affecting our parents, our partners, our grandparents—you name it. People are actually starving in residential aged care right now.
The royal commission came out with very strong recommendations about the need to increase the allocation for each person, but they also said that there needed to be incredibly strict accountability measures including public reporting that includes 'details of the provider's expenditure to meet the basic needs of residents, especially their nutritional needs'. In other words, transparency. Holding the aged-care providers to account. What the government has done instead is provide a nice splashy announcement of an extra $10 per day per resident for providers, but with no requirement to report. When they made this announcement, by the way, the share price of some of the biggest aged-care providers went up. That pretty much tells you what investors out there think is going to happen with this money. There is no guarantee whatsoever that this $10 per day will actually go into nutrition or go to residents at all. There is no guarantee. A lot of aged-care providers will use it the way it should be used, but there are a hell of a lot of others that won't. There is no guarantee. Again, it's a nice splashy announcement to get them through the election. Then after that, stories will come out of another person's mum or another person's partner effectively starving in an aged-care facility. It will get them through the election, and that's all.
When it comes to aged care I also want to talk about the workforce. The royal commission made very strong recommendations about the workforce. We all know—all of us that have visited an aged-care facility, have spoken to workers or have known someone in an aged-care facility—that the staff can be amazing, but they don't have the time to do the work that they need to do or want to do. They are struggling. They are working longer hours than they should. They're not going home. They are working unbelievably hard. The residents tell me how great the staff are, but there are not enough of them and they cannot do the amount of work that they need to do. And they're leaving in large numbers, so there's a need for a larger workforce, as well as a workforce that is actually more available to its residents.
At the moment, aged-care workers start out at about $21.90 an hour. That is one of the lowest rates around. You can earn much more than that stacking shelves in a supermarket. You can earn more money than that at McDonald's. So the people that we trust to look after some of the most important people in our lives at their most vulnerable moments are some of the worst-paid people in the country. If you go and talk to those workers on a day when one of their residents has died, they are crushed. The real infrastructure in an aged-care facility is the relationship between the residents and the people who care for them. In a service sector, that is the thing which is your real infrastructure. That's what you pay for. That's what makes your product, if you want to think of it in those terms, valuable. It's not the building. The building is very nice and you have to have one, but it's the level of belonging and attachment that people have in an aged-care facility that actually makes life worth living. It's about people.
You cannot solve the crisis in aged care, which is of this government's making, without dealing with the workforce issues. They are underpaid, they're not staying long enough, they're taking other jobs and they do not have the time to actually spend with the residents in the way that is needed—they just don't. There is nothing in this aged-care plan that—nothing at all. There is nothing that deals with the chronic shortage of aged-care workers. Again, we've been talking about that in this place for years. I've spoken about it at least four times. We've known for years that there is nothing in this plan that actually addresses the fundamental issue in aged care, which is the workforce.
I also want to talk about housing. The government, again, has made a nice, splashy announcement about the Family Home Guarantee. It is interesting that, when you look at all the policies that the government has for home ownership, affordable housing or whatever you want to call it, they're all demand driven. They're all about increasing demand, which pushes up prices. So we have taxpayers subsidising this person and that person and that other person to own a home. Other taxpayers are paying for that. For the taxpayers who don't get on that little train, the price goes up. So they give their taxes to another person, and then housing becomes less affordable for them.
The government has a really interesting strategy. But this particular one, the Family Home Guarantee, is really interesting for what it is not. The government spruiks these 10,000 new places for single parents with dependants. Essentially, the government will guarantee 18 per cent of the deposit. So, with two per cent of the deposit, a single parent can buy a house, effectively, if they can afford to do it. The measure will allow single parents with a household income of less than $125,000 to access this scheme. Housing advocates have welcomed the change, but they also point out that the benefit will really only flow to single parents earning between $80,000 and $125,000. The median income for a single parent with one child is $54,000 after tax. So you have the median of $54,000 after tax and you have the median price in Parramatta of $1.2 million for a house and $620,000 for a unit. You have data from the Melbourne Institute showing that there's only one suburb in all of Sydney where a person on even $80,000 would be able to afford to buy, and that is Carramar, out in the west. The median price out there is $345,150. A single parent with two children with a median income of $56,000 would be able to borrow only that amount. So the number of single parents who could access this scheme is actually quite small. It will be a very small cohort. Good for them! That will get them into home ownership.
