The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 09:30, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
MOTIONS
Member for Bowman
Ms COLLINS (Franklin) (09:31): I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Franklin 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, remains as Chair of the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, and the Prime Minister is happy to keep him there;
(b) Government MPs including the Prime Minister and Government members of that very committee have now voted fifteen times to keep the Member for Bowman in his position, which gives him extra salary; and
(c) the Prime Minister's failure to remove the Member for Bowman is unconscionable; and
(2) therefore, calls on the Prime Minister and every Member of the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training to attend the Chamber and be given five minutes each to make a statement as to whether the Member for Bowman is a fit and proper person to keep his job.
The protection racket for the member for Bowman needs to end and it needs to end now. The fact that all of you sit over there—
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Education and Youth) (09:32): I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the member for Franklin be no further heard.
The SPEAKER: (In division) Order! The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order?
Mr Burke: You've ruled a number of times now about the need for us to be sitting in our designated seats.
The SPEAKER: Yes.
Mr Burke: I'd simply ask that the Prime Minister do the same.
The SPEAKER: That is taking things a little too far, because the seat that the Prime Minister sits in and the seat that the Leader of the Opposition sits in have other occupants throughout the day. Just five minutes ago, the member for Franklin was right there. So, when it comes to the leaders, I am going to leave that.
The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?
The House divided. [09:36]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (09:40): A do-nothing government writ large—no responsibility, no action—
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Education and Youth) (09:40): I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The House divided. [09:41]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (09:44): The question is that the motion moved by the member for Franklin be disagreed to.
The House divided. [09:44]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (09:45): Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the member claimed to have been misrepresented?
Mr LAMING: I do, Mr Speaker, by the members for Franklin and Watson.
The SPEAKER: The member for Bowman may proceed.
Mr LAMING: Both of these members have my clear health statement from 28 March. I took health leave. I didn't resign, therefore have never reneged and I wish to table that health statement from 28 March.
The SPEAKER: Members on my left, order! I remind members that standing order 94(a) is not just a standing order for question time. Is the member seeking leave to table a document?
Mr LAMING: I do, Mr Speaker.
The SPEAKER: Is leave granted?
Mr ALBANESE: No.
Leave not granted.
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for McMahon!
Mr Gosling interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Solomon will not interject.
BILLS
Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response No. 1) Bill 2021
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Hunt.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Aged Care) (09:47): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today I am proud to introduce the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response Bill No. 1) 2021, which introduces a number of urgent amendments to ensure senior Australians receive the high-quality and safe aged-care services they deserve. It responds to recommendation 17, as well as supportingrecommendations 118 and 27 of the royal commission's final report.
The Australian government is committed to generational reform of the aged-care system to deliver a system that respects senior Australians and their families, provides care that promotes dignity, and responds to the needs of the individual through tailored approaches.
This bill delivers the first stage of aged-care reform developed in response to the royal commission.
The government has heard the calls to strengthen restrictive practice regulation, tighten requirements for the use of restrictive practices by aged-care providers and include better protections for recipients of aged care.
The bill clarifies the requirements approved providers must meet in relation to the use of restrictive practices. Through these tighter requirements, approved providers will only be able to apply restrictive practices:
as a last resort to prevent harm after alternative best practice strategies have been explored, applied and documented, except in an emergency
after considering the likely impact of the use of the practice on the care recipient
to the extent necessary and proportionate to the risk of harm to the aged-care recipient or other persons
where the restrictive practice is the least restrictive form, and for the shortest time necessary to prevent harm to the care recipient or other persons
if informed consent to the use of the practice is given
in accordance with the Charter of Rights and the Aged Care Quality Standards
if care recipients are monitored whilst the restrictive practice is in use and the use and effectiveness is documented.
Further and more specific details of the strengthened obligations on approved providers will be prescribed by the Quality of Care Principles 2014.
This bill and the amended principles will provide a framework to minimise the use of restrictive practices. The amendments do not authorise the use of restrictive practices where it is otherwise unlawful.
The powers of the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner will be expanded to include the ability to give a written notice if a provider does not comply with its responsibilities relating to the use of restrictive practices. The commissioner also has the ability to apply for a civil penalty order against a provider if they do not comply with the written notice.
We are delivering on our commitment to provide senior Australians with affordable, value-for-money home care, and will directly support senior Australians to remain in their own homes for as long as possible by establishing an annual program of risk based assurance reviews of home-care providers.
The bill gives the Secretary of the Department of Health the power to require approved home-care providers and their employees to provide information for the purposes of program assurance. The secretary will also be able to prepare and publish reports on assurance reviews, dealing with findings, conclusions or recommendations made as a result of the reviews.
This builds on our existing work to improve transparency of the aged-care sector and fosters community confidence in the costs of the care they receive.
The bill also repeals the requirement for the minister to establish the Aged Care Financing Authority (ACFA).
ACFA was established in 2012 to provide advice to the government and the aged-care sector concerning funding and financing of the aged-care sector. This advice included eight annual reports.
The government has agreed to establish an advisory group to replace ACFA which will commence operations from July 2021 to ensure the government continues to receive advice on financing issues of the aged-care sector.
This bill is the first step in the government's five-year, five-pillar aged-care reform plan addressing home care, residential aged-care services and sustainability—in line with the five-year time frame set out by the royal commission, on a stepped basis, and I am sure the opposition is aware of and in agreement with the royal commission's recommendations—residential aged-care quality and safety, workforce and governance.
I want to particularly thank a number of people who have helped develop both the bill and the response. I particularly want to acknowledge the Department of Health. Michael Lye, the deputy secretary, and his team have done an extraordinary job in terms of both competence and deep, powerful compassion. I also want to acknowledge Wendy Black, my co-chief of staff, and Jane Kilmartin and Belinda McEniery in my office, for their work. They have done a power of work. I also acknowledge the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services, Senator Colbeck, all of his staff and all of the stakeholders who have contributed to this.
I want to finish by saying that the health, safety and wellbeing of senior Australians is of the utmost importance to the government. The $17.7 billion response to the royal commission is not only the largest aged-care investment in Australian history; it's the largest response to any royal commission in Australian history, I understand, and it's driving our plan for generational change of the aged-care sector, which will ultimately deliver respect, care and enhanced dignity for our older Australians. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Medical and Midwife Indemnity Legislation Amendment Bill 2021
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Hunt.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Aged Care) (09:53): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to introduce the Medical and Midwife Indemnity Legislation Amendment Bill 2021. This bill amends the Medical Indemnity Act 2002and the Midwife Professional Indemnity (Commonwealth Contribution) Scheme Act 2010to expand eligibility for claims against privately practising midwives under the Commonwealth's medical and midwife indemnity schemes.
Specifically, this bill amends the Medical Indemnity Act 2002 to ensure that claims made against midwives in private practice whose registration is not endorsed by the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia to prescribe scheduled medicines (registered only midwives) and covered under their own insurance contract are now eligible under the Allied Health High Cost Claims Scheme and Allied Health Exceptional Claims Scheme, where the claim relates to incidents that occurred on or from 1 July 2020.
This change will ensure that the medical indemnity legislation reflects the Commonwealth's policy that all registered only midwives have coverage under the allied health schemes since its commencement on 1 July 2020, ensuring parity of arrangements for all other registered allied health professionals eligible under the allied health schemes.
This bill also amends the Midwife Professional Indemnity (Commonwealth Contribution) Scheme Act 2010 to expand the Midwife Professional Indemnity Scheme and the midwife professional indemnity run-off cover scheme, otherwise known as the midwife schemes, to remove criteria relating to the employment arrangements of midwives that have resulted in certain privately practising midwives being excluded from the midwife schemes.
Importantly, this amendment will enable key Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services to choose to access professional indemnity insurance for their employed midwives who have been endorsed by the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia to prescribe scheduled medicines.
This means that employed endorsed midwives, including those employed by Aboriginal and Community Controlled Health Services will be eligible for indemnity coverage under the midwife schemes if they enter into policies with the eligible insurer under these schemes.
Without this change, these employed endorsed midwives would not have been eligible for the midwife schemes, which provide capped premiums (and have not been increased since the scheme's inception 11 years ago) and access to the midwife professional indemnity run-off cover scheme, that provides free cover for midwives who permanently retire from private practice.
These changes support an employed endorsed midwife's choice about whether or not to participate in the Midwife Professional Indemnity Scheme or remain under the allied health schemes. This flexibility in arrangements supports midwives to work in a variety of different engagements, without their indemnity insurance being a barrier.
This bill also provides certainty to insurers of the Commonwealth's ongoing commitment to subsidise the costs associated with medical negligence claims against privately practising midwives, further incentivising insurers to provide professional indemnity insurance to midwives in private practice. The bill has been developed in consultation with key medical indemnity insurers currently participating in the Commonwealth's medical and midwife indemnity schemes and the Australian College of Midwives.
I want to thank key leaders in the sector, such as the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation. I met yesterday with Annie Butler, the national head of the federation. Over recent days, I've met and spoken with the Australian College of Nursing, led by Professor Kylie Ward. We've met with nurse practitioners. I'd also like to thank Liz Wilkes. In the department, I particularly want to thank the deputy secretary, Penny Shakespeare, and her team. In my office, I particularly want to thank my co-chief of staff, Joanne Tester, Nicole Green and Stacey Edamson for all of their contributions. Ultimately—and I say this as the son of a nurse and midwife—this bill is about supporting our midwives, but it's also about supporting our families. It's about giving mums-to-be choice and control. That's what's so fundamentally important, as well as protection.
Amendments made by this bill will mean that all privately practising midwives can access one of the Commonwealth's medical or midwife indemnity schemes. This supports the principle that women are the centre of maternity care and that they should have access to a wide range of birthing choices. Importantly this bill provides certainty to our midwives to continue their fundamental roles of supporting women in their birthing journey with the knowledge that they will have access to Commonwealth subsidised indemnity schemes if needed.
Debate adjourned.
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Portability Extensions) Bill 2021
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Tudge, for Mr Robert.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Education and Youth) (09:59): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr TUDGE: This bill amends the Social Security Act 1991 to provide greater flexibility in the portability rules for pensions to assist Australian pensioners who travel to or from Australia and are affected by unforeseeable circumstances beyond their control.
Normally, pensioners can travel overseas for an indefinite period and continue to receive their pension. However, after 26 weeks overseas, their rate of pension is recalculated based on their Australian working life residence (AWLR). Generally, 35 years AWLR is required to maintain the full basic rate of pension. After 26 weeks, those who have less than 35 years AWLR will receive a proportional rate based on their AWLR. Supplements, such as rent assistance, also cease after 26 weeks.
Currently there is no discretion in the legislation to extend this 26-week period if a pensioner goes overseas and is unable, due to reasons beyond their control, to return home as planned.
This bill will provide a permanent discretionary power to grant pensioners a portability extension if they are temporarily overseas and affected by emergency circumstances, such as accident, illness, natural disaster or public health crisis. This extension ensures their rate is not reduced after 26 weeks.
The proposed changes will also allow pensioners grandfathered under previous portability changes in 2000 and 2014 to apply for a portability extension if they ordinarily live overseas but temporarily return to Australia and are unable to return home due unforeseen emergency circumstances. The extension ensures they can maintain their grandfathered portability entitlements.
Last year, the government introduced temporary arrangements to enable pensioners stuck overseas or in Australia due to COVID-19 to be granted portability extensions. This bill builds on these arrangements by maintaining the discretion to provide extensions and expanding the range of allowable circumstances in which an extension can be granted.
This bill will also benefit those pensioners each year who travel overseas temporarily and subsequently are away from home due to unforeseen emergency circumstances beyond their control, such as accident, illness, natural disaster or a future pandemic. I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Social Security Legislation Amendment (Streamlined Participation Requirements and Other Measures) Bill 2021
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Tudge, for Mr Robert.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Education and Youth) (10:03): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill modernises and streamlines social security law to support a new employment services model, which will change the way that employment services are delivered from 1 July 2022. The new model offers jobseekers who are more job-ready the opportunity to self-manage their pathway to work using a digital platform, while providing more intensive, tailored face-to-face support for those who need or want it.
The new model builds on evidence from the new employment services trial and online employment services trial. The new model will make better use of digital technology to support jobseekers to find work and aligns with recommendations made by the Employment Services Expert Advisory Panel's report, I Want to Work: Employment Services 2020.
A key feature of the new model will be job-ready jobseekers being able to self-manage their requirements through digital services and having more choice in how they meet their requirements through the points based activation system.
While job search remains a core element, jobseekers will have greater agency to determine and access the activities they undertake on their pathway to employment and will be rewarded for their active effort and engagement.
This bill will enable jobseekers to self-manage their requirements through digital services and access more flexibility and have greater control over how they meet their requirements.
The amendments to modernise social security law will better support online servicing and points-based activation. This includes consolidating and streamlining job plan and exemption provisions, which are currently duplicated across four payment types, and clarifying that mutual obligations for unemployment payments can be met by complying with a job plan.
This bill also makes a range of other improvements to the social security law which are consistent with current government policy and practice.
The bill removes the use of 'must' in provisions relating to the Targeted Compliance Framework and instead refers to circumstances in which a person 'may' be subject to compliance action, to better reflect operational policy.
The bill also places in the social security law the legislative authority for employment programs to help jobseekers find and keep paid work, making the authority more transparent and accessible. The bill will enable more agile responses to pandemics and other emergencies, ensure that employment services assistance is not counted as income under social security law, and clarify arrangements for jobseekers who study as part of their requirements.
Schedule 1 of this bill will facilitate the use of technology to enable jobseekers to manage their own mutual obligations and pathway back to employment using online services.
The government began trialling online employment services in July 2018 and significantly expanded these services in response to COVID-19. Departmental evidence shows that online servicing is effective, with over 400,000 referrals to online employment services, between 20 March 2020 and 31 January 2021, exiting and not returning to employment services.
Current social security law does not, however, adequately enable the best use of technology, as most of it was drafted decades ago.
This bill will allow jobseekers to choose their own job plan requirements, within departmental guidelines, and to manage their job plans online.
The amendments in this bill do not mean that computers will be delivering employment services to jobseekers or approving job plans.
Human oversight and assistance will remain an integral part of all employment services. At any time, a jobseeker can contact a person in the Digital Services Contact Centre for assistance or opt out of online employment services and agree their job plan with a human delegate at an employment services provider of their choice.
All the existing protections will be retained. The bill ensures that a delegate must always take a jobseeker's circumstances into account and that a delegate cannot require a jobseeker to enter into a job plan that contains unsuitable requirements.
The bill also streamlines and modernises social security law. This is because much of the social security law relating to mutual obligation requirements was written several decades ago and has not kept pace with changes to payments, employment services or mutual obligation requirements. For example, the bill will remove the unnecessary phrasing of the 'activity test', which was introduced 30 years ago, in 1991, at a time when unemployment payments and employment services were very different. In practice, jobseekers meet their mutual obligation requirements by complying with the terms of their job plan, and this will be more clearly reflected in the legislation.
This bill will remove approximately 130 pages of superfluous social security legislation. The changes streamline and reduce the complexity of social security law to better support understanding and administration of existing mutual-obligation policy.
Current policy and protections for jobseekers will be maintained, while duplicated and redundant provisions are reduced to ensure the legislation is fit for purpose now and in the future.
Schedule 2 of the bill places legislative authority for Commonwealth expenditure on employment programs within the responsibility of the employment minister and department. This is more appropriate than current arrangements involving regulations administered by the finance minister and will enhance the transparency and accessibility of the legislative authority while maintaining usual processes, including that funding for the programs will still need to come from annual appropriations.
Schedule 3 more clearly supports the intent of the Targeted Compliance Framework to encourage jobseekers to comply with their mutual obligation requirements and re-engage when they have failed to meet a requirement. The bill ensures that sanctions need not be imposed when recipients of participation payments have a valid reason for failing to meet their requirements, or immediately re-engage, consistent with current practice and with the objectives of the Targeted Compliance Framework.
Schedule 4 of the bill ensures that payments from government employment programs to assist jobseekers with finding work—for example, Relocation Assistance to Take Up a Job—do not need to be declared as income to Centrelink and do not reduce a jobseeker's payment. This means payments from employment programs can be used as intended by the jobseeker and therefore improve the effectiveness of the programs, consistent with current practice.
Schedule 5 of the bill clarifies an administrative process for declarations of approved programs of work. The bill provides parliamentary oversight by stating that such a declaration is a legislative instrument, meaning that each declaration will be registered and tabled. The amendments do not affect current declared programs or the supplements associated with these programs.
Schedule 6 of the bill consolidates four provisions and makes a minor amendment to better clarify the existing policy that certain Commonwealth workplace laws do not apply in relation to a person's participation in Commonwealth employment programs, including where a person may be doing so as part of points requirements.
Schedule 7 of the bill makes clear in legislation the longstanding policy and practice that young people who are participating in full-time study as part of a job plan are considered jobseekers and not students for the purposes of the Youth Allowance income-free area. Young people participating in approved full-time study can still choose whether they study as a full-time student or under a job plan, as they have always been able to.
Schedule 8 of the bill includes amendments supporting the 2021-22 budget measure to align payment commencement for jobseekers referred to online employment services with those who are referred to a provider.
This bill will remove an inequity whereby jobseekers who are referred to a provider are paid from a later date than those who are self-managing their requirements in online employment services.
From 1 July 2022, jobseekers will be paid income support starting either from the date they attend an appointment with a provider or the date they agree to their online job plan. The amendments in this bill will also encourage jobseekers who are referred to online employment services to connect quickly and maximise their likelihood of finding work.
All existing protections for jobseekers will be maintained, which means that, when jobseekers who self-manage their job search are unable to agree to their job plan within a reasonable time frame for reasons outside their control, they will not have their payment delayed.
This could be the case, for example, when a jobseeker experiences illness, accident or inability to access IT services.
Some jobseekers may also be exempt from the measure, consistent with existing arrangements. This means they will receive their payment immediately after their claim has been processed, back paid to their date of claim.
These exemptions cover, for example, jobseekers who are transferring from another payment; are exempt from mutual obligations; or have been referred to Disability Employment Services or further assessment at time of claim.
Jobseekers who are using online employment services can contact the Digital Services Contact Centre if they need assistance with agreeing to their job plan or meeting their requirements.
Schedule 9 of the bill repeals spent provisions relating to ceased programs, with no impact on jobseekers or current policy. Schedule 10 makes minor contingent amendments.
This bill will support the New Employment Services Model by streamlining and modernising social security law. This will improve the way jobseekers manage and meet their mutual obligation requirements and support jobseeker agency in determining their own pathway to employment.
I commend this bill to the chamber.
Debate adjourned.
COMMITTEES
Electoral Matters Committee
Report
Mr STEVENS (Sturt) (10:14): On behalf of the chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I present the committee's report, incorporating dissenting reports, entitled Review of the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Act 2018.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr STEVENS: by leave—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I present the committee's report of its review of the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Act 2018. After two years in operation, the review of the electoral legislation amendment act 2018 provided an opportunity for the electoral matters committee to ensure that the law is working as it should. The committee took the opportunity to check in on how the act's objectives can continue to be achieved in the most effective way while minimising red tape. The committee was also interested in the impacts of amendments to the original bill that are relevant to charitable-issue based advocacy, the operation of the amendments dealing with foreign donations and the clarity of public guidance products issued by regulators.
It is clear from the evidence provided to this inquiry that, after an initial transition period, the act in its current form is working appropriately and not hindering the current activities of charitable based organisations. It is very positive that many members of the sector report that their organisations have gained familiarity with the definitions and find them workable. The committee notes there are a variety of conflicting views about possible amendments, but this reflects diverse interest from observers of the political system and is not suggestive of fundamental structural problems. The committee considers that the relevant parts of the act are working effectively and have become understood by affected groups.
I would like to sincerely thank all of the stakeholders for their time in preparing submissions and appearing at the public hearing. I commend this report to the House.
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.
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:
(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"
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Chief Government Whip) (10:17): As I was remarking in my comments last night, for me the most important of the five schedules in this bill is the one on the expansion of the remit of the National Housing and Finance Investment Corporation. This will provide support through 10,000 guarantees over the next four years, from 1 July 2021, to eligible single parents with dependents so they can build a new home or purchase an existing home with a deposit of as little as two per cent, regardless of whether that single parent is a first home buyer or previous owner-occupier.
As I noted last night, I acknowledge that this will not help all single parents, but what it will do is recognise the importance of security of tenure and having a roof over your head. We know that, sadly, women in domestic violence or other circumstance of marriage breakdown particularly find it very difficult to find suitable housing. A lot of times they're forced into a situation where they're renting and they don't have security of tenure. Over the last little while, I've had plenty of examples given to me where what were formerly rental properties have been sold and those tenants have struggled to find other suitable accommodation. If they do go to inspect a property, there are 30 or 40 other people at that property and they have to pay up to six months rent in advance to secure that property, as well as pay a bond and other payments.
In establishing this Family Home Guarantee, the government has sought to provide a pathway to home ownership for single parents who have struggled to save a deposit while renting. Only last week, I was talking to a mum who was explaining to me the situation of her son, who is the custodial parent of their kids, and the difficulties that he was having. In part, this makes life that little bit easier for those who have the capacity to save a small deposit, and we've seen the success of that with various other schemes that this government has rolled out to assist people into the housing market through a guarantee model. We've also seen the success of that in the small business sector and in the additional finance that has flowed to small businesses as a result of the government guarantees of small business loans.
This should also be looked at in conjunction with a range of other measures that this government has rolled out over the last little while and as part of this budget. A large number of families across the electorate of Forde will benefit from our tax cuts. Many of those will be single parent families. We will also see the extended and expanded JobTrainer Fund, which will assist apprentices and trainees across my electorate take up job opportunities and expanded wage subsidies. We've already had nearly 2,500 apprentices and trainees across the electorate of Forde take up these measures. In addition, with the extension of low- and middle-income tax offset benefitting any number of families across the electorate, that, too, will assist those single parent families, and the additional benefits we've provided now through child care will also assist those families. So it's not just this particular measure, the Home Loan Guarantee, that is going to assist those families; it's a range of other measures that this government is already undertaking.
In addition, for families to be able to afford a home, whether it's rent but particularly to purchase it, one of the things they need is a stable income. Last week I had the pleasure of meeting with the team at YFS at Logan and talking about their Thriving Families project, which brings in family coaches, a housing specialist and an integrated team to help homeless families move from crisis to thriving. While it might be a big leap to go from homelessness to home owner, I think, in part, the Family Home Guarantee means this isn't impossible. For vulnerable people, stable housing is more than just a nice thing to have. Stable housing, for many, is even better than job security, and it's better for the welfare of the children who might otherwise be changing schools and neighbourhoods on a regular basis.
While we were also at YFS, we were able to announce $600,000 in funding from the department of the Prime Minister's Women's Leadership and Development Program project grants. This grant will provide two years of funding to deliver the Spark women's employment mentoring in Logan and the Scenic Rim. We know that domestic violence and homelessness can cause trauma and disruption to the women involved, and, when women are out of work and have no access to money, their situation can be compounded. The purpose of the Spark program is to provide practical support to quickly re-engage them in the workforce. It helps women rebuild their economic independence, sense of purpose, social inclusion and confidence. We know from many studies that this is critically important to help people get their lives back on track and be able to contribute to society the way they wish to but, more importantly, to provide the resources necessary to look after their family and their children.
As I said earlier in my contribution, it's about the combination of these programs, whether it's the low- to middle-income tax offset, whether it's the tax cuts, whether it's the traineeships or the support for programs like SPARK and for the wonderful work that YFS does across our community of Logan and the Scenic Rim, and now this housing guarantee for single-parent families. I think it's a tremendous demonstration that this government is committed to making the lives of Australians better each and every day. I'm very pleased to be able to speak on this bill and to commend this bill, in its original form, to the House.
Dr MULINO (Fraser) (10:25): The Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 3) Bill 2021 implements a number of minor Treasury law amendments, and we support this bill. I'll make a few observations on some of the schedules.
Schedule 1 increases the low-income threshold for the Medicare levy, changing thresholds in line with changes to CPI. This is a sensible and unobjectionable measure, and I just wanted to note that these changes will cut across single households, pensioners, families and students and will keep Medicare levy payment thresholds in line with inflation.
Schedule 2, as earlier speakers have noted, will change the objectives of the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Act 2018 to allow NHFIC to assist eligible single parents with dependants, and this is an objective that we on this side of the House support. The stated purpose of this measure is to allow the government to implement policies in relation to housing access and affordability for single parents entering the housing market. As speakers on this side of the chamber have pointed out, it will benefit some people, but it will benefit a relatively limited number of people compared to the numbers of single parents and, indeed, people on low incomes and vulnerable people in general seeking access to the housing market. So, while we hope that, once further details of this provision are released, this measure does provide benefit to some people, it is worth noting that it is not a broad-ranging or holistic response to what is an emerging, already present and worsening housing affordability crisis in this country.
Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition spoke at length and very eloquently about this yesterday and contrasted the Labor Party's policy, the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, with what is being offered to us by the government. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, all too often we see from the government ad hoc limited measures and all too often we see measures that are demand-side measures, which might appear superficially appealing at times but quite often do nothing more than add to price pressures. Any holistic response to housing affordability must include supply-side measures, and that is why it is so important that the opposition's policy adds significant new housing stock and does so for some of the most vulnerable people in our community—for women fleeing family violence and for veterans, who are at risk of homelessness, and for other vulnerable groups. The opposition is going to release an even more fulsome housing affordability package in the lead-up to the election, but even that first major component is a supply-side measure that is a major contribution to dealing with an issue that is already significant.
I want to stress that the opportunity for governments to act in this space is significant, given the historically low interest rates that we are experiencing. Of course, these historically low interest rates are in part driving some of the affordability issues, but we need to also look at opportunities on the government side to use those low interest rates and the government's balance sheet.
So I just want to take this opportunity to say that of course we support any measures that aim to provide increased access to housing for single parents, but I do stress that, when you look at what the government is offering, it is a range of somewhat piecemeal, ad hoc programs, compared to what the opposition is offering. We need a much more holistic set of policies and we need a much more ambitious set of policies that include material supply-side components.
Schedule 4 provides an income tax exemption for qualifying grants made to primary producers and small businesses affected by the February and March 2021 storms and floods. Again, we support measures that provide assistance to those that have been adversely affected by natural disasters—of course we do—but I do want to note the government's slow response to so many people arising from the 2021 bushfires. This is something which has been raised in this chamber by so many people on this side. It has been raised so powerfully, so eloquently and so passionately by people whose electorates were so directly affected. We had stories recounted in this chamber of people who, months and months and months after those natural disasters, still hadn't received assistance. It is a classic example of announcements being made with very large dollar figures attached but delivery occurring months and months after those announcements, if at all.
One can look at this budget. There are many, many areas where we see very large dollar figures attached to programs, but they're in areas where, from previous budgets, we see no delivery after months or, indeed, years. So I just want to stress that of course we support any kind of measures that provide assistance to people who have been adversely affected—any families and any businesses that have been adversely affected by natural disasters—but it's also important that we hold the government to account. The 2021 bushfires are unfortunately a classic example of where this government talked a big game, but there are all too many families who, months and months after the event, are still waiting for the announcements to lead to any actual positive results.
Finally, I want to make a few comments in relation to schedule 5. Schedule 5 relates to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 and adds some organisations to the list of deductible gift recipients. There are many worthwhile organisations that have been added to that list, and we welcome that. I wanted to speak to one in particular—that is, the Andy Thomas Space Foundation, which, as a result of this bill, will be granted DGR status. Andy Thomas, of course, is an Australian hero. He was our first Australian astronaut. Andy obtained a doctorate in mechanical engineering from the University of Adelaide in South Australia in 1978. He was selected as an astronaut by NASA in 1992. He spent over 177 days in space.
I want to talk about the vision of the Andy Thomas Space Foundation. Of course we support the DGR status being granted to the Andy Thomas Space Foundation, but the vision of this organisation, I think, is a very powerful one. It also speaks to the fact it is absolutely critical that government gets behind this foundation not just in providing it DGR status but in terms of supporting the space ecosystem overall. The vision of the foundation is that it will support an ecosystem that promotes and supports the highest quality space activities in Australia to drive progress in education, research and innovation. The strategies that it pursues in trying to achieve that vision are advancing space education through STEM literacy; raising space awareness; making connections between space science, technologies and people's everyday lives; and contributing to the national space community through events and other educational opportunities.
The space sector is incredibly important not just in terms of its connection with basic and applied research but in terms of our daily lives. The space sector is one of the foundational components of so much scientific research. But, in our daily lives, many things that we do rely upon locational accuracy—we all, of course, get by these days without physical maps; we don't get lost in our electorates because we have phones telling us where to go—and this is the space sector benefiting us in extremely practical ways. We all know the many, many applications and results of research that arise from the space sector. I'll just mention a couple: CAT scans, LEDs, wireless headsets, portable computers, camera phones and, indeed, even some of the key ingredients of many baby formulas. I could go on. I could list 20 to 40 products and devices that were directly attributable to the space sector. I could list many key materials that were directly attributed to research that occurred in space in low- or zero-gravity environments.
Space is so critical for so much basic and applied research; indeed, the commercialisation of space is critical. On this side of the House, we look at the space sector as one aspect of industry that is ripe for massive expansion. The economics of space are remarkable. Even in 2018-19 in Australia, the space sector constituted over $4.5 billion and over 9,000 jobs, and of course that would be more now.
What about the global opportunity? Both public and private investment in global space constituted over $360 billion in 2019, and that figure was more than $20 billion higher than just three years earlier. Analysis undertaken just before COVID suggested that by 2040, the global space sector could constitute over $1.1 trillion in economic activity, so this is a massive sector. When you go back to some of the applications I just spoke of—the devices, the materials—and the pervasive nature of the space sector in our whole IT industry, it is absolutely clear that its importance in our economy is only going to grow.
We on this side have already put forward major policies, including a $15 billion fund to support industry. When talking about that, the shadow minister for employment, skills and national reconstruction has talked about the ways in which basic scientific research have inspired so many children, including himself, to take up science. This included the Apollo program in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and of course the landing in 1969. Today, the square-kilometre array in Australia—there is so much going on in science that is inspirational and has practical applications that is related to the space sector.
What I really want to say is the Andy Thomas Space Foundation is critical and giving it DGR status is worthwhile. But it is absolutely critical we also support the ecosystem. The vision of the Andy Thomas Space Foundation is to support an ecosystem based around STEM education, research and commercialisation. But for that you really take off in Australia, it is going to require substantial increases in government funding and government support across all of the elements of that ecosystem. So this is worthwhile but it is only a small step. It is going to require a very proactive government strategy to support a sector that is already employing so many thousands of Australians, that is already supporting so much basic research.
This bill points to the need for there to be so much more done in this sector. This is a bill we support; it contains a number of schedules. As I pointed out, in a number of areas, whether it be housing affordability, whether it be the response to natural disasters, whether it be supporting space ecosystem, the measures in this bill are welcome, the aspirations are welcome, but they allude in a number of instances to the fact that the government needs to do much more.
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (10:38): I am pleased to rise to make a short contribution to the debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 3) Bill 2021 because this bill is part of the Morrison government's plan to support those in our community who need it most. It includes assistance for those on low incomes through increases to the Medicare levy thresholds. It includes measures to help single parents with dependents to build or purchase a home, support Australians thalidamide survivors and assist primary producers and small businesses affected by the recent storms and floods—all important issues. We know these measures will directly benefit local residents in my electorate of Robertson and across the Central Coast. Each of these measures is part of our plan to help stimulate the economy, to help generate jobs and to boost our recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Schedule 1 of the bill increases the Medicare levy low-income thresholds for single-parent families, seniors and pensioners from the 2020-21 income year and for future income years in line with changes to the consumer price index. This will mean that low-income households who did not pay the Medicare levy in 2019-20 generally will not pay it in 2021, if their income has increased in line with or by less than the CPI. The Medicare levy low-income thresholds ensure that people who pay no personal income tax because of the tax-free threshold and other offsets generally don't incur the Medicare levy. This will ensure that those who need support will retain more of their income, which is particularly important because of the rising costs of living and pressures already facing working families. I know that this will be a welcome relief for a number of hardworking people in my local electorate of Robertson.
Schedule 2 of the bill introduces an amendment to the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Act 2018 to implement the Family Home Guarantee. It does this by expanding the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation's functions to enable it to provide 10,000 guarantees over four years, from 1 July 2021, to eligible single parents with dependants. These grants will allow eligible recipients to build a new home or purchase an existing home with a deposit of as little as two per cent, regardless of whether that single parent is a first homebuyer or a previous owner-occupier.
The Morrison government recognises the importance of housing in providing a foundation for social and economic security, and that's why this government is providing a pathway to home ownership for single parents with dependants, many of whom have struggled to save enough for a deposit while paying rent and meeting other costs. It will allow them to purchase a home sooner with limited savings, subject of course to the individual's ability to service a loan. This particular measure is one that I know many members of the House have risen in support of, and I add my voice in support of this measure. It's a measure that's very important to people in my electorate of Robertson and it's important to the Central Coast region, particularly given the rising house prices that we've seen and the fall in rental vacancies.
Many families are expressing to me their difficulties in finding a home and making sure that, when they do need to move, there is a place for them. We're finding, with COVID, that the Central Coast, which we have always considered to be one of the nation's best kept secrets as the best region in the best country in the world to live, is being discovered by many people to be the best place to live. They are coming to the Central Coast in droves, which is really pushing up the price of housing across the Central Coast. It's also pushing down the rental vacancies and pushing up rental prices, which is making it really tough for many families. I support this measure because I believe it is going to help more families to be able to stay in the community in which they live and more single-parent families to purchase a home of their own. As somebody who is now a single parent with two dependent children, I know that this comes with its own unique set of challenges, situations and circumstances. I certainly strongly support this measure and welcome it for those it will benefit.
Schedule 3 of the bill recognises that victims of thalidomide have also suffered immense challenges. It targets support to those who have been impacted by circumstances beyond their control, resulting in a lifetime of pain and hardship. The budget provided support to these survivors through a payment in recognition of their suffering and their increased cost of living due to disability. Schedule 3 of this bill exempts those payments from income tax and from the social security and veterans' entitlement income test. These amendments need to be made before annual payments commence in the first half of the 2021-22 financial year. I'm really proud to be part of a government that's looking out for those who have endured hardship and that is delivering measures that will help provide much needed relief.
Schedule 4 to the bill will provide income tax exemption for qualifying grants made to primary producers and small businesses affected by this year's storms in February and March and the floods in Australia. Qualifying grants include small business recovery grants of up to $50,000 and primary producer recovery grants of up to $75,000, which, following the passage of this bill, will be deemed to be non-assessable, non-exempt income for tax purposes. These grants provide support, alongside assistance that the Australian and state governments have already made available, to be able to help local communities impacted by the storms and floods in February and March of this year begin to rebuild and recover following these devastating events.
I know that they impacted a number of communities in my own electorate, including those along the Hawkesbury River, with residents in Spencer, Wisemans Ferry and Gunderman being directly impacted. This particular area in my electorate has really been through a lot in recent years. Last summer's bushfires threatened property and the heavy rains early last year, in 2020, also caused damage. The effects of these events can be long-reaching. I know this myself, with a massive tree crashing through my own house over six years ago during the superstorms of April 2015. It caused significant damage to my home. The damage to the home was one thing, but the long-lasting ramifications and impacts have actually been felt for several years. So I strongly support these measures, because I know that this support will be welcome among those impacted by these storms and I also know that the recovery doesn't end with the end of the event.
Finally, among other important changes, schedule 5 to this bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to include a number of organisations on the list of deductible gift recipients, including the Alliance for Journalists' Freedom, the Andy Thomas Space Foundation, Youthsafe, the RAS Foundation, the Judith Neilson Institute for Journalism and Ideas and the Great Synagogue Foundation Trust. This allows members of the public to receive tax deductions for donations of $2 or more that they make to these organisations.