If you look at the numbers, there will be 10,000 new place over four years. That is 10,000 homes over four years. It's capped. That's 2½ thousand homes a year. There are 150 electorates, so I reckon that if the scheme were spread out evenly over each electorate in the whole country—which it probably won't be—Parramatta would get 16 houses. Sixteen single parents a year would actually make it into this scheme under that cap. The numbers look really good. It's a nice flashy thing: 10,000 people, four years, 2,500 a year, 150 electorates. There are one million single parents in Australia, by the way, so assistance for 10,000 isn't going to go that far. But sit down and work out what it actually means for your electorate. It means 16 or 17 parents per year, if they can afford it. And even then it will be the parents at the upper end. It won't be the median, those on $55,000 or so; it'll be the people who earn $80,000 or more. It's a nice, splashy announcement, but it won't do very much at all.
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (19:15): After eight long years of the coalition government, Australians would be entitled to look back and ask, 'What was the point of that?' This budget sets Australia on course for $1 trillion in Commonwealth debt—$1 trillion of Liberal debt—but for all that spending what will we have to show? This budget spent plenty of money on the Morrison government's political problems, but go out into the street, grab a random passer-by and ask them what they have gotten—what the nation has gotten—out of that trillion dollars of Liberal debt, and they'll come up blank.
When Labor was in power during the global financial crisis, the Rudd government invested in stimulus to support the economy through an external shock, but it did so in a way that left a lasting legacy. It left a legacy of upgraded fibre-to-the-home broadband infrastructure. It left a legacy of city-shaping transport infrastructure projects, like the regional rail link project in my electorate of Gellibrand—new train stations and new train lines easing the commute of my constituents. It left a legacy of investment in school infrastructure. Despite the confected nonsense of those opposite and their conservative media enablers, even today you can go to any school in Australia, ask them about Building the Education Revolution, paid by the Rudd government, and they'll proudly show you the new school building, multipurpose room or classrooms that were built with this funding. We made those investments because we had a vision for Australia's future—a vision for a better education system, a vision for how to improve our major cities, a vision for how government could provide the infrastructure needed to create new growth opportunities for the Australian economy. But, 10 years after this budget, you won't be able to point to any enduring legacy from the trillion dollars of Liberal debt in this budget.
A budget should set out a government's vision for the future of a country, but what we see in the Morrison government is a government that has no plan for the future of the nation, just a short-term plan to get itself re-elected. Where there should be a vision for the nation, at the top of this government all there is is a media strategy developed by a marketing guy. Take what is seemingly the only investment flagged in the budget for my electorate in Melbourne's west. While the Morrison government's prebudget media drop spruiked a multibillion dollar investment in the Western Interstate Freight Terminal in Truganina on the front page of the HeraldSun, the budget papers revealed zero dollars for this project in each of the four years of the forward estimates. It was just more smirk and mirrors. And that's all that will be left at the end of the Morrison government: an archive of quickly forgotten media announcements and news clippings. Even today, looking back through the three years of the Morrison government's media announcements, it's like sifting through a childhood toy box filled with ephemeral marketing fads, like Tazos or Pogs or Beanie Babies. Morrison government media announcements are triumphs of marketing over substance. There's a new three-word slogan every other week, a new dress-up opportunity at a photo op, a new gimmick that's forgotten before it comes time to deliver. Nothing this Prime Minister does is meant to last. All he's interested in doing is catching the public's attention with something new long enough for a new fad to be developed to take its place. He has to do this because he's not a real leader. There's no 'there' there with him; there's no substance. He doesn't have the skills or capability to actually deliver anything, so he has to keep changing the subject. He's like a travelling snake oil salesman, pulling up stumps and moving on to the next town before people realise that the miracle tonic is actually bunk, or like the guy on the beach in Bali selling 'genuine' Rolexes at a knockdown price and promising that he'll send the warranty in the mail when you get home from your holiday.