This bill does deliver support to those who need it most. It does help to stimulate the economy and boost our recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. It has direct benefit and will assist local residents and families in my electorate of Robertson, across the Central Coast and around Australia. It is an important part of our economic plan, and I commend the bill to the House.
Mr GEORGANAS (Adelaide) (10:47): I too rise in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 3) Bill 2021. Labor, as we've heard from members on this side who spoke before me, will be supporting it. The bill has five schedules. I don't propose to go through each and every one of those schedules, but I do want to touch on just two: firstly, schedule 2, which expands the objective of the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation. This, we hear from the government is supposed to support single parents. But we know that only approximately 10,000 single parents will benefit from this particular change. When you look at the demographics of our nation, there are approximately one million single parents in Australia. So it's only a drop in the ocean. Again, it's a classic example of seeing the government great on its spin and great on the marketing but the reality on the ground is that this measure will affect very few people and change very few people's lives. So even though we welcome this measure, it doesn't go far enough and is very, very minimalistic.
The other schedule I want to touch on is schedule 5. This includes several new additions to the list of deductible gift recipients, or DGRs. I want to touch on a particular group in my electorate, the South Australian Viet Nam Charity Group, who, I was very pleased to hear, has just received DGR status. They do great work not just in my electorate but also in Vietnam. They do fundraising, they collect money and they take it over to Vietnam and are supporting a number of orphanages. These are Vietnam vets that came back from Vietnam, got together and formed this charitable group. It's run by an incredible group of people—Ray Whellum (chair), Ryk Traeger, Wayne Honeychurch, Tony French, Lloyd Stevens, Dean Ryan, Ian Muir, Dave Thomas and Kelli De Lacey.
I've been involved with them as their patron. For a number of years, I assisted and tried to do everything I could to get DGR status for them. On many occasions they were knocked back. There was lots of red tape. So much effort and work went into it, so I'm pleased that, with this bill, they are now registered. They have their DGR status and can continue to do the great work of collecting money, doing fundraisers here in Australia, and sending it overseas to these wonderful orphanages. I have visited the orphanages on a number of occasions, and I have felt so proud to see a big plaque saying 'Supported by the South Australian Viet Nam Charity Group'.
We will be supporting this bill. I don't want to go on too much about this, but I certainly want to say that this is something that should have taken place a long time ago. We had an inquiry into it. There were a number of recommendations. The government hasn't responded to all the recommendations, nor implemented them, but we will be supporting this bill.
Mr BURNS (Macnamara) (10:51): I am pleased to stand up and speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 3) Bill today. There are a number of aspects to this bill which I will touch on in my remarks this morning. As with many things with this government, there are some good things that the bill contains, but it is by no means enough. By no means is this government doing enough. There are two big schedules. One touches on health and the other touches on housing.
To health first of all, schedule 1 refers to the increase in the low-income threshold for the Medicare levy. Obviously the Labor Party supports that. We want to make sure that health care is affordable for all and that we have universal health care, not the death-by-a-thousand-cuts approach that those opposite have been trying to push since they came in. We all remember the 2014 budget, where Joe Hockey tried to bring in the GP co-payment so that people would have to pay to go and see a doctor. We will never forget those days. But we of course support a measure to help ensure people are able to afford health care in this country.
It would be remiss of me not to mention the No. 1 health challenge that we face in this country right now, and that is the vaccine rollout. It's all very well and good for the government to come in and increase the Medicare levy, but they are taking absolutely no action when it comes to their failed vaccine rollout. I'm about to go back to the great state of Victoria, where there are a lot of very nervous businesses and very nervous families right now. Can I remind the House of the way in which this particular outbreak occurred. A man went to India. He didn't catch the virus in India; he caught it in hotel quarantine in Adelaide, in South Australia. He then went to Victoria and spread the Indian variant of the coronavirus around the community.
To make matters worse, we are finding out via a press release by the health minister that there are at least 30 aged-care facilities that haven't even had one vaccination yet—not even one. We saw the devastating effect that not vaccinating our aged-care population had when the coronavirus raged through Victoria last time. And what did they do? What was their response? They didn't kick into gear and do everything possible to exercise the full resources of the federal government to protect the people of Australia and the people of Victoria. What did they do?
What did the Prime Minister say? He said: 'It's not a race; there's no urgency; there's no rush; look how great it is in Australia'—all that sort of stuff. Yes, we have had it really good in Australia. We've been lucky. But being lucky doesn't get you through a pandemic. Being thorough gets you through a pandemic.
This government, with its failed vaccine rollout, is leaving Victorians vulnerable, leaving Australians vulnerable, leaving the aged-care system vulnerable. They said that we were going to get to four million vaccinations by the end of March. That meant we were going to have to vaccinate about 120,000 Australians per day. It became clear that we were not going to be able to do that via the way in which this federal government—the health minister—designed this vaccine rollout, and that we were not even going to get anywhere near 120,000 vaccinations per day. Did he take a breath, gather in the troops, bring people into his office and say, 'Alright, folks; how are we going to fix this? Let's find a way through it. Let's ramp up our activity. Let's get this done'? No, no. That was way too hard for the health minister. What did he do? What did the Prime Minister do? They said: 'Well, we're just not going to have targets. It's too hard. We're not going to bother having targets. Forget anything that we ever said about having targets. That's too difficult.'
Well, Australians are paying the price. Businesses are paying the price. Victorians are paying the price for this government throwing their hands in the air, throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and saying: 'It's all too difficult. Forget the targets that we had in the first place. It's too difficult. It's too much for us. It's just too hard.' Well, today Victorians face another lockdown. We face businesses being shut tomorrow. We face families being isolated. We face the anxiety of being isolated because of this really awful virus. The federal government, instead of ensuring that the vaccine is rolled out in order to protect their citizens, throw their hands in the air and don't take responsibility. They made lots of announcements and were happy to put Liberal Party branding on the announcements, but they will walk or run for the hills when it comes to actually taking any responsibility.
Last night the federal health minister made an announcement that he was going to send a few extra vaccines to Victoria. He literally waited until people were sick until he bothered to try and do something to fix his vaccine rollout. Imagine that. Imagine not doing it in order to prevent people from getting sick but waiting until Australians and Victorians have gotten sick before doing anything about the vaccine rollout.
Schedule 2 of this bill goes to a measure around assisting single parents to be able to get into the housing market, which obviously the Labor Party supports, because it has never been more difficult, in the history of our country, to get into the home market. Under their watch, under eight years of flat wages and rising house prices, under eight years of stagnant wages for Australians, Australians have been left behind by a housing market that is running away from too many of them. If you are 30 years of age today, there is a less than four in 10 chance that you are going to be able to get into the housing market in Australia. It never used to be like that. The majority of Australians used to be able to get into the housing market, but not anymore. Now less than 40 per cent of young Australians can get into the housing market.
The government pat themselves on the back and they say, 'We're doing all of these things,' and the Minister for Housing comes into this place and says, 'Look at me, look at me, look at me,' but the truth is, out on the streets, it has never, ever been harder for Australians to get into the housing market. It makes a difference, because those people who are able to get into the housing market in Australia are retiring with a net worth of around $980,000, and those Australians who do not get into the housing market are retiring with around $40,000 of net worth. Being a homeowner in this country is a great wealth creator. It's a great way for Australians to raise capital and to find financial security. But, under this government's watch, it has never been harder to get into the housing market, which means that more and more Australians are being pushed into the rental market, which means rental prices are going up, which means more and more Australians are in rental stress—spending more than 30 per cent of their income on their rent payments. Housing is becoming unaffordable.
While these measures are good—they are good—they will not address the supply issues in this country. We're only ever tinkering with demand. The government, with their policy for housing, do not tinker with supply; they tinker with demand.
We need to be building more houses. We need to be building more affordable houses. We need to be building more social housing. Housing needs to be more affordable in this country. That's why the Labor Party has a plan—a $10 billion fund—to get building, to deal with supply. We cannot just put more money into the demand side of the equation—it's just going to keep pushing housing prices through the roof—especially given the government's absolute reluctance to tackle wages in this country.
We need to deal with supply, but the only thing that this housing minister is willing to do is to fob it all off to the states—to not accept any responsibility. Well, that's not good enough. We need a federal government active in this space, a federal government that is committed to safe and secure housing for Australians. But not under this federal government.
Finally, I just want to mention, before I hand over to my learned colleague the member for Parramatta, that there are a number of changes to the DGR status for some groups. There are some wonderful organisations. This is always a very important process for a number of local organisations and I thank all of the organisations who have gone through all of this lengthy process.
But I do want to mention the Sydney Chevra Kadisha and the Great Synagogue in Sydney—even though I am a proud Melbournian. The Chevra Kadisha is an institution that is there for people in the most difficult of times. It is an outstanding organisation run by outstanding people. It must be a very, very difficult job, to bring comfort to people at the end of someone's life, but they do it with distinction. I congratulate them on getting this DGR status.
So, in summary, the federal government needs to get their vaccine rollout right. They need to do something about housing—and all of this tinkering around the edges is good, but it's not enough.
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (11:02): I'm pleased to rise to speak on this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 3) Bill 2021. As the Deputy Speaker, Ms Bird, would know, I've been speaking on Treasury laws amendment bills for the last 17 years. They can really be quite interesting little bills. They are usually bills that address small things to do with other pieces of legislation or other things that governments have announced, and they all come together in these Treasury laws just to clean up little bits, usually—for example, in this one, whether payments to small businesses for emergency relief because of the bushfire and the drought are tax-deductible or whether they're counted as taxable income. So there are a number of schedules in this bill that just clean up small things like that.
I'm not actually going to talk about those today. I'm standing today because I want to talk about schedule 2—housing. Schedule 2 relates to the federal government's recently announced Family Home Guarantee measure. It was announced in the budget and it creates 10,000 new places for single parents with dependents. At first glance, when you hear that, you think: 'Wow! Ten thousand single parents getting into housing!' But, as with everything that this government announces, the announcement is more than the reality. So I want to have a look at the reality of this today.
But, first, I want to talk about Parramatta itself. If there were ever a place in Australia where we need to consider the housing needs of its residents, it's Parramatta. People arrive from around the world to settle in Parramatta. It's an incredibly diverse population, with a really flat bell curve. We're one of the 25 per cent highest income areas, but we have areas of considerable poverty as well. There are lots of tradies. There's lots of university education. It's a really interesting flat bell curve. If you don't get housing right for Parramatta, you don't get housing right for the country, because we contain, apart from rural Australia, everything else mixed together in Parramatta. We have safe Liberal wealthy areas to the north, quite poor safe Labor areas to the south, lots of working class, lots of educated, lots of public servants, a big health precinct. It's a really interesting population.
Our median house price crossed the million-dollar mark a number of years ago. It sits at $1.2 million now. Our median unit price in Parramatta is about $635,000. So we are in an area where living in Parramatta is not a possibility for many people who work in Parramatta. Firefighters, nurses, ambulance drivers, teachers—you name it—buying a home in Parramatta is out of reach for the vast majority of people who live there, and that's something that governments should be concerned about. That is something that governments should absolutely be concerned about, because every hour that people spend travelling is time that they don't spend with their families, and they are the genuinely non-productive hours. The hours spent sitting in your car or sitting in public transport travelling an hour or an hour and a half each way, sometimes two hours in Sydney, to work are useless hours. They do not contribute anything to a family or to a community or to the economy. They are useless hours, and we should be working hard to reduce them. Doing that requires that governments address the cost of housing in places where people work, but it seems that it's the other way at the moment, that where the housing prices are least affordable is where all the work is. It's a really interesting dilemma that we have in places like Parramatta, particularly as the workforce moves to becoming gig workers, with more flexibility in the working hours, which makes travelling to and from work even more difficult. Split shifts become impossible. Working at night becomes difficult, particularly for women, who may consider it a bit risky to travel two hours home at 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock at night. Again, there are lots of things we need to consider, but housing is central to so much in our economy.
So what has the government done here? There are 10,000 new places for single parents. Let's start by saying it's 10,000 new places over four years, so it's 2½ thousand places per year for the next four years. That means 2½ thousand single parents who may be able to get assistance from the government and only pay a two per cent deposit on a house that they can buy. There are 151 electorates and 2½ thousand places, so I calculate that, if it is spread out evenly, it will be 16½ single parents in my electorate each year. It's one hell of an announcement, but when you break it down and say, 'What actually is it?' it's 16½ single parents per year for four years who may get assistance from this government to buy a house by contributing as little as a two per cent deposit—16½ people. There are 738 single parents in Parramatta. I calculate that even if no more single parents joined the queue—if we just started with 738 and there were no more—it would take 45 years to get to the end of it, even if no more people joined the queue. But I can tell you there are going to be more than 16½ single parents who join the queue next year. This is going to do nothing, really, for the group of people in my area who are struggling to buy a house. On numbers alone it's just laughable. It will be 16½ people per electorate each year for four years—64 people in total of 738. That's it: 10,000 nationwide out of a million single parents over four years. Numbers wise, it doesn't stack up. It's a great announcement, and for those 16 people—by the way, I'll be going out in my electorate and making sure that 16 people find this. I'll be making sure that we get our 16. But you really can't make a splashy announcement as if you're doing something extraordinary when that's the actual number you're talking about.
The second thing I want to talk about is not how many but who. Who will actually line up for this? The government says that as long as the household income is less than $125,000 you can apply for this. They capped the income at $125,000. That's fine. But the reality for single parents is actually much less than $125,000. In fact, the Melbourne institute shows the median income for a single income with one child is $54,000 after tax. That means that, of those one million Australians who are single parents, 500,000 of them earn less than $54,000 and 500,000 of them earn more than $54,000. Housing advocates have welcomed the change, but they indicated that the benefit will only really flow to single parents earning between $80,000 and $125,000 a year. So, again, the vast majority of parents, half of which earn less than $54,000, will not be able to access this scheme because they simply don't earn enough to pay for the housing that's available.
In my electorate, the median unit price is $625,000. But CoreLogic data for about 1,000 New South Wales suburbs shows that there's only one suburb in Western Sydney that a single parent on the median wage would actually be able to afford. Single parents with two children have a median income of $56,000 after tax, and that means they could borrow, according to Mortgage Choice, between $350,000 and $375,000 for a house. That doesn't even come halfway for a unit in Parramatta. There is one suburb in Western Sydney, Carramar, where the median price is under that $345,000. That is it.
So who are the lucky 16½ people in my electorate that might actually access this? They would be the people earning right up to that $125,000—and good; great for them, fantastic. I'll be really happy for the 16½ people. But I'm really distressed for the other 722 single parents in my electorate that are not assisted by this at all. The vast majority of them will never be able to afford to buy a house; they have to rent. Rents in Parramatta are also through the roof. The median rent is well over $450 a week. So, again, if the government genuinely wants to do something for housing for single parents—not the ones right up the top end but the vast majority of them, the 500,000 who earn less than $55,000 a year and the many, many more who earn between that $55,000 and $80,000—they need to get into social housing. They need to look at supplying housing and not doing what they're doing with every policy they have, which is driving demand, which pushes the prices up. It'll help 16½ people in my electorate buy a house, and it'll push the price up for everybody else. It'll push the price up for those that can't afford it. It will increase unaffordability of housing, not decrease it. They must get into social housing.
The only solution for so many people is renting. They need to be able to rent or be assisted into long-term rentals in places close to where they work, and the government do nothing for that. They push up house prices with everything they do. They help a small number of people use taxpayers' money to buy their own house, and they push the price up for everybody else. That's what this policy does.
Labor have a different approach altogether. We believe that, as well as assisting people to buy houses, you also need to assist people who are struggling to find permanent, long-term accommodation. That actually helps a family to thrive. The government talks a lot about hardworking Australians. I can tell you: a single parent with three kids is pretty hardworking. That doesn't mean they can get ahead and buy a house, because not everybody who works hard is rewarded with a large salary. In fact, most aren't. They work ridiculously hard. They work alongside lives that are sometimes unimaginable to some of us, but that doesn't mean they can get ahead. You have to start investing in the supply of housing in places where people work and make it possible for lower paid people in this country to thrive.
Imagine being a single parent on less than $55,000 a year—because that's the median; half of them earn under that—with insecure, irregular work; difficulty accessing child care because child care is not flexible enough; and every two or three years effectively having to move from where you live because the landlord sells or whatever. You've got your kids in school. You're trying to get to and from work, you're building relationships in the community, and you do not have a secure place to live during the period that your children are in school, and you have to move. I meet people like that every day. I meet people in that position every single day, because so much of the low-rental housing in Parramatta is owned by investors who buy properties for a period of time, rent them out, and then develop them. So renters don't get this long lease; they get short leases. They're in there for a while and then they have to move. And when they move they then they have the whole issue of how they get their children to school, where do they work, how do they get home—all of that. If they do have their kids in child care, they have to get them by 6 pm or pay the fine, even though they have to travel an hour and a half to get there. All of this stuff is only solved by housing.
That's why Labor has a $10 billion, off-budget housing future fund in mind, when in government, to build social and affordable housing now and in the future. To build 20,000 new social housing properties, including 4,000 homes for women and children fleeing domestic and family violence and older women on low incomes who are at risk of homelessness, and to build 10,000 affordable homes for the heroes of the pandemic, the frontline workers like police, nurses and cleaners who kept us safe. That's a housing policy. That's a housing policy that will affect lives and affect them in large numbers. That's what you expect a government to do. You expect a government to look at the circumstances in which people live, to look at the circumstances—sometimes out of their control—and help those families to thrive.
This legislation doesn't do it. Well, for 16½ single parents in my electorate, maybe it does. Again, to the government, thank you for assisting 16½ people a year in my electorate—the 16½ single parents each year for the next four years who will be able to access the Family Home Guarantee. Thank you very much for that, but I would like you to come back and tell me what you're going to do for the other 722 in my electorate, most of whom earn considerably less than $80,000 a year and, by all of the research that's out there at the moment, simply would not be able to afford to buy anything at all within an hour or an hour and a half of where they currently are. One suburb—one suburb!—in Western Sydney, Carramar, is affordable to single parents on the median wage. So I'd really love the government to come in and tell me what they're going to do for the other 722 people. But, thank you very much. As a representative of the 16½ people in my electorate who might actually get housing because of this: thank you very much.