Just look at the Prime Minister's performance during the COVID-19 pandemic. He's gotten all the big calls wrong and been on every side of every issue in the process. Let's do what the Prime Minister hates the most and check the record. When the COVID-19 pandemic kicked off and lockdowns and health restrictions threatened millions of jobs, Labor called for wage subsidies to support Australian businesses and workers, to save jobs. The Prime Minister called this 'a dangerous idea' and opposed it—for a fortnight, until the queues formed in front of Centrelink and he was forced to work up another slogan.
The Prime Minister then told Eddie McGuire and Triple M radio: 'We've just got to understand that we've got to live with the virus. The idea that you just shut down everything and put all the borders up, that is no way to live with this. It is not sustainable.' Twelve months later, in this budget, the Treasurer told the House, 'You've just got to understand that suppressing the virus, not living with it, is the key to the government's economic strategy.' It was full backflip. In this Triple M interview last year, the Prime Minister bagged the states for closing borders and for implementing health measures to protect Australian lives. But today the Prime Minister has a new talking point and is bragging about the number of lives saved in Australia relative to other countries.
In that Triple M interview of months ago, he said: 'Eddie, I can't stress it enough. The COVIDSafe app, that's how you live with the virus.' The COVIDSafe app—do you remember that? That's a blast from the past. Years in the future someone will come across an old phone, switch it on and see the COVIDSafe app and get a nostalgia hit—'Oh, yes. I remember that, but I don't really remember what the point of it was. I don't know remember when I stopped using it. But I remember it was a thing that was around for five minutes.' The COVIDSafe app was the Prime Minister's favourite gimmick for a few months in 2020. He spruiked it on 70 separate occasions. He told Australians that it would be our 'sunscreen' against COVID-19, that it would be our 'ticket out of restrictions'. Of course, like everything this Prime Minister announces, he bungled the delivery and now he barely mentions it. I don't think he's ever mentioned it in the last six months. The COVIDSafe app identified just 17 unique close contacts during the height of the pandemic. Despite the Prime Minister's marketing puffery, it comprehensively failed Victorians and failed to prevent a second lockdown.
This week we heard that, in total, the app has identified 567 unique close contacts, on a bit of a different statistical definition, out of 30,000 cases. I've spoken to doctors who have worked on the frontlines of our hospitals in Victoria treating COVID patients who never registered a contact on the COVIDSafe app. You could see the Prime Minister's priorities for the COVIDSafe app before it even launched—$5.8 million to develop and $7 million to sell it to the public. After all that, it is worth about as much to Australians as a shoebox full of pogs, except you wouldn't have to keep paying ongoing $100,000 per month hosting bills for the privilege of owning a shoebox full of pogs.
When it comes to things that actually would have protected Australians from COVID-19—vaccines—the Prime Minister's hype-over-substance MO prevailed yet again. The Prime Minister really thought that he was on to a good thing with the marketing for the vaccine rollout. He thought he was going to ride this all the way through to the next election. You know this because he even put the Liberal Party logo on their vaccine announcement. Even the COVIDSafe app didn't get that kind of treatment. But when the questions started to arise about how many different vaccine supply contracts the government had secured in those critical weeks of August 2020 the Prime Minister didn't reply on the substance; he replied by upping the rhetoric. He foolishly and mendaciously told the Australian public that we were at the front of the queue for vaccines. Of course, we weren't even close to being at the front of the queue, and Victorians are now paying the price. We are 101st in the world for percentage of people vaccinated, just behind Uzbekistan. New Zealand is 77th, the UK is 10th and the US is seventh. President Biden announced today that 50 per cent of Americans are fully vaccinated. As of today, less than two per cent of Australians are fully vaccinated.
The Morrison government haven't been able to keep up with their own rollout targets. Originally they said we were going to be fully vaccinated by October. There should have been around 14 million people vaccinated under that target by now. But they bungled that and they realised they couldn't do it, so they moved the goalposts in March. They were going to have six million vaccinations administered by earlier this month, but they couldn't even manage that and they have had to move the goalposts again and now it's around 12 million by October. We're at just 3.8 million now. On current trends, we'll have just four million vaccinated by October. Again, we're being left behind by the Morrison government. Most recently, we have seen him strike upon vaccine passports. On the weekend, they were the Prime Minister's hot new thing, but by Monday they were definitely not. The idea got a bit too difficult and it became time for him to move on once again.