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson—Minister for Home Affairs) (11:17): Firstly, I would like to thank those members who have contributed to this debate. Schedule 1 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 3) Bill 2021 amends the Medicare Levy Act 1986 and A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Act 1999 to increase the Medicare levy low-income thresholds for singles, families, seniors and pensioners, consistent with increases in the consumer price index.
For individual taxpayers, no Medicare levy will be payable for those with a taxable income that does not exceed $23,226 in 2020-21. Single seniors and pensioners with no dependents who are eligible for the seniors and pensioners tax offset will not incur a Medicare levy liability if their taxable income does not exceed $36,705 in 2020-21.
As well as these individual thresholds, further relief is available for low-income couples and families. Couples and families not eligible for the seniors and pensioners tax offset will not be liable to pay the Medicare levy for 2020-21 if their combined taxable income does not exceed $39,116, plus $3,597 for each dependent child or student. Couples and families eligible for seniors and pensioners tax offset will not be liable to pay the Medicare levy for 2020-21 if their combined taxable income does not exceed $51,094 plus $3,597 for each dependent child or student. The amendments to the Medicare levy low-income thresholds apply to the 2020-21 year of income and future income years.
Schedule 2 to the bill will enable the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation to provide 10,000 Family Home Guarantees over four years, commencing 1 July 2021, to single parents with dependants, predominantly women, seeking to enter or re-enter the housing market sooner. By establishing the Family Home Guarantee, the government is providing a pathway to homeownership for single parents with dependants to purchase a modest home sooner, subject to the individual's ability to service a loan.
Schedule 3 to the bill will exempt eligible payments made by the Australian government to thalidomide survivors from income taxation and from the social security and veterans entitlements income test. As announced in the 2021 budget, the Australian government will provide $44.9 million over four years and $3.9 million per year ongoing to thalidomide survivors.
Schedule 4 to the bill provides an income tax exemption for qualifying grants made to primary producers and small businesses affected by the February and March 2021 storms and floods, which had a devastating impact on communities in Australia. This schedule provides that qualifying grants are category D grants, provided under the Commonwealth State Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements 2018, where those grants relate to the storms and floods in Australia that occurred due to rainfall events between 19 February 2021 and 31 March 2021. These include small business recovery grants of up to $50,000 and primary producer recovery grants of up to $75,000. These grants provide support in addition to other assistance that the Australian and state governments have provided to assist communities as they begin to build and recover following these devastating events. Impacted small businesses and primary producers are encouraged to apply for these grants. Further information on disaster recovery assistance is available on the Disaster Assist website.
Schedule 5 to the bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to include the Alliance for Journalists' Freedom Limited, the Andy Thomas Space Foundation Limited, Youthsafe, the RAS Foundation Limited, the Judith Nielsen Institute for Journalism and Ideas and the Great Synagogue Foundation Trust on the list of deductible gift recipients. This bill also extends the specific listing of the Centre for Entrepreneurial Research and Innovation as well as Sydney Chevra Kadisha. Deductible gift recipient status allows members of the public to receive income tax deductions for the donations they make to these eight organisations. By granting deductible gift recipient status to these eight organisations, the government is supporting them in providing valuable services to their communities. I commend this bill to the House.
The SPEAKER: The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Indi 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. [11:27]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Third Reading
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson—Minister for Home Affairs) (11:32): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr BUTLER (Hindmarsh—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (11:33): I rise to speak on behalf of the opposition in relation to the Private Health Insurance Amendment (Income Thresholds) Bill 2021. I indicate that the opposition will be supporting the passage of this bill, although I also foreshadow that, at the end of my remarks, I'll be moving a second reading amendment.
The bill is relatively modest in its terms but substantial in its impact. It essentially extends the freezing of income thresholds for the different rates of private health insurance rebate and also the incomes at which different Medicare levy surcharge rates cut in. This was a decision in the first Abbott and Hockey budget in 2014 which has operated since that time. At the time that government decided to freeze the Medicare rebates, the MBS rebates, a decision that they maintained until we pressured them to lift those in 2019.
I think it's important that middle-income Australians, particularly, remember this when they listen to the government's rhetoric about them standing up for the financial position of middle-income households in Australia because the freezing since 2014 of these thresholds does have a substantial financial impact on middle-income households. If your income creeps over particular thresholds through the very modest wage rises that people are able to obtain under this government's wage settings then there is a substantial impact on your household budget, irrespective of whether you have chosen to take out private health insurance or not. For example, if the wage of a single person, not a couple-household but a single person, creeps over $90,000, one of the relevant thresholds in this legislation, to, say, $90,100 and they do not have a qualifying private health insurance policy then they will move from not being liable for the Medicare levy surcharge to being liable for a one per cent Medicare levy surcharge—that is, one per cent of taxable income. It not only takes account of their wage or salary but also takes account of reportable fringe benefits. For example, someone with no reportable fringe benefits who has a salary of $90,100, because these income thresholds are being frozen by the Morrison government and not rising as wages are rising, that person will move from having no Medicare levy surcharge liability to having a one per cent liability, which for that person would be as much as $884 per year, or $17 per week. If that person does have a qualifying private health insurance policy then moving their wage or salary to $90,100 will also cause their private health insurance rebate to drop by as much as 8.2 per cent. For a single person on a $2,000 a year private health insurance policy, their rebate, because their wage has moved up, would drop by 8.2 per cent, or about $164 per year.
This position that the government initiated in 2014 and, through this legislation, is proposing to extend for the next couple of years would have a substantial impact on middle-income households. Granted the budget papers indicate that not many people are going to get a wage rise over the coming four years under this government's wage settings, but for those people who, through increments in their agreement or whatever, are able to see their wage or salary rise above that threshold of $90,000, or the other thresholds contained in this legislation, there is a hit to their household budget yet again, as there has been every year since this government came to power, irrespective of whether you do or do not have a qualifying private health insurance policy. This is the same group of middle-income households, in addition to low-income households, who will be hit with a tax hike next year. For someone on $90,100, their tax hike next year will be $1,080—that is, $1,080 in addition to the impact on the household budget through the operation of this legislation. We're not going to get in the way of this government doing this, as we haven't since 2014. This is a substantial fiscal saving for the government, although it's not set out in the explanatory memorandum. If you go to the budget papers, this does return to the budget about $300 million over the course of two years because of an extension for two years. This saving to the budget is essentially money taken off those middle-income households by this government and returned to the budget. As I said, these same households are facing the prospect at the moment of a tax hike from next year of about $1,080 per year.
As I've said in relation to the other very narrow, and in some case modest, pieces of legislation the government has brought forward over the last couple of weeks since the budget was announced, this federal budget had next to nothing. It was incredibly hollow in the general health space. There was essentially nothing there. There were substantial announcements in mental health that people are still going through, particularly in light of more substantial announcements again from the Victorian government following the Victorian royal commission into mental health. There was a substantial amount of money allocated to aged care; although we would say that it misses some of the very important central recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, particularly around workforce, around clearing home-care waiting lists and also around transparency and accountability by providers for the money they receive either from taxpayers or from user contributions. But in the area of general health, there was next to nothing in this budget.
There are a couple of issues, though, that were raised from the budget that I do want to address. The first is telehealth. This was one of the very few announcements in the budget that goes to the general health of the population. The member for McMahon, when he was the shadow health minister last year, time and time again urged the government, as Australia locked down in the beginning of the pandemic, to put in place broad telehealth measures to allow patients to consult with their doctors and other treating health practitioners under the MBS scheme, to do so remotely, to do so over the phone where appropriate or over video consultations where appropriate as well. We on this side were glad that the Minister for Health finally agreed to that urging by the member for McMahon and also by health groups, health practitioners and patient groups as well.
The minister, to his credit, said in November that it was his intention to make telehealth broadly a more permanent feature of the Medicare system. Again, that is something we welcomed and hope it is something that unites both sides of the House but, since that announcement six months ago, all we have seen is a six-month by six-month extension of the telehealth measures. They good as far as they go but not a very firm foundation for certainty and for planning either on the part of health practitioners or patients.
Telehealth measures were due to expire in June, so when the minister over the last few weeks—I cannot remember the date exactly—announced another six-month extension to the end of calendar 2021, that was broadly welcomed. It wasn't a permanent extension, which was what the minister foreshadowed in November, which is what people would like, but it was at least an extension that gives us some certainty over the course of this calendar year. But frankly, there was a fly in the ointment. Health practitioners, health groups and patients who welcomed the minister's announcement initially, once they went to finer detail, were quite shocked, because this was detail about which, as I am advised at least, there was no consultation. There was no consultation with doctors' groups, patients groups or other health groups about the decision that the minister made to extend telehealth measures but to discontinue, really, all but two MBS items for phone consultations.
These items have been a very significant part of the telehealth system through the pandemic. For example, there were 2.8 million items for level C phone consults, as I am advised, through this period since the beginning of the telehealth measures in the first half of last year, and 200,000 items for level D consults over the phone since the measures were introduced. The AMA president, Dr Omar Khorshid, said the profession had been blindsided by the decision the minister made to discontinue these phone consultations with no consultation and no notice, pretty much immediately. The AMA president said: 'The permanent future of telehealth must include access for people who are disadvantaged, and that means, at this stage, telephone consults. The beneficiaries of telehealth are patients, not doctors.' He further went on to say, 'We believe that the quality of care provided over telephone consultation is excellent, so long as it's being done appropriately, and is no different to what is provided over video.'
There are obviously circumstances in which a remote or virtual consultation between doctor and patient needs to be by video because there needs to be a level of visual contact and communication between them—to inspect something visually, for example, or a range of other circumstances that are too manifold for me to outline. That ultimately, though, has to be a matter of clinical judgement. We had heard talk in this city that the department or the minister or both were concerned that these phone consult items were being overused or were being misused. We hadn't heard any particular examples of the way in which that was alleged to have happened, but we'd heard that there was concern about the use of these phone consult items. But I've not seen anything specific. If there is misuse of anything in the MBS system, there are strong avenues for the government to take action. But I've heard no specific allegations.
Then we heard that there is a view that phone consult items are generally just not appropriate, that there should always be a visual element to the virtual communication between doctor and patient. That just ignores the fact that there are vast swathes of the population still who are uncomfortable with that type of communication, particularly older Australians. Many older Australians are comfortable with it, but, disproportionately, older Australians—GPs tell me, and I'm sure they tell other members of this House—are not at the moment comfortable with that level of technology. And there are different levels of access to that technology through the country.
Ultimately we should trust the clinical judgement of our medical workforce in this respect. Doctors will take the view that in certain circumstances they need a video consult, but in other circumstances it might be quite sufficient for them to have a conversation over the phone with their patient, particularly where that patient is more comfortable with the telephone or is restricted to the use of telephone rather than video communication. I still do not understand—and the GPs I talk to as I travel around the country do not understand—why the government, with no specific allegations of broad, systemic misuse, with no consultation with representative groups like the AMA, the college and others, have made this decision. It looks brash. It looks knee-jerk. I think it needs to be reconsidered by the government.
The second thing that I think was notable in a very modest offering from the government around broad health policy in the budget was a decision to increase bulk-billing incentives in rural, regional and remote Australia—something we would all support. Labor has always supported the judicious use of incentives through the system to lift bulk-billing rates. We understand, through long experience, that having access to bulk-billing rates and medical workforce is more challenging in rural and regional Australia than in our big cities. We're not pretending things are all hunky-dory in our big cities—there are very significant access issues and bulk-billing issues in our big cities as well, particularly bulk-billing issues as a result of the government's long-term freeze of Medicare rebates over many years. But we know that it's more problematic in rural and regional Australia.
The issue this raises, though, is this ongoing anomaly in the system that flows from the introduction of the Modified Monash Model. As we understand it, these increased bulk-billing incentives apply to Modified Monash Model areas 3 to 7 and not to 1 and 2. On this side of politics, on this side of the House, we have been raising time and time again the issues that some outer suburban areas continue to have with workforce shortage—what we used to call the old districts of workforce shortage, now called DPA. We've been raising that time and time again. Particularly we've also been raising the challenges in access to medical services in some of the regional areas that were reclassified through the introduction of the Modified Monash Model.
I was in the Hunter Valley and on the Central Coast in the past couple of weeks. I spent time with Labor members in those areas, talking to general practitioners at roundtables and one on one about the trouble they are having in filling their practice with GPs. I talked to patients about the trouble they're having getting appointments and, when they do get appointments, getting bulk-billing appointments. We know that the change in status of those areas has been an ongoing problem since that time for the Hunter Valley and for the Central Coast.
Last week I had the absolute pleasure of spending time with my friend and colleague the member for Richmond, who's got a great background in health, as a former aged-care minister, and understands these issues very, very well and deeply understands the circumstances in her electorate. Again, in that beautiful part of northern New South Wales—one of the most beautiful parts of our country—there are exactly the same issues that I encountered in the Central Coast and the Hunter Valley with the application of this modified Monash model. They get no relief from this budget, either.
This was a very modest budget. We've wracked up $1 trillion in debt and the Treasurer spent $100 billion in one night, but for general health there was pretty much nothing—the cupboard was pretty much bare. There's a $300 million saving measure through the health budget contained in this bill. We won't oppose that measure but, in terms of additional services, at a time when demand is skyrocketing, we have an ageing population, an increasing incidence of chronic disease and a more complex level of demand placed on our health system, this government had nothing for the general health system. With those remarks, 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 urges the Government to better protect Australians’ health during the pandemic and deliver a more sustainable, equitable, and effective health care system."
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ): Is the amendment seconded?
Ms Murphy: I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Hindmarsh 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 give the call to the member for Bowman.
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (11:52): I strongly support the Private Health Insurance Amendment (Income Thresholds) Bill 2021 and also deeply appreciate the words of the member for Hindmarsh, who gave a very reasonable overview of the intentions of the legislation and the important roles that PHI rebates and Medicare levy surcharges can play in this space. It's important to note that, while these freezes on indexation have been around since 2014, continuation of that for an additional two years provides certainty for policyholders while a more substantive review is done.
Australia has a unique health system where private health plays a major role. You can travel the world and not find a system like Australia. We need to recognise the work done in the late 1990s by then health minister Michael Wooldridge, the architect of these three pillars that make private health work: community rating, lifetime health cover and these PHI rebates that are now obviously tiered by both age and income. They play such an important role. To have 44 per cent of Australians covered for hospital cover and 54 per cent of Australians covered for general cover, is quite unique around the world—and today is an opportunity to recognise that.
There are great health insurers out there represented by the PHA. They play an incredible role because they note these huge increases in health costs as a result of technology, staffing costs and of course an ageing population. They feel responsible for keeping these costs under control and they're putting forward to government and to oppositions solutions to that problem. That's an important contribution, because there is no easy answer—and I'll talk more about that later.
In short, I want to note that these PHI rebates play a very important role. These aren't transfers to wealthy people; these go to people of all backgrounds. It allows them to have a choice between additional investment in the education of their children or health cover of a private variety, and they can join one of many health insurers. I think that works well. Let's be honest: this is no picnic for health insurers. It's unfair to treat health insurers as if they're having an easy run and gouging patients. Health expenses are growing worldwide. Hospital expenses, in particular, are growing at around eight per cent to 10 per cent a year worldwide. There's no easy way through this. But there is something that's very important to note—and I recognise a colleague across the chamber who, as a medical specialist, will understand this. I won't use the argument that having more people privately insured takes people off public hospital waiting queues, as that's a contentious point. But what is not disputed is that, for every person who elects to cover themselves privately, it's a good legislation to follow. I support it.
Dr FREELANDER (Macarthur) (11:55): I rise today to speak on the Private Health Insurance Amendment (Income Thresholds) Bill 2021. It was only a few weeks ago that I last rose in this House to speak on the last private health insurance amendment. We constantly seem to be coming into this place and discussing health care but tinkering at the edges without really addressing the major problems that are plaguing our healthcare system.
I'm pleased the member for Bowman has made some comments about the importance of private health insurance, and I, indeed, believe in it as well. I think that our system has functioned very well with a balance between private and public health care, and of course I started my private medical practice in the same week that Medicare started in Australia. It really has been a gift to the Australian people from the Australian Labor Party. I'm a great believer in a universal healthcare insurance scheme such as Medicare complemented by a private health insurance scheme, as we have in Australia and have had for many years. I encourage everyone who can afford to pay for their own health care to take out private health insurance.
Unfortunately, this is a government that fails to understand the deep problems that we're having in our healthcare system, and I admit that most people in this place get pretty good health care. We're on high incomes, we can afford to pay for private health insurance, we get very few problems in the way of access to health care in our major cities and, for us, elsewhere, so I think there is a lack of understanding on the other side of the importance of universal equity in health care—and that's not what we're seeing in Australia at the moment. We're seeing huge differences in mortality and morbidity between the inner city, outer metropolitan, rural, regional and isolated areas. We know that people who live in rural and regional areas have life expectancies for males and females at least 10 years less than those that live in the inner cities. We know that people are suffering much more in the way of poorly treated chronic illness in rural and regional areas, and we know some of our Indigenous populations who live in remote areas have health care worse than in many Third World countries, and this is something that this government has failed to address. Some of the state governments also, I must say, have failed to address this issue.
There are major advances in how we manage things like cardiovascular disease and stroke and some of the common surgical problems, such as gall bladder disease et cetera, with laparoscopic surgery. Yet many people in rural and remote areas cannot access these modern treatments, and very little thought has been given to how we can get these modern 21st century treatments to rural and remote areas.
We know that only about 50 per cent of people who have had a cardiac event such as a myocardial infarction, or, in layman's terms, a heart attack, will be able to access regular cardiac rehabilitation post event. That's particularly true for people who live in rural and remote areas but also, I must say, in some of our outer metropolitan areas, because not enough thought has been given to how we can provide equitable care and not enough thought has been given to providing those services in areas where it's most acutely needed. We know people who don't have access to regular cardiac rehabilitation post a myocardial infarction have a much poorer prognosis with higher morbidity such as chronic cardiac failure, which impairs the ability to work, to mobilise and to even care for yourself. We know they have much worse morbidity and, unfortunately, there is much worse mortality for those who have not done regular cardiac rehabilitation. In modern stroke management, the treatment of choice these days for stroke due to blood clot is clot removal on an urgent basis, which can protect the brain from damage. We know that many people in rural and regional areas and even people in outer metropolitan areas cannot access this 21st century treatment, leading to a much worse prognosis of, maybe, hemiplegia and even death. This government has not really addressed those issues.
This bill seeks to keep the same income thresholds for the Medicare surcharge for those who don't take out private health insurance to similar levels in the last four years. That is a reasonable thing to do, but it doesn't address the major issues with people failing to pay for private health insurance, even though they can afford it, and it doesn't address the real issues around our public hospital system with the gradual deterioration of our public hospital outpatient system. I'd like to see this government recognise the importance of a fully supported and fully functional public hospital outpatient system so that everyone who needs it can access outpatient care. At the present time in many of our rural and regional areas, and even in our outer metropolitan areas, people who require specialist review—for example, from neurologists for people with multiple sclerosis or Parkinson's disease or who are post-stroke; or people who have chronic cardiac conditions, congenital heart disease in children or cardiac failure in adults—have to access private treatment through a private doctor's rooms because our public hospital outpatient system is either overloaded or non-existent in many areas. That means that many people can't afford the cost of private review in rooms. For example, to see a cardiologist privately the gap fee can be as high as $250 or $300; it's similar for a neurologist. Many people in our outer metropolitan areas and in rural and regional areas cannot afford that fee, so they often forgo care, and that leads to much worse prognoses and much worse health care. This is something that needs to be addressed urgently so that everyone gets equity of care. It's okay for me. I can afford to pay to see any specialist I need to privately. It's okay for many of the people in this House. But for people who are struggling to put a roof over their heads or who are struggling to put food on the table, this bill will do nothing. It will not provide them with the health care that they need and deserve.
Labor has always stood for equitable health care, and that is something that those on the other side fail to understand. Good health care equals a good economy. We know that from the pandemic. It has taught us that very well. With this pandemic, unfortunately, the poorest, the sickest and the most disadvantaged are the ones who are suffering the most. We must make sure that our healthcare system provides equitable care to all, not just to a select few.
There is another issue I will speak about and hold the government to task on. I have long been a supporter of immunisation. Immunisation has dramatically changed our health in the 20th and 21st centuries. The government's response to the immunisation of people for COVID-19 unfortunately leaves a lot to be desired. It's pretty obvious that many on the other side are immunisation deniers and promoters of immunisation hesitancy. The health minister himself has been telling people that if they wanted to wait for a messenger RNA vaccine it was fine. There is a government senator who has been going around telling everyone he was going to wait until there was evidence of the effectiveness of immunisation. There are many on the other side who have failed to promote immunisation the way they should. I hope that the government gets away with this. I hope that what's happening in Victoria at the moment settles down and, fingers crossed, the Victorian contact tracers will be able to get the spread of COVID-19 under control. If they do, it's no thanks to this government. I hope the government escapes. But, if they don't, if the present COVID-19 outbreak spreads, at least part of the reason will be that the immunisation program has been so poor. Every member of this House and every member of the Senate should be out there actively promoting immunisation for COVID-19. We should have trustworthy third parties promoting immunisation.
This is a government, I believe, that does not understand health care. The fact that we did so well initially in the pandemic is down to the health minister's initial response—it's not down to the Prime Minister. Remember: he was off to the footy. At least the health minister was able to make the medical advice reign, and that's why we've done so well up until now. This virus can escape from hotel quarantine. We know that aerosol spread happens. We know you only need a small initial spread for the virus to explode. The newer variants appear to be much more infectious and much more likely to be spread by aerosol. We need to be very careful. We must have purpose-built quarantine and we must have a health system that provides equitable care for all, and that will lead to a strong economy.
We support this bill. It is a reasonable thing to continue. We should all be responsible, if we can afford it, for our own health care. But we must remember that our healthcare system is predicated on the best care we can provide for all, not just a few. This is a government that fails to understand that and is doing nothing at the present time to address the inequities in health care throughout our country.
Mr STEVENS (Sturt) (12:06): I rise to speak in favour of the second reading of the Private Health Insurance Amendment (Income Thresholds) Bill 2021. I'll start by making a few comments on the previous contribution, joining with my honourable colleague in encouraging all Australians to get vaccinated against COVID-19. His points about vaccination and what it has done to change modern medicine in the last hundred years or so are very well made, and I'm very supportive of that. Can I just say that I take every opportunity that I get, as I'm sure all members do, when I'm out speaking to people in my community, whether it's at a Rotary or RSL club or a sporting event. As leaders in the community, we all have to do our job by encouraging everyone in our community to get vaccinated. Indeed, we need to encourage them not just to get vaccinated but to participate in spreading the word. If we can get as many adult Australians vaccinated as possible—hopefully the vast majority, as close to 100 per cent as possible—that is the best thing we can do, working together, to address the challenges that we face from COVID-19 but also the opportunities to open up our country, our economy and our society again as soon as possible. The most important thing we can all do, as members of this House, is encourage people to get vaccinated, and I commend anyone that is a part of spreading the word in that regard.
More specifically to the bill, I think it has been made abundantly clear. This is fairly straightforward, dealing with the private health insurance rebate threshold and, equally, the threshold at which the Medicare levy surcharge is applied, effectively freezing them from indexation for another two years. I'll speak initially a bit more broadly. Obviously, the great policy principle in this country is that we support and believe in universal health care for all Australians. I think that's something we're very proud of in this country.
To be honest, although I have a great deal of respect for countries like the United States for a whole range of reasons, I do despair for them that they live in a society where people can't access fair and comprehensive health care without having their own personal insurance. In fact, I was an employer in the United States, in a previous part of my career. It was surprising how, when you were advertising roles in the United States, when it came to remuneration, it was much more important to people to know that they were getting health insurance as part of that job rather than what the actual amount of salary would be. That goes to show that it's such an important thing for someone in the United States. That's something I would never want to see being the case in our country, and I'm very proud that anyone can access our universal healthcare system in Australia and that we provide the highest standard of care to all citizens here, no matter what their economic circumstances might be.
It's equally important, of course, that we encourage those who have the capacity to contribute more for their health care to do so, and of course we do that through the private health insurance system in this country. So what we're debating about, specifically, in this bill are the policy mechanisms we use to encourage people to have private health insurance.
There are reasons to have private health insurance, before you look at the impact on your income from the Medicare levy surcharge, which you pay when your income is over a certain amount if you don't have private health insurance, and also from the rebate. Obviously we provide a very good base standard of health care in this country, which is the highest standard you could possibly ask for. But it is always the case that there is an incentive to have private health insurance for certain additional extra services et cetera that aren't required to give you a fundamental standard of care but which, if you're prepared to pay for them, you might find of value. It's also good that we encourage people, through our income tax system, to have private health insurance when they're on an income where they can afford to do so. This clearly takes an enormous amount of pressure off the public health system—particularly the public hospital system, when it comes to elective surgery in particular. Everyone who holds private health insurance, when they need certain elective procedures, can, through their private health insurance, go to a private hospital rather than going to the public system. That is obviously then one less person putting pressure on the public system. That's going to ensure that we have lower waiting times, and so rapidity of care, but also the outcome where everyone in society gets the same standard of service delivery but where those who can afford to can take the pressure off the public system commensurately.
The obvious effect of putting a freeze in place is that if people's incomes are growing and if we're not commensurately increasing the income threshold then more people will come into the category of either paying the Medicare levy surcharge if their income passes the thresholds of $90,000 or $180,000, and/or of getting the private health insurance rebate. This gives us a two-year period to undertake a broader reassessment of the effectiveness of the current regime, of bringing back indexation, in two years time, and, of course, achieving the policy outcome we want, whereby people who can afford it are encouraged to take out private health insurance, because, clearly, we want as many people as possible to have it. I think there are around 14 million Australians with some form of eligible public health insurance, rebate-style cover, at the moment. We want to incentivise as many people as possible, of those who can afford it, to have that insurance, and this is a mechanism we've had for many, many years—decades, in fact. But the freeze on indexation means that more people will be encouraged to hold private health insurance, through the reality that, if they don't hold it, they'll be required to pay the Medicare levy surcharge if they move into those income brackets of over $90,000 or over $180,000.
I think we've all been able to take a great deal of pride in the Australian health system, and never more so than in the last 14 or 15 months, since the COVID-19 pandemic has put challenges and pressures on us in this country, as it has on every other country in the world. I can't think of a time in my life where it has been so easy to compare the impact of a particular challenge like this health pandemic on this country with the impact on literally every other country on the planet. There is almost nowhere that hasn't had to meet the challenges of COVID-19, from a health point of view and from an economic point of view. In both cases, I would say that Australia is at least equally at the top, in meeting the health challenges and the economic challenges.
It's a great tribute, of course, first and foremost, to the people who work in our health system. Even in my home state of South Australia, and across this country, I think no-one would say they hold anything but a great deal of pride in the quality and calibre and work ethic of our health professionals, in the way in which they have risen to what has been an extraordinary challenge for health systems across the planet.
Most people would expect that the health systems of many Western and European countries would be of a similar gold standard to the Australian health system. Unfortunately we saw, particularly in the early weeks and months, health systems in Italy, the United Kingdom and Spain put under an enormous amount of pressure. They sometimes burst at the seams and were incapable of handling the pressure that was put on them through the way in which COVID-19 burnt through the cohorts of those countries. It put on them a pressure that took them beyond breaking point. We never had that in this country, which was a great relief but also a great credit to our health staff and the staff who worked to keep our borders and quarantine systems secure.
There is criticism, which I find disappointing and unnecessary, of the quarantine system in this country, because I just can't think of anywhere else in the world that has done it anywhere near as good as us. We have natural attributes like, of course, being an island and thus having the ability to close our borders without a land border and the challenges of that, so we've got that luck. We are the Lucky Country, but we also make our own luck. We made some very important decisions early on to close the border of this country and only allow people to return if they were Australian citizens or permanent residents or dependents of those categories and only if they went through a quarantine process, where they quarantined for 14 days, which, pretty early in the piece, became through the hotel quarantine system. This has been a partnership between state, territory and federal governments. The concept that quarantining is a federal responsibility under the Constitution is completely irrelevant to the practical reality of how you should properly undertake quarantining against a health virus in human beings. It's the state and territory jurisdictions that have the health capability and capacity. Even if the Commonwealth was doing it without the states and territories instead of cooperating and working with them, the states and territories would bear the risk and burden of what may put an enormous amount of pressure on their health systems.
All of the reviews and the reports about quarantine that you have access to in the public domain make a few very important points. For those who warrant to talk about remote quarantine camps—and all the things that, bizarrely, the Labor Party used to criticise the coalition for so heavily on another policy topic when it came to managing the flow of people into this country—it is very clear that, when you undertake quarantine, you must have close access to tertiary health services so that, if people in the quarantine system do, in fact, have this COVID-19 virus and they do deteriorate to the extent that they need significant medical attention, they are close to that. That means ventilation and ICU in tertiary hospitals, which are, of course, located in the major population centres in this country—in particular, capital cities. You also want to have your quarantine as close to the international airports as possible where people returning to this country are landing. Every extra complexity you put in place between landing in an aircraft somewhere in this country and being taken into the quarantine system increases the risk.
Thirdly, you need a workforce available to operate the quarantine system as readily available as possible. So, of course, when you're holding people in quarantine in CBD hotels, it is the easiest place in which to get the workforce you need for all the various requirements and responsibilities of undertaking that quarantine. Doing that in the middle of outback Australia and thinking that you could manage all the various risks of not having a workforce, not having tertiary hospital systems nearby and having the long, risky transit from where people arrive in the country to putting them into these sorts of facilities are the sorts of risks that have been ruled out by the experts. I strongly endorse the approach of the Prime Minister when it comes to quarantining returning Australians, which is to work cooperatively with the state and territory jurisdictions, who have certain capabilities and capacities to manage this unique quarantine challenge that we at the Commonwealth level don't have. Equally we provide all the resources that we possibly do have to work collaboratively with them in undertaking this very substantial logistical challenge.
Obviously, any breach from hotel quarantine is extremely concerning and regrettable. But, if you look at the number of people that have come home to this country over the last 14 months and, against that number, the percentage of outbreaks that have occurred, it is an unbelievable statistic, more than 99 per cent. We don't want any outbreak whatsoever. We want this to be completely watertight. We've always learnt about opportunities for improvement from various lessons in that 14-month period. But the broad principle of how it is being undertaken is the right one. Liberal governments and Labor governments at the state level are all in agreement on the way in which we're undertaking the quarantining of people returning to the country while our border is closed, so that we can protect our population from bringing COVID-19 into the country.
With that said, I appreciate the opportunity to make a contribution on this important piece of legislation. As I said, it's fundamental to the principles of our health system, where we have universal health care for all but we want to have an incentive for those that can afford to contribute more for private health insurance to do so, so that we're taking pressure off the system and making it as sustainable as possible. I commend the bill to the House.
Ms MURPHY (Dunkley) (12:21): Just over an hour ago people in my community, people in my state, got the news that we've been dreading, that we're going back into a seven-day lockdown. I don't think we need other people to say, 'You're okay, you've got it,' because we know what it's like to go through lockdown. We know how hard it is. We also know why we have to do it. I'm sure that my community—and I wish I could be home with them—at the moment are feeling both the sensation of 'we can do this, we can get through it' and the dread because schools are closed again, workplaces are closed again, we can't have weddings or funerals or see loved ones. All this will be mixed with a feeling of 'but this didn't have to happen'.
It didn't have to happen. As the acting Premier said, when I was watching his press conference this morning, across this country we have a vaccination rollout that is too slow, that is behind where it should have been. Now we see the consequences of that across a state where people are once again having to sacrifice, not only for their own health but for the health of the community and for the ongoing good of the country, let alone the economy that the Morrison government likes to talk about so much. The Prime Minister had two jobs this year: the vaccination rollout and quarantine. But here we are, yet again, talking about a COVID outbreak because it's escaped from hotel quarantine. There were members of the government, including, extraordinarily, members of the Victorian government, who last year appeared to take some delight in attacking the Victorian state government when there were leaks of COVID from hotel quarantine. But now we've seen it happen across the country.
My state is now in lockdown because of a leak from hotel quarantine in South Australia, and yet we still have a Prime Minister who won't take responsibility for a national quarantine strategy and proper fit-for-purpose quarantine facilities. We had members of the government giving speeches just before me about how terrific the hotel quarantine system in Australia is and apparently how outrageous it is for anyone to query why this federal government has not put in place proper quarantine facilities. I realise that the member for Sturt doesn't come from Victoria, so his community aren't locked down, but he certainly comes from the state where the outbreak occurred, which has led to Victoria being locked down.
The Prime Minister needs to stand up and take responsibility for what he's responsible for, and the member opposite can scoff at me giving a speech about my state going into lockdown, but she needs to perhaps think about it before she does that, because these are real people I'm talking about, and if the member across the chamber wants to act like someone who doesn't care about the health of real people, she can think about her own actions.
This vaccine rollout across my state has not made it to all of the aged-care facilities. It has not made it to the disability residential facilities. It has not made it to the GP clinics in my electorate where, today, people are being told that GP clinics do not have federally supplied vaccines to give to members of my community. It is not good enough. It is not good enough to say, 'Oh, but we're doing better than other countries around the world.' We're still not doing enough. The measure shouldn't be: other countries are worse. The measure should be: we are looking after Australian citizens in the best possible way at all times. It's not good enough at the moment.
Aside from the Prime Minister's failure to do the two things he needed to do this year—make sure the vaccination rollout went smoothly and establish quarantine—there has been an extraordinary failure by the government to get a public health message out there that resonates about getting vaccinated. And I say it's extraordinary because if there's one thing that the Prime Minister is good at it is marketing and advertising. We see advertising programs across the world that are resonating with other countries' communities. If Dolly Parton can get out there in America and Elton John can get out there in the UK and the governments can be involved in getting their citizens to get vaccinated, why can't we do that in Australia? Every member of this chamber should be doing everything they can at every moment to encourage people to get vaccinated.
I've been vaccinated and been part of a public health campaign and gone out there and told people to be vaccinated, so no-one on that side of the chamber should be mumbling about involvement in promoting vaccinations. I won't ask anyone to do something I haven't done. I went out there, as part of a vulnerable community, and got vaccinated and said to the Australian people, 'I'm doing it and you should be doing it.' And I'll continue to do that at every opportunity that's given to me, because that's what we need to be doing in this country. If you have concerns about the vaccination, don't go onto the internet, don't go to Facebook, don't go to Twitter. Go to your GP, get the medical advice that you need and get vaccinated. We can see in Victoria why it is so crucial to get that vaccination. Do what you can to get vaccinated as soon as you can. And do what you can to make sure that pressure is continued to be put on the government to get that vaccination rollout where it is needed.
This legislation also talks about private health insurance. I just want to make three points about health in this country, which I've made before, but they continue to be incredibly important and more work needs to be done. The first is the importance of a preventative health strategy in this country. I was at a Cancer Council Biggest Morning Tea event this morning, where we were promoting people over 50 doing the screening test for bowel cancer. That's really important. Something like 103 people die a week in Australia of bowel cancer. We have one of the highest rates of bowel cancer in the world. Part of that is because of the lifestyles that we live in Australia and the food we consume, and the way in which we don't look after our health. Preventative health is really important. We need to continue to fund screening programs. The federal government has put money into screening programs, including, today, to the Cancer Council for bowel screening, and that's to be congratulated. We also need to continue to do more about health education in this country—about healthy eating, healthy living, healthy exercise.