After eight long years of coalition government, after $1 trillion of Liberal debt, we are now in the shadows of another federal election. At this federal election, those opposite will be asking the Australian public to put them in power potentially for 12 years, longer than the Howard government. Yet this Prime Minister still does not have an agenda. He still doesn't have a vision or a plan for the nation. So he's put on his marketing cap once again, assembled the focus groups and got the consultants in to find the political issue that he can take to the next election. What have they landed on? Beating the drums of war with China. It gives me no pleasure to say that such a serious issue is being used in this way. But there is no issue that is too serious not to be exploited for base, short-term politics by this Prime Minister. There is no national interest that he will not subvert for his own domestic political interest.
There are big issues at stake for Australia in its relationship with China. It's something that I, myself, as a member of parliament—and I know many of my colleagues in this place—spend a lot of time thinking very seriously about and working through. The relationship has become far more complex and consequential as China itself has changed under the leadership of President Xi. Both our national sovereignty and the equal dignity of a million Australian citizens of Chinese ancestry are challenged by this new environment. The stakes could not be higher. In this context, our strategic policy and our economic policy demand a steady hand. They require our leaders to eschew short-term political interests and to focus on the long-term national interest. But this Prime Minister is too small for that. He's willing to take the most serious issue imaginable and weaponise it for partisan advantage in the most volatile of environments—an election campaign. Playing with fire does not begin to describe the irresponsibility. No previous Prime Minister would have subverted the national interest in favour of their own short-term political interests on an issue of this gravity.
Of course, this Prime Minister is so lacking in substance that he can't even do this competently. He shows no interest in seeking to understand the issues in our relationship with China or the history that underpins it. Indeed, early on in his leadership, he described our relationship to China as being one of a customer and a supplier. What a trivial farce. More recently, he incorrectly claimed Beijing's preference regarding Taiwan, 'one country, two systems', as Australia's. He then doubled down and covered up this mistake, this basic, fundamental mistake, with dissembling when he was called out on it, not by the Labor Party but by the foreign policy establishment, by geostrategic experts, by people who take this issue seriously. He talks up the Quad with the United States, Japan and India as the most important development for Australia's security in 70 years and then he trashes our relationship with India by threatening Australians seeking to return home from the COVID calamity in that country with jail terms. What are people in India supposed to make of that?
There are long-term challenges facing our nation that will matter after this pandemic is finished. Our leaders should be rising to meet them. Our focus should be on the long-term national interest, on the kind of nation that we want to live in after the pandemic, on the kind of nation that we want to build for after the pandemic. Automation threatens our existing manufacturing industries. Climate change threatens the future of our agricultural and tourism sectors. We need leaders who will meet these challenges. Yet, at every turn, the Prime Minister bungles the important decisions in pursuit of short-term political opportunity. He has no solutions, just marketing slogans and political strategies.
Australians have been magnificent during this pandemic. Indeed, Victorians are being called on to be magnificent once again as we speak in this chamber. And they rally. They get tested, they get vaccinated and they socially distance. They sacrifice for each other so that we get through this challenge together. Australians' efforts and sacrifices deserve a government with a vision for the future of the nation that is worthy of these efforts and sacrifices. They deserve a government that's on their side. In the budget reply this year, they saw one—an Albanese opposition that puts climate change and building a new jobs industry, through our response to climate change, at the heart of government; an Albanese government that recognises the housing crisis facing our nation, all the way through from people fleeing domestic violence to people suffering homelessness, to young families trying to get onto the housing ladder, and that responds through government leadership; an Albanese government that's on the side of Australians. That's what the Australian public is entitled to after the COVID-19 pandemic. That's what will be a question at the next federal election, and that's the choice that those of us on this side of the chamber will be offering to Australians when they go to the ballot box sometime in the next six months.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Llew O'Brien ): It being 7.30, the debate is interrupted and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. In accordance with the resolution agreed to on 13 May 2021, the Federation Chamber stands adjourned until 10 am tomorrow morning.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:30