The other general point about our health system is that it's not equitable and it's not universal, as much as we want it to be. We keep talking about our universal public health system. I represent an outer suburban electorate, and we can't get enough bulk billing GPs and we can't retain them. There is a problem with the system and the way it's operating. There is a problem with the incentive for Australian-trained doctors to work in bulk billing clinics in lower socioeconomic areas. We urgently need to look at how we can encourage doctors, Australian-trained doctors and overseas doctors, to work in bulk billing clinics, not just in the regions and remotely but in outer suburban areas, like my electorate, where people rely on bulk billing to get their health care. It's urgent and more work needs to be done.
Health care is a human right. Decent, accessible, affordable health care is a human right. It's something we hold dear in Australia. It's one of the things we value as Australians. But we are not there yet. If the pandemic showed us anything, it showed us the importance of health care to the day-to-day community and to the economy and the role of government in protecting it and supporting it for everyone.
Ms BELL (Moncrieff) (12:31): I will start by saying that I do take offence that the member for Dunkley has said that I scoffed at Australians and health outcomes. I think it's outrageous that the member opposite has said that in the parliament to the Australian people, and I rebuke that and say that I was merely scoffing at her suggestion that it could be the member for Sturt's error or fault in some way that there is now a breakout—
Ms Murphy: I didn't say that.
Ms BELL: in Victoria. I think to suggest that that could be the case is disgraceful. It's another example of those opposite attacking this government instead of attacking the virus. I must say that the suggestion that South Australia, which is my home state too—I was born in South Australia—is at fault in any way for this breakout in Victoria is outrageous, and, again, it's simply political rhetoric.
Ms Murphy interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Wallace ): Order!
Ms BELL: I'm pleased to rise and speak of the Private Health Insurance Amendment (Income Thresholds) Bill 2021. The twin health and economic crisis of this pandemic has underscored how intertwined the different aspects of wellbeing are, and I would like to say to the Australian people that this bill—and I agree with the member for Sturt on this—will take pressure off the public system, which is what those opposite should be positive about, that we will help those who rely on the public system instead of those who can't afford health care or private health care not being able to go to public hospitals. So I think it's really important that this bill does move forward through the parliament. This is nothing new, and, after the pandemic, the reality of the critical interdependence on health and economic wellbeing will remain.
In Australia, we have a health system that many around the world are envious of. In the words of John Howard, 'It's half public and half private, just like the school system.' It's half public and half private, which makes it equitable for all Australians to have good health care and good education.
In Moncrieff, dedicated health professionals deliver highly effective care across our public and private hospitals and through many other health services. Globally significant health research is taking place in our universities. Griffith University, my alma mater, in my electorate of Moncrieff, is going forward in leaps and bounds when it comes to medical research. None of this happened by accident. It was not a revolution. It was logical, incremental improvements that delivered most of what we see today, due in part to the work of many governments both on this side and the other side and, more so, due to the many public and private institutions that have been pushing on the flywheel.
The institutional strength of our Australian society should be cause for celebration. I've said before, we have the best health system in the world. Very little of the lucky country's circumstances—in this case, Australia—is down to luck; it's down to hard work. The harder you work, the luckier you get. This institutional strength is one of the great differentiators that our nation must recognise and nourish. Our national institutional strength not only flourishes in the health sector but in most other major endeavours of our society. This gives me great confidence that if we, as a government, pursue good policies and implement them with vigour, we will create conditions for the expertise and toil of our institutions to deliver excellent comes for the Australian people.
The task of reform is never over; there's always more work to be done. Each and every incremental reform is important; therefore, I'm pleased to contribute to this debate on the Private Health Insurance Amendment (Income Thresholds) Bill 2021. The bill amends the Private Health Insurance Act 2007, the PHI act. The changes planned will commence on 1 July this year, which is very shortly, creeping up to the end of the financial year. It's been a very quick year, this year, and here we are almost half way through it—unbelievable.
Private health insurance is a complicated policy area, and the government is taking a considered approach with this bill. It extends the indexation pause on the Medicare levy surcharge and private health insurance rebate income tiers for another two years until 30 June 2023. It ensures the recommencement of annual indexation of the current income thresholds following the end of the planned pause. The pause is important because it rightly provides the stability of incentives that private health insurance consumers and stakeholders deserve, whilst the careful consideration of longer-term settings is undertaken. We must be cognisant that private health insurance policies have significant consequences for the public system. As I said, they relieve the strain on the public health system, on public hospitals, so that all Australians can access good health care. It's equitable. Those who can afford it, buy private health insurance and those who can't go to public hospitals. That's worked in our democracy here in Australia for very, very many decades. A detailed study into the effectiveness of private health insurance settings will be undertaken, of course, during this pause.
To be clear, this bill ensures the security of private health insurance in two main ways. It continues to encourage high-income earners to contribute to their own healthcare costs through private insurance or have a contribution imposed via the Medicare levy surcharge, and it continues to incentivise consumers to purchase and maintain private health insurance cover, which is very important.
An important component of this bill is the indexation arrangements. The private health insurance rebate amounts, income thresholds and the rates for the Medicare levy surcharge are pursuant to the Private Health Insurance Act 2007. The act determines the setting and annual indexation of income thresholds. The Medicare levy surcharge is paid by Australian taxpayers earning more than $90,000 for singles and more than $180,000 for a family, unless they have an appropriate level of private health insurance hospital cover. This bill will deliver a pause for a further two years from 1 July 2021, in a couple of months, allowing for indexation to recommence annually from 1 July 2023.
The Private Health Insurance Act specifies the three private health insurance income thresholds for singles and for families. Annual indexation of those thresholds is deployed in the act by utilising an indexation factor. The bill amends the income thresholds so the current 2021 levels also apply for 2021-22 and 2022-23. I will just outline the three threshold levels. Currently they're at $90,000, $105,000 and $140,000. For families, the three levels are $180,000, $210,000, and $280,000. Additionally, it specifies the indexation factor to apply indexation across the income thresholds each financial year from July 2023. At that time, when indexation resumes, it will be determined by the method under the act, and I'll outline that. The annual indexation is determined by changes in average weekly ordinary-time earnings each financial year from 1 July 2023. Average weekly ordinary time earnings are an Australian Bureau of Statistics, or ABS, measure of earnings by Australians for an ordinary time worked each week. It's publicly reported quarterly by the ABS.
The Medicare levy surcharge rates and the private health insurance rebate rates remain unchanged by this bill. The pause extension means $90,000 remains the base income threshold for singles and $180,000 remains the base rate for a family for two more years, until 30 June 2023. This bill helps to restrain expenditure growth of the private health insurance rebate while a detailed study into the effectiveness of the operation of the tiers and incentives is undertaken. This pause, or freeze, if you like, provides stability whilst careful study of these important incentives is undertaken to ensure those good policy outcomes that Australians deserve.
In the health portfolio more generally, the budget is delivering for Australians. Let me take the time to highlight just a couple of important facts. There is record investment of $121.4 billion in 2021-22, and $503 billion is being invested over the next four years. We've committed over $25 billion towards our COVID-19 health response since the beginning of this pandemic. That $25 billion includes $1.1 billion to extend our COVID-19 health response to support Australians throughout the pandemic and $1.9 billion for the vaccine rollout. The $204.6 million to extend the telehealth arrangements until 31 December this year raises the government's total investment to $3.6 billion.
There is $17.7 billion being invested in aged care—those opposite should be happy with that also—in response to the royal commission on aged-care quality. Our $2.3 billion investment in the National Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Plan is so important for those Australians who need help after they've tried to take their lives. It is very important that they are supported after doing so. That is very important. Medicare funding is $125.7 billion over the forward estimates, up by over $6 billion. The PBS is $43 billion over four years. There is $535.9 million for the National Women's Health Strategy 2020 to 2030. These are all very important strategies and investments in the Australian people—in the health and wellbeing of all Australians. There is $781.1 million to prioritise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health and ageing outcomes. Public hospitals will receive $135.4 billion over five years. There is $6.7 billion over four years for research, and $228.1 million of that will be new grants and the opening of programs in this budget.
With this bill and the other steps we've taken on private health, the government are delivering the lowest premium changes in 20 years. The Morrison government cares about the health of all Australians. We're doing everything we can to support Australians—to support those who need to go to public hospitals through this pause to the private health indexation.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (12:43): Under the Morrison government, the cost of many household items just keeps going up and up and up, but the one thing that isn't going up is Australian workers' incomes. Private health insurance is another of those costs that families have to bear on an annual basis that just keeps going up and up and up under this government. When you couple that with the cost of child care, which has been going up; the lid having been blown off housing affordability and house prices across the country going up; and the cost of transport, particularly all the toll roads that we have to deal with on a daily basis, going up, it makes household affordability that much more difficult.
This bill amends and implements measures announced in the budget, and what it does is adjust the formula for recommencement of indexation of the current income thresholds following the end of a pause that this bill seeks to extend for another two years. Of course, there's been a pause in the annual indexation of private health insurance income thresholds in the wake of COVID. Although we're pausing the indexation of the income thresholds, it hasn't resulted in private health insurance premiums being paused at all.
The income thresholds are indexed in accordance with the growth of full-time average weekly ordinary time earnings. The Private Health Insurance Act is the main law that sets out the requirements for private health insurance and private health insurers. That act allows for the setting of annual indexing of income thresholds. The income thresholds determine the rebate amounts that may apply for consumers with eligible PHI coverage, the rebate and the Medicare levy surcharge income thresholds and rates.
The effect of this is the continuation of the pause of the annual indexation of income thresholds for another two years and an adjustment of the formula for the recommencement of indexation after that period. The government has announced that the continuation of the pause will provide an opportunity to undertake a detailed study of the settings of the PHI rebate and the Medicare levy surcharge into the future. The reason that's happening is quite simple. It is that Australians are getting rid of their private health insurance. They're moving out of it. It's a trend that's been continuing for some years under this government, who put in place these rebate measures and the Medicare levy surcharge to encourage people into private health insurance. But the one thing they have failed at is stopping the private health insurers increasing their premiums in an unsustainable manner.
The expanded pause of indexation effectively lowers the real income thresholds at which PHI and the Medicare levy surcharge are applied, by not adjusting for increases in average earnings. In this way, it represents a lowering of the PHI rebate support and an increase in the Medicare levy surcharge rates for people who'd otherwise not be pushed into higher income thresholds. With the pause, the rebate income threshold remains at $90,000 for the base single policy and $100,000 for the base family policy. The base income threshold under which a taxpayer is not liable to pay the MLS remains at $90,000 for singles and $180,000 for couples.
Despite these changes, as I said, what we haven't seen from the insurers is a pause in the premiums. Last month average private health insurance premiums increased by 2.74 per cent, or an average of $126, for Australian families. Those opposite might not think that that's a big amount, but for a family with a couple of kids, who have just got back to a normal work pattern in the wake of COVID but are struggling to make ends meet, struggling with the exploding cost of housing throughout the country, struggling with the cost of child care, which keeps going up and up under this government, struggling with the cost of electricity, which is of course always going up, it means that there's a hell of a lot of pressure on the household budget.
This government doesn't seem to understand just how much pressure there is on household budgets in Australia at the moment. And yet there is no increase in real incomes at all under this government. In fact, they're set to fall. It is admitted in the government's own budget papers that there will be a $150 million budget deficit and $1 trillion worth of debt. What do we get for it? Not much for the average Australian household. A lot more pain—that's what you've got coming, because real incomes won't be increasing, but the costs of everyday items such as your private health insurance will be increasing.
Some funds' premiums will be rising by as much as 10 per cent over the next 12 months. That increase is more than three times as large as the CPI and twice as large as average wage increases. We know from the ACCC's review of the sector that insurers have paid out $500 million less in benefits due to COVID-19, because most of the private hospitals and indeed the public hospitals shut down for that period, when the nation was in lockdown. And there have been the ongoing shutdowns in certain states, associated with outbreaks. So those surgeries and those medical procedures didn't occur. Do you think that the private health insurers passed on those cost savings to consumers? No, they didn't. Did the government do anything to force them to pass on those cost savings? No, they didn't. Even though the Private Health Insurance Act gives the health minister the power to reject premium increases that 'would be contrary to the public interest' he's refused to do so; he's allowed them to keep increasing their prices.
During a global pandemic, and when Australian families are trying to recover from the first recession they've experienced in three decades—and the worst recession since the Great Depression—they're being forced to deal with cost pressures that keep going up and up and up and adding to pressure on household budgets, including insurance premium hikes for private health insurance. The cost of private health insurance cover under the coalition, since they came to office, has gone up 36 per cent. If you want the reason people are leaving private health insurance, that's it. It's there for you in black and white, and it's the fifth year in a row that the number of Australians covered by private health insurance has fallen, and it's fallen under a Liberal government that likes to pride itself on supporting the private sector and encouraging people into private health insurance. It was the Howard government that put these measures in place that we're debating today. Yet they've failed, and the proof is in the 36 per cent increase in premiums over the course of this government, and that it is the fifth year in a row that the number of people who have cover through private health insurance has fallen.
What's the result of this? The result is it puts more pressure on the public health system. People are saying: 'I can't afford private health insurance anymore. My wages aren't going up. Everything else is going up. We simply can't do it with the mortgage repayments we have, with the cost of child care, with the tolls that we have to pay to get around the city. We just can't do it. We're getting rid of our private health insurance, and we'll fall back on the public system. Although there's a Medicare levy surcharge, we'll have to deal with it.' And that's what they're doing. But all that means is there's more pressure on the public health system. What's the result? Elective surgery waiting lists go up. Times go up. People have to live with pain for a longer period of time. It means that there's pressure on the budgets in the public hospital system. My wife is a nurse. She works in a major public hospital in Sydney, and she tells me, quite regularly, about the staff leaving the hospital who aren't replaced. There's more and more pressure on nurses and health professionals in the public healthcare system, because the budgets are set. They're not going up. In fact, state governments are asking administrators of public hospitals to do more to find cost savings, yet more and more people are coming into the system because they've been pushed out of the private health insurance system because it's unaffordable.
So the Prime Minister and members opposite really need to explain to the Australian people why, during a global pandemic, they're allowing private health insurance companies to push up premiums by 2.74 per cent, on average, for families over the course of this year. How is that fair? Wages aren't going up; wages aren't going to go up by that much. Incomes aren't going to go up by that much. How are families meant to bear that cost? It's not an insignificant cost, either. For a family with a few kids, you're looking at at least a couple of hundred bucks a month for your private health insurance. And you might be working in a sector that's been shut down because of COVID, like the aviation sector. Anyone who works at the Kingsford-Smith Airport in the community that I represent has had their hours cut. All of the ancillary businesses that work around that and that support the industry are struggling. That applies to anyone who works in travel or tourism throughout the country. How are they meant to bear the cost of losing their work and keep their private health insurance, when the premium goes up by 2.74 per cent? They can't. And that's how they end up moving into the public system and putting more and more and more pressure on our public healthcare system.
Yesterday, we debated a bill, the effect of which was changing the taper rates for the Medicare levy kicking in and the income levels that it kicks in at. The effect of that was to take $50 million in Medicare receipts out of the system. How are you going to replace $50 million, which funds GP rebates, funds our public hospital system? How do you replace that money? There was nothing in the budget to replace that lost revenue from the changes to the income thresholds for the Medicare levy and that would have gone into supporting the public hospital system. These are the failings of the government when it comes to the budget. The failings may not be apparent right now, but I tell you what: they're going to show up in years to come. They're going to show up in enormous pressure on the health budget. They're going to show up in more and more people leaving private health insurance, putting more pressure on the hospital system and the GP network.
You can bet your life that eventually the response of this government will be the same as its response in 2014, and that is to cut services. They'll look at things like bringing back the Medicare tax that they tried to implement when Joe Hockey was the Treasurer and the cuts that they made to a number of programs throughout the country that were deeply unpopular. That will be the effect, and that is why it's important that this government, and particularly the health minister, must use the discretion that he has under the Private Health Insurance Act to make the private health insurers explain or, where they can't explain, stop these unreasonable increases in private health insurance that the average Australian family and worker simply cannot bear.
Dr MARTIN (Reid) (12:56): I rise to speak on the Private Health Insurance Amendment (Income Thresholds) Bill 2021. This past year has reinforced how incredibly important our healthcare system is and the importance of our health and medical workforce. When I was practising as a psychologist, I saw firsthand the quality and the standard of our country's healthcare system. While it is not always perfect, the fact is that no matter who you are or what you do for work, every Australian has access to help. In Australia, we are so fortunate to have universal health care in the form of Medicare, a program that protects all Australians in a way that makes us the envy of the world. Even highly developed countries like the United States do not offer the generous and worthy support offered here. However, despite the generosity of Medicare, it is still incumbent upon us to incentivise higher income earners to financially contribute toward their own healthcare cost or to pay the Medicare levy surcharge. By doing this, Australians are not only taking control of their own health care but easing the burden on taxpayers and supporting those in our society who are most in need of Medicare's coverage.
It is for this reason the government is amending the Private Health Insurance Act 2007. The Private Health Insurance Amendment (Income Thresholds) Bill 2021 extends the indexation pause on the Medicare levy surcharge and private health insurance rebate income tiers for another two years, until 30 June 2023. It ensures the recommencement of annual indexation at the current income thresholds following the end of the pause. How does the indexation work? The Private Health Insurance Act describes indexation of private health insurance income thresholds as being calculated using an indexation factor. It also lays out the three private health insurance income thresholds for individuals or singles and families. The bill amends the income thresholds to the current 2020-21 levels to apply right up until 2022-23. It specifies the formula for applying indexation across the income thresholds each financial year from 1 July 2023. The pause provides stability for consumers and stakeholders regarding the operation of these important private health insurance incentives. As COVID outbreaks still occur around the country and the world continues to grapple with the virus, we cannot become complacent. Health care and proper coverage for all Australians is extremely important. By continuing to incentivise consumers to purchase and maintain private health insurance cover we ease the burden on Medicare and continue to protect Australians.
The Private Health Insurance Act 2007 makes provision for the setting and annual indexing of private health insurance income thresholds. Legislated private health insurance income thresholds are used to determine government funded private health rebate amounts that may be available to consumers with eligible private health insurance cover and to determine Medicare levy surcharge income thresholds and rates. The Medicare levy is an additional contribution you pay on your taxable income unless you qualify for a reduction or exemption. The Medicare levy funds some of the cost of Australia's very generous public healthcare system. The Medicare levy surcharge is levied on Australian taxpayers who don't have an appropriate level of private health insurance hospital cover and who earn above the taxable income threshold, which, as it stands at the moment, is $90,000 for a single or individual and $180,000 for a family. The amendments will pause the legislated indexing of private health insurance income thresholds for a further two years from 1 July 2021, allowing for annual indexation to recommence from 1 July 2023.
The Private Health Insurance Act provides for the annual indexation to be determined by changes in average weekly ordinary time earnings each financial year from 1 July 2023. Average weekly ordinary time earnings is an Australian Bureau of Statistics measure of earnings by Australians from ordinary time worked each week. It is reported publicly by the ABS quarterly. The bill amends the indexation factor's financial year references to reflect current income thresholds for indexing from 1 July 2023. These changes do not alter the Medicare levy surcharge rates or private health insurance rebates. The extension of the pause means that $90,000 remains the base income threshold for a single and $180,000 remains the base for a family for two more years until 30 June 2023. Pausing indexation of the income thresholds helps to restrain the growth of private health insurance rebate expenditure while a detailed study into the effectiveness of the operation of the tiers and incentives is undertaken. It would be counterintuitive to attempt to change the income thresholds whilst investigating whether the tiers are even effective.
As a government, we encourage those who can access private health insurance to do so. These amendments do just that. They continue to incentivise higher income earners to contribute financially towards their own health costs or pay the Medicare levy. Australians look out for each other, and paying the Medicare levy is just one way we as a proud nation can put our hand around those who need it. Those who currently have private health insurance should not worry. These amendments will not affect you negatively. The bill means that for the next two financial years the private health insurance rebate income thresholds remain unchanged, at $90,000 for a single and $180,000 for a family. These will remain as they are until 30 June 2023.
Mr DICK (Oxley) (13:03): I rise to join my colleagues to support the Private Health Insurance Amendment (Income Thresholds) Bill 2021. I'll give some remarks about the bill—it is a fairly non-controversial bill—but I will add remarks that follow on from those of a number of speakers and rebut some of the nonsense that we've heard from members of the government about Australia's health system. I will follow on from the comments of the member for Kingsford Smith regarding affordability and the collapse of health insurance in this country—as with everything it does, this government says, 'Nothing to see here. It's all great,' whether it be vaccinations, quarantine or, now, private health insurance.
The bill continues the pause of the annual indexation of income thresholds for another two years and adjusts the formula for the recommencement of indexation. The government has announced that the continuation of the pause will provide an opportunity to undertake a detailed study of settings for the PHI rebate and the MLS. Obviously this is good news for consumers. We don't want health premiums to go through the roof. But I was reading a report released last week regarding health insurance in Australia, and it says 'Australia's private health insurance industry in a death spiral'. That is what is being reported of our health system. Our private health insurance industry is seen to be in a death spiral. That is because this government, after a long eight years, has put health insurance in this country in the 'too hard' basket. The private health industry is on its knees. We know we have an ageing population, which is increasing the use of healthcare services. There are rising healthcare costs that drive up premiums and make health insurance less affordable and less attractive, particularly to young and healthy people.
A report by the Grattan Institute has indicated some serious issues regarding private health insurance in this country. It is clear to say that unless the government takes action—unless the government steps up to the plate instead of pretending and being in denial about what is happening—the industry will collapse. The industry is in a death spiral. We know numbers are on the way down. We know that private health insurance isn't increasing. It's not even flatlining; it's decreasing. The COVID crisis, which we've come through over the last 12 months, has clearly shown that our health sector is under increasing pressures. So I don't want any lectures from the government today, saying: 'Everything's fine. We've got nothing to see here,' when it's not. Obviously we are a constructive opposition, and when we see consumer relief and consumer support we will support that policy. But let's be clear: we have a health system in this country that has been brought to its knees as a result of the pandemic.
I want to use my time today to acknowledge and give thanks to all of the health professionals that have worked so hard during the last 12 months and beyond to ensure that our Australian community have remained safe during the health pandemic and that they have got the access to health services that they need. But it has not been plain sailing, it has not been easy, and we are not through this is as of yet. I'm glad the shadow health minister has moved a second reading amendment regarding the health system, particularly during the COVID crisis.
This government has had some responsibilities. Their key responsibilities for this year have been the vaccination rollout and quarantine. I've been listening to the member for Sturt and others. They have said, 'We've got one of the best quarantine systems in the world.' I've got to be honest with you: Are they in some alternative universe? Have they seen what's happened in Victoria? For the Prime Minister to get up and say: 'We're all in this together. We're all working together. The states and I are all together,'—what utter nonsense. We all sat here when he was campaigning against the Queensland government, when he was campaigning against the McGowan government and when he was campaigning against the Andrews government. Minister after minister were trawling up and down Queensland, bagging out the state Premier and all carrying on. What happened to, 'We've got to live with the virus'? We've all got to live with the virus now because of our vaccination rates being so low. We do want confidence. We do want people taking their vaccinations. We do want people turning up. The health minister says, 'It's not a race,' when everyone else in Australia believes it is.
Then we have this utter nonsense this week from a Queensland LNP senator, who I've never heard of, Senator Gerard Rennick. Mr Rennick—I'm quoting a news.com.au article here—said:
… he was in no rush himself to get the Covid-19 jab, despite the Federal Government urging Australians not to wait to get vaccinated.
Almost one-third of adult Australians say they are unlikely to be vaccinated against Covid-19, according to a poll in the Nine newspapers last week, prompting calls for a national campaign to get people vaccinated.
A national vaccination campaign is something that I have called on the government to deliver. Virtually every other country in the world has done that. Where are the billboards? Where is the advertising campaign? We know the government doesn't mind a bit of advertising, but where is it when it comes to getting people vaccinated? It doesn't exist. If any member of the government can provide information to me right now, I will yield my time to them. I will happily sit down if the data and that information can be provided. It doesn't exist.
Then you get people like Senator Gerard Rennick saying: 'I'm going to sit back and watch and see how it goes. That's my view. I'm the 31 per cent.' He's as proud as punch, boasting about the fact that he's not going to take the vaccination. 'I will wait and see.' This is a member of the Australian parliament. This is a member of the government. Has anyone taken him aside and said: 'You know what, mate? We've really got to make sure that the rates are through the roof. It's probably best you don't say that, even if you don't want the vaccination'—for whatever kooky and whack-job reason these people don't want it. Maybe he's got preselectors inside the Queensland LNP who are antivaxxers; I don't know. But maybe he should get on board with the rest of Australia and make sure this country gets vaccinated. It is not good enough. It is unacceptable that members of the government are boasting about the fact that they're going to wait: 'I'm going to sit back and watch and see how it goes. That's my view.' Well, I say that is a terrible view and that senator should be hauled into the health minister's office or the Prime Minister's office. He should be read the riot act and start doing his civic duty to encourage Australians to get vaccinated.
We know we've had 17 outbreaks in hotel quarantine in the last six months. The government has shown such complacency with the shockingly slow pace of the vaccine rollout, and we're now seeing hesitancy towards the vaccines as a result. The Prime Minister says it's not a race, but it is a race. It's a race to beat this virus, particularly to beat the mutations of this virus. We're already seeing outbreaks in a range of countries, like South Korea, Japan and, importantly, Taiwan, which performed just as well as Australia did in suppressing the virus. Last week the government received 1.4 million vaccine doses. Think about this: 1.4 million vaccine doses arrived, but only just over 500,000 were administered. There's no public health campaign to get more people vaccinated sooner. Others around the world are using celebrities and sporting stars—you name it—to get those jabs in arms.
This leads me to follow on from what the member for Sturt was talking about: quarantine. He's another person apparently living in an alternative universe, thinking we have this amazing quarantine system. The facts are these. The Prime Minister, coming to my home state of Queensland, wasn't happy with the Toowoomba quarantine suggestion put on the table. It was a sensible suggestion by the Queensland government—in a city, close to Brisbane, with an airport, which the Prime Minister flew into, and with health facilities. He ruled that out. There's been no explanation as to why that is not an acceptable place, despite the Prime Minister trying to say that Toowoomba was a desert of some sort. Anyone who's been to Toowoomba, with its Carnival of Flowers, knows that it's not a desert. I'll give you that tip!
There are serious issues with quarantine, which is a constitutional responsibility of the Commonwealth government. If Toowoomba isn't a suitable solution for the Prime Minister, what is? What is the quarantine plan? Speak to most Victorians today—they don't think we have the best quarantine system in the world, though we have the best workers in the quarantine system. Every person in Victoria is now going into lockdown for the next seven days, which is the last thing business, industry and families wanted, and they've got the government coming in here—and they'll do it again today—saying, 'We've got it all covered. There's absolutely nothing to worry about. There's totally nothing to do here.' Then you get fools like Senator Gerard Rennick—I'll withdraw that. You get members of the government basically telling people not to get vaccinated. I know that Senator Rennick has some pretty out-there views—I know that he's on the extremes there—but, when you start telling constituents and the broader Australian public that we should be waiting, or that he will be waiting back and taking his time, it's not acceptable.
We know that, as of this week, the United States has delivered 219 million COVID vaccinations, the UK 60 million and Canada more than 20 million. But here in Australia we are languishing at just three million vaccinations, and only around two per cent of Australians have now been fully vaccinated—two per cent. So 98 per cent have not been done and two per cent have. That is not acceptable, when we've been hearing all the promises from this government: four million people done by May; every disability worker, every aged-care facility, all disability homes vaccinated by Easter; we were at the front of the queue; we were leading the way. We are so far back in the queue that it is not funny! And then you get members of the Morrison government basically saying: 'Don't get the vaccine if you don't feel like it. I'm going to sit back. I haven't had the flu jab. Why should I have this?'
Talk about utter chaos! We're going to close the borders forever. For people who were banging on about state borders being open all the time, they've got a funny way of showing it, now that we're locking every single border and we're never opening them again! It's fortress Australia. It was not the Prime Minister's fault when he said that to the media—the media put the wrong spin on it! We're hearing different responses from the health minister and from the Treasurer about when we'll get vaccinated. Those in this government are all over the shop when it comes to vaccination. Less gab, more jab—that's what we say on this side of the chamber. It's time that the government took their responsibilities seriously. They had two jobs this year: vaccinations—jabs in arms—and quarantine. They've failed on both fronts.
Then you get low vaccination rates and then you get members of the government saying: 'Well, I'm going to wait and see. I might sit this one out.' Well, it is not acceptable. This is a race. We have to get this right. Our economy relies on us making sure that we, as a society, are at the head of the pack, not last in the queue—which is where this government is taking us.
So, while this bill today is important, and whilst we are supporting the government, it is an opportunity for me to speak on behalf of my constituents in the south-west of Brisbane. I've visited an aged-care facility and I've spoken to those frontline workers, and they all say the same thing: they are desperately worried about how this government is handling the vaccination rollout, and they are, more importantly, fearful that there is no plan to deal with quarantine.
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (13:18): It's a privilege to be able to speak on this important legislation, the Private Health Insurance Amendment (Income Thresholds) Bill 2021, around the indexation of thresholds for private health insurance. I say that because of course private health insurance is an integral part of our health system.
Members on the other side of the chamber have always had a crusade. They've wanted to destroy private health insurance because it gives everything they don't want Australians to have: empowerment—freedom to make choices and to determine their own destiny as to their own health care. What the Labor Party has always wanted for Australians is a sense of conformity, where they go into a system and are dictated to and have choice removed. Of course, in the end, we know what happens with that: you get conformity through poverty and through their concept of equality, which only amounts to poor standards and outcomes.
Private health insurance is actually about freeing up capital. It's about encouraging people to be able to make choices about their health care and to make informed decisions. And, of course, if they don't like the state system that is imposed upon them then they have an alternative.
There's a long history of this in this country. Australians forget that private health and mutualism were at the heart of our health system for most of modern Australia. People got together—they collaborated through mutuals or insurance pools—to provide assistance to each other and to manage out risk. That system of course delivered quality health care based on choice and ensured that Australians understood the importance of health care but also that health care costs. Of course, as soon as you push that cost further away, the obligations and the sense of responsibility people have to it diminishes.
That's very different to the situation in the Goldstein electorate. In fact, the Goldstein electorate has more private health insurance policies than it does enrolled voters. That has a lot of to do with the fact that we have a lot of international visitors or permanent residents who live in the electorate for professional reasons and the like. We are very proud of our commitment to private health insurance. We have exceptional private hospitals and exceptional standards of quality of care, because Goldstein residents understand that, if you want health care that reflects all stages of life—without a race to the bottom, as the Labor Party would have—a private health system not only allows them to have it but also frees up resources in the public system to improve outcomes for the rest of the community.
Of course, there is no time more critical to talk about the necessity of quality health care than right now. I say to all my fellow Victorians how distressing it is that we've witnessed another lockdown in the great state of Victoria. We of course had a number last year, particularly the very long one which led to people being locked down in their homes for many months—and the human toll that took both in terms of physical health and mental health—and people not being able to live out their lives as usual. Through the great endeavours and effort of Victorians over a prolonged period of time, we got to a situation where we were able to eradicate COVID-19. Despite the constant celebrations of members opposite that they somehow claim this is a victory for the Victorian government, it was not; it was a victory for the people of Victoria and their sacrifice—not just to protect themselves and their families, though they did, not just to protect their communities, though they did, and not just to protect their fellow citizens in the state of the Victoria, though they did, but also to protect the entire Australian community so that they didn't have to go through similar measures. And we continue to be in a situation where Australia largely has been COVID free throughout most of this pandemic.
The 25 cases and the multiple exposure sites in Victoria now bring back, I suspect, for many people a form of PTSD, back to that lockdown period, and a fear about where we are heading and the measures that will be taken. That's justified, because people went through an arduous and difficult time last year. If it's repeated, even if its for a short period, as we had in March, it again raises questions about the measures that are being taken by the state government, their efficacy for things like hotel quarantine and whether it's viable et cetera.
But I see what the members of opposition have been complaining about in this discussion around health, which is that they think that the current outbreak in Victoria is somehow the consequence of the Commonwealth. I'm not disputing that acting state Premier Merlino wants to attack the federal government to avoid responsibility, and I understand that the opposition want to focus their energies on the Commonwealth and somehow blame us for what is happening in Victoria—and, of course, they're free to engage in their shrill and hysterical commentary as they see fit. But the reality is, as the member for Oxley mentioned, that three million doses of the vaccine have been spread out in the community.
Of course, we want more Australians to get vaccinated. Make no mistake: whether in Victoria or any other state in the Commonwealth, you have a responsibility not just to yourself but also to your fellow citizens to get vaccinated because, if you do not, we risk losing every single gain we have had and put your family members and friends at risk. Yesterday we had more than 104,000 doses administered. There was always going to a build-up to mass vaccination. Now we're very clearly, at 100,000 a day, driving an agenda for vaccinations across the community.
But that doesn't mean that there aren't problems. I just got an SMS from a constituent talking about the fact that there are people being turned away from vaccination hubs in Sandown in Victoria. You just need to read the press to and see how a sick Melbourne boy was turned away, I understand, seven times from testing yesterday at a state government testing facility. In fact, there were reports yesterday that many people got turned away at 4.30 in the afternoon—so still within the working day. People finished work, they took their responsibility seriously and they went off to get tested at the Royal Exhibition Building in Melbourne and they got turned away because they found the testing centre was closed—the one run by the Victorian state government. This is farcical that that scenario has presented itself. Is it really too much to expect that testing centres are available and open to the community, understanding simple things like their need to go to work? People will be working increasingly from home over the coming week as we go into a seven-day lockdown, so that flexibility will be freed up. But surely someone in the Victorian Department of Health could have said, in the lead-up to yesterday afternoon, why don't we keep the mass testing and vaccination centres that are available open because we've just announced a number of cases, and Victorians might need to either get vaccinated or tested to fulfil their responsibility? It defies belief. But somehow, according to members of the opposition, that is the Commonwealth's fault.
One of our biggest challenges, one of our biggest tasks, and it doesn't matter who we are, whatever side of the chamber we sit on or within the rest of the community, is to take responsibility for encouraging people to get vaccinated. Deputy Speaker Gillespie, you would have seen the data from research that came out only the other day on the reasons for hesitancy among the community. We as the Liberal government are not in favour of forcing things into people's bodies and compelling people to do things against their will; certainly I'm not, as the member for Goldstein, as members well know. It's simple to go and look at why are Australians hesitant about the vaccine? Fifty per cent of people are afraid of the side effects and there was concern that emerged out of the AstraZeneca vaccine earlier the year. But we also need to be realists that the risks of COVID-19, the spread and the health consequences that could come directly from that far outweigh any risk that Australians may experience from the potential side effects—which, by the way, are treatable—from taking a particular vaccine and particularly the AstraZeneca vaccine. The federal government has gone on to order substantial amounts of the Pfizer vaccine and the Moderna vaccine booster so those who need additional assistance can get it and to make sure that people across different age and risk profiles can get a vaccine that's appropriate for them. But our responsibility is not, as the members of the opposition want to do, to constantly deride, attack, undermine, ridicule, and as the Prime Minister accurately reported yesterday, not focus on fighting the virus but focus on fighting the government, who are trying to get Australians vaccinated. It is actually to focus on: what do we need to do to get Australians vaccinated? That's where this government is and remains, while the opposition's position is to focus on trying to attack the government and fight the government.
In the end, we're in one of these kind of 'team Australia' moments and certainly in a 'team Victoria' moment, where we need to rally together and work together in the hope that we can eliminate this, not just for the impact and success of the great state of Victoria but, frankly, for the rest of the nation, because, if there is mass exposure in Victoria, it will necessarily follow through to the rest of the country. But instead, what we're hearing from the opposition is simply a partisan Labor moment, where they're interested in arguing for themselves. That's incredibly dispiriting and disappointing because the people of Victoria, frankly, deserve better than that, and the people of Australia deserve better than that.
What we need is a health system that makes sure it can protect and support people at times of risk and need. We have complications at the state level. As I said, you have people being turned away from vaccination and testing centres in the state of Victoria despite their desperate efforts to do the right thing. We have Australians who are hesitant about the vaccine and the risks they feel to their health, and our job as leaders is surely to reassure them and to encourage them to take that responsibility. My hope is that Labor members might for once transcend their desperate attempt at partisan rhetoric and focus on the mutual good of the Commonwealth and actually improve the health and welfare of the Australian community.
We know, of course, that has been something that has deprived them to date. We now face a choice and a moment, and we are at a critical moment not just for Victoria but for the Commonwealth: if we want to keep Australia COVID-free and reduce our exposure to the risks of the virus and the risks of transmission, members of the opposition will stand and support the government in its measures to do everything it can to get Australians vaccinated, and every alternative is merely partisan rhetoric and interest paraded as public interest.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Gillespie ): The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
HomeBuilder Program
Mr CLARE (Blaxland) (13:30): On A Current Affair this week it was revealed that there are hundreds of Aussies who've applied for the HomeBuilder grant and, because of a confusing online application form, have now missed out. They went online and they thought they'd applied for the grant. They trusted this government, and they signed up to contract for homes and mortgages based on the trust. Then, when they went back on the website last month to put extra documents in, they found the application was gone. It had disappeared like it never existed. Now there are hundreds and hundreds of people in financial strife.
I've got their emails here. They say they can't stop crying. They say they can't sleep at night. They say their health has been affected. They use words like 'desperate' and 'freaking out'. Many of them are concerned, frankly scared, that they're going to lose the deposit they've paid—tens of thousands of dollars—because without the grant they now don't have enough money to buy the house. This is just one sentence from one email from Tara and Wayne from Bendigo: 'It was like someone had just burnt $25,000 right in front of me and said we can no longer have it, and your dream will go up in smoke with it.' And what is the government's response? They blamed the state governments. Typical! Like everything else, they say it's not their responsibility. Well, my message to everybody who has emailed me is that it's the Australian Labor Party that is in here fighting for you, and we will keep fighting for you until this government fixes this mess.
Wide Bay Electorate: Tourism
Mr LLEW O'BRIEN (Wide Bay—Deputy Speaker) (13:31): Noosa is a world-class destination with surf to rival Hawaii, beaches to rival Fiji and rainforests as beautiful and wondrous as the Amazon, but Noosa is a destination that is within reach to Australians right now. Australians have realised how much we have to offer, and they have put the Noosa region at the top of their post-lockdown bucket list. Tourism Noosa figures show visitor numbers booming since the borders reopened. Occupancy is either the same or above the record-breaking tourism year of 2019. For this month, occupancy is at 74 per cent, higher than peak season numbers of 70 per cent in January and December. Congratulations go to Noosa, who are celebrating a new win—Queensland's Top Tourism Town Award for 2021—recognising outstanding regional destinations. This acknowledges Noosa's outstanding natural beauty as well as our quality hospitality.
As much as some Noosa businesses have been jumping with travellers, operators are struggling to fill jobs with hundreds of cleaning jobs, housekeeping, kitchenhand or laundry jobs listed online within an hour's drive of Noosa. I urge jobseekers across Australia to grab this opportunity to work in one of the most beautiful places on earth, earn a good wage and help be part of our survival of the repercussions of COVID-19.
For businesses focused on international travel, such as Flashpackers Noosa and Defence Escapes, our closed national border continues— (Time expired)
EDWARDS, Sir Llewellyn AC
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (13:33): I rise to pay tribute to Sir Llew Edwards, the former state MP for Ipswich and former Deputy Premier of Queensland. My deepest condolences to Lady Jane; his sons, Mark and David, and their respective families; and his brother, Tom, and his family. Llew was the member for Ipswich for the Liberal Party from 1972 to 1983. He started his working life as an electrician in the family business, RT Edwards & Sons, and was a beloved doctor in the Ipswich community.
After he left politics, he took on the role as chair and CEO of Expo 88, a transformative event for Brisbane and the city we call the capital of Queensland. For many years thereafter he was the well-respected Chancellor of the University of Queensland. When he was appointed as chair of the Medical Research and Compensation Foundation set up by James Hardie to provide compensation for victims of asbestos related diseases caused by the company, he took on the company himself and criticised it.
The Edwards family and the Neumann family have known each other through church and community life for generations. Sir Llew and I were clearly on different sides of politics. I acknowledge his immense contribution to the city of Ipswich in Queensland. He was a decent and honourable man in a conservative government that did not always live up to his own standards of integrity. Then Labor Premier Anna Bligh named him one of six Queensland Greats in 2010. Vale, Sir Llew Edwards. Thank you for your service to Ipswich and Queensland.
Cumberland Bird Observers' Club
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (13:35): A few weeks ago I went on a birdwatching expedition with the Cumberland Bird Observers' Club, which has been incredibly active in my community for 40 years through the passion of local ornithologists. Every year its 370 members take 40 birdwatching trips across Greater Sydney. Their knowledge of not only Sydney's birdlife but habitats and conservation is a great asset to our community. The club holds weekly outings as well as nesting outings for families and young children which is great because these outings give people of all ages the opportunity to grow in the love of birds. They also host monthly meetings with international speakers. Speaking to the newer members of the group, they describe how much they've learned through participating in the Cumberland Bird Observers' Club.
I took my colleague the Assistant Minister for Waste Reduction and Environmental Management, who is an avid birdwatcher, to meet the group. We were taken to see the birdlife at Cumberland State Forest in West Pennant Hills. This little corner of our community exists today, having been regenerated through the efforts of the community. Originally, the forest was regenerated back in 1908 after its clearing. I'd heard about the group through my friend Les Nicholls and I'd like to recognise the efforts of Cathy Goswell, the secretary, as well as Pattie McGee, Lyn Eggins, Jeff and Julie Byron, Heather Cavanaugh, Pat Thorn and David Noble and to thank all the group members who've contributed to this great community organisation which gives people a love of the bush, which gives people a love of their birds and which gives people a really good education in the preservation of our natural environment.
Monaro High School
Ms McBAIN (Eden-Monaro) (13:36): Last week I attended one of the coolest events I have ever been to in my life. I was invited to join some amazing students from Monaro High School in Cooma as they spoke live with NASA astronaut Colonel Mark T Vande Hei aboard the International Space Station. Thanks to the work of organising teacher Therese Dawson, principal James Armitage and the Snowy Mountains Amateur Radio Club, students were able to talk in real time with the space station as it orbited 400 kilometres above the earth, travelling at 27,000 kilometres per hour. These 15 students were able to ask some impressive questions about what life is like on the space station, including how astronauts adjust to microgravity, what it's like to launch into space aboard a rocket, how they deal with sewerage issues and whether there had been any unexplained occurrences. One of my favourite questions was that of Maya, who asked what skills she should focus on learning as a young Australian woman who is keen to go to the space station herself. Colonel Vande Hei responded that she should focus on doing things that she loves, things that push her outside her comfort zone and things that come with an element of risk, advice we should all take and probably things that members of this place do. Our children's futures can be whatever we dream them to be, provided they are given the right opportunities to succeed. I look forward to the day that a former student of one of our schools in Eden-Monaro will be talking to other schools from the space station.
Chisholm Electorate: Constituency Meetings
Ms LIU (Chisholm) (13:38): Today's announcement of another lockdown is difficult for all Victorians, but we have got through this before and we will get through this again. Last week I had the resounding pleasure of heading down to one of the local shopping centres in my electorate of Chisholm to do five days of listening to the concerns and issues of my constituents. I normally take my constituency meetings in my electoral office, but I wanted to get close to the action, finding out exactly what people were thinking and how I can best assist them. It was a terrific time. Listening to my constituents is one of my favourite roles as a politician, and many people have told me that they really appreciate me coming to them. We stand here in the House of Representatives with the sole intent of representing the people of our respective electorates and Australia at large. Some of my colleagues on the other side of the chamber may forget from time to time, and I can certainly say that government running down in Victoria has forgotten its fundamental role of representing its constituents. But I hope this speech serves as a reminder of what they should be doing.
Women in Parliament
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Llew O'Brien ) (13:39): I give the call to the member for Perth and the junior member for Perth!
Mr GORMAN (Perth) (13:39): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. In 1994 I attended Carmen Lawrence's election night party. She was elected as the federal member for Fremantle. My dad told me to get her autograph. 'She will be the first woman to be Prime Minister of Australia,' he said. Dad was wrong, but I was very lucky to grow up in a family that saw women as political leaders. Ruby lives in such a family too. Labor has done our bit in this parliament, but we need to see that leadership everywhere, including in our community.
Western Australia has the proudest history of women leading in our parliaments across the nation: the first woman elected to parliament, Edith Cowan, represented West Perth in my electorate; the first woman in the Senate was Dorothy Tangney, who lived in North Perth; the first woman of cabinet rank was Florence Cardell-Oliver; the first woman premier was Carmen Lawrence; and Ruby Hutchison was the first woman in the WA Legislative Council, representing Bayswater, Maylands and Mount Lawley, which are in the Perth electorate. Ruby Hutchison was the only woman to serve in the Legislative Council for the entire 17 years that she served in that parliament. Hopefully by the time this Ruby is an adult, there are no more firsts to be had. But we do need to celebrate these women. We need public statues and public monuments in the Perth CBD recognising these women. It's time that they be built. It is well and truly past time they are built. We need local, state and federal governments to come together and get it done.
National Reconciliation Week
Dr MARTIN (Reid) (13:41): National Reconciliation Week is a time for all Australians to learn our shared history, spanning over 60,000 years. Indigenous Australians have a deep understanding of connection to the land, waters and environment and had well-established societies, art, culture and languages. The spirit of Indigenous Australians is resilient and strong. We have fought to see meaningful change and historical acceptance within Australia's narrative of the past. As a country, we know that there is much work to be done in order to achieve true national unity, economic parity and empowerment of Indigenous Australians.
This year the theme of Reconciliation Week is 'more than a word'. Reconciliation takes action. It is asking yourself what you can do in your everyday life to make a difference. Our responsibility to our First Nations people is not confined to Reconciliation Week or NAIDOC Week or at the conclusion of the Closing the Gap statement each year. Our responsibility is ongoing. That is why I believe the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags should be displayed at the entrance of the House of Representatives on a permanent basis, not just during NAIDOC Week and not just during Reconciliation Week. The flags are a reminder of our responsibility to our First Nations people, and it would be a symbolic and significant gesture to our Indigenous people—that they are welcome and included in our nation's meeting place.
Middle East
Mr BANDT (Melbourne—Leader of the Australian Greens) (13:42): All people have the right to peace and security, and our job is to make sure those rights are valued equally for all. This month Benjamin Netanyahu's military flattened buildings in Gaza that were homes and media offices and damaged key infrastructure. In 10 days 232 Palestinians were killed. At the same time, rockets fired from Gaza also stole the lives of 12 Israelis. We grieve each death. We also acknowledge that Palestinian losses are 20-fold those in Israel. The Greens were relieved by the ceasefire, which will remove the immediate risks of harm. But a ceasefire alone will not pave the way for Palestinians and Israelis to live in security and enjoy a stable, lasting and just peace.
Every day Palestinians live under Israeli government control. Just as Israelis are entitled to their own state and to live in peace and security, so too are Palestinians. But for 73 years Palestinians have waited for the international community to deliver on their promise, and Australia is not pushing for peace. We are making the conflict worse by a muted response to Benjamin Netanyahu's blatant disregard for the rule of law and by our military contracts with his government. We must seize on this ceasefire to resolve the underlying issues, not just watch while a just peace is undermined by the next round of evictions, demolitions, settlements and violence. We must push to end the occupation and recognise Palestine, because only then will Israelis and Palestinians both be able to live in peace and security. (Time expired)
Bonner Electorate: Volunteering
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (13:44): Last week we celebrated National Volunteer Week, Australia's largest annual celebration of volunteers. I recently hosted my fifth annual Bonner Volunteer Awards to recognise some of the outstanding people in my electorate who go above and beyond to help others. At the heart of Bonner are the volunteers of all ages and groups who make up our community. That's why every year I look forward to reading the incredible nominations I receive. This year's categories included senior, adult, young adult, student, environment and group. I had the privilege of congratulating 16 local nominees as well as announcing the overall winners for the seven categories. I had award winners who had helped towns during natural disasters, spread the Christmas spirit to children with special needs, run a not-for-profit rehabilitating injured koalas, been a passionate advocate for social justice, and dedicated countless hours to volunteering at their school. All the winners have different backgrounds, but what they have in common is their heart for providing a helping hand to the community that they call home. Our volunteers are always so humble and say that they're just doing what they love, but it's so much more than that. Events like the Bonner Volunteer Awards and National Volunteer Week remind us that it is not simply a matter of recognising our volunteers but learning from them, hearing their stories and understanding how we too can play our part in bettering our communities year round. To all our volunteers, I say, 'Thank you.'
COVID-19
Dr MULINO (Fraser) (13:46): In order to protect our health and the economic recovery, this government has had two KPIs: an effective quarantine system and the speedy rollout of the vaccine. It is failing on both counts.
First, Australia's vaccination rollout is taking far longer than it should. This is creating unnecessary health risks and also costing our economy tens of billions of dollars. The government's own 2020 budget papers state that an early rollout of the vaccine would be worth $34 billion to the economy. How much would a slow vaccine rollout cost the enemy? The government won't answer that question. We're seeing the human cost of a slow vaccine rollout in the news from Victoria today. This is a clear demonstration that, despite what senior members of the government say, there should be urgency. Where are the ads? Where is the plan? How can anybody have confidence?
What about quarantine? The Halton report was given to national cabinet in October of last year. Eight months on, where are the new models of quarantine which were recommended? Where is the new national quarantine facility that was recommended? All we have is recycled announcements, and Australians are left exposed by the unnecessary risks that hotel quarantine creates. We can't keep the borders closed indefinitely.
The government says there's no rush. Today, of all days, they can't keep peddling that false argument.
National Reconciliation Week
Mrs McINTOSH (Lindsay) (13:47): Today marks the beginning of National Reconciliation Week. With over 6,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in my electorate of Lindsay, this is an important occasion. Reconciliation is more than a word; it takes action. Before I entered politics I worked in local community housing. We did a lot of work connecting with our local Indigenous community and acknowledging occasions such as this. From there, my passion in this area has only grown. The Minister for Indigenous Australians knows this well, having met with many of our local organisations, both in person and virtually, over the last two years since I came in as the member for Lindsay. Our action is committing to genuine partnerships with local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, communities and organisations, because that is when the best outcomes occur. Our goal for reconciliation is a country where all children have the same opportunities, choices and quality of life. Together we can achieve this. I encourage people in Lindsay and across Western Sydney to get involved in National Reconciliation Week events and strengthen the relationships with our wonderful community. You can find out about an event near you at reconciliation.org.au.
Regional Services
Lyons Electorate: Infrastructure
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (13:48): The big banks are failing regional Australia. They are nailing shut their branches across the regions. The town of St Marys in my electorate is losing its Commonwealth Bank branch and ATM in August, and it's the last bank in town. A petition I launched to try to save the branch has been to no avail. Locals lined up to sign it, but we always knew it was a long shot: big banks, after all, are not in the habit of listening to their customers. We need to rebuild our regions and not have them continually stripped out. Today residents of St Marys will meet at the sports centre to see if Bendigo Bank will come to town. I wish them every success.
At midnight tomorrow, the Tasman Highway will become a dead-end street at Paradise Gorge. I support the temporary closure; it's needed, to fix a cliff face before rocks fall onto the highway. What I don't support is east coast residents being given just 48 hours notice, despite the Gutwein government knowing for months about looming danger.
How long will the road stay closed, and why? We're told it could be 12 weeks or longer. The impact on east coast communities, especially the towns of Orford and Triabunna, will be severe. Alternative routes to the east coast are twice as long or twice as dangerous. A one-hour trip becomes a two-hour loop on sealed roads, or you can take your chances on loose gravel. Perhaps now the state government will finally heed my calls for the gravel Wielangta Road to be upgraded into a safe and viable east coast route.
COVID-19
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (13:50): I rise today to talk about love. Love: it's not a topic we frequently talk about in this place—and I'm not thinking about the deep affection that those opposite feel towards me and my colleagues, but rather the love that has been tested through COVID-19. What's inspired me to talk about love today is knowing that, next Thursday, there's a fellow from the Sunny Coast who'll be catching up with a lady from Germany face-to-face for the first time after 15 months apart.
COVID-19 has tested everybody and I think we need to acknowledge: as much as those stories of reunions might inspire us, there are people who have not been with loved ones, and there are people who have lost loved ones, because they have not been able to be with them due to COVID-19. There are people who still, today, are apart, and they are the ones who continue to make a sacrifice, on our behalf as a country. Love, of course, conquers all, and, on COVID-19, as much as we've dealt with some serious issues of business and government, can we also pay tribute to those whose love has been tested and for whom this has been a very trying time.
COVID-19
Ms WELLS (Lilley) (13:51): The anxiety that is sweeping through Melbourne, being watched by horrified Queenslanders and those in other states, could have been avoided with a competent vaccine rollout and a purpose-built quarantine facility. Yet, yesterday, the PM called the opposition and those others who critiqued the rollout of the vaccine 'whingers'—a rollout that could, at best, be described as 'troubled', which is now millions of jabs behind schedule.
The quarantine program is squarely within the Prime Minister's responsibilities under the Constitution. I cannot think of a rationale for not trying to improve quarantine. If it's responsibility, well, you've had 120 years to get across the Constitution and your responsibilities underneath it. If it's the money, well, how much money is it going to cost to shut down Melbourne for a week? Over a billion dollars, the retailers' association is saying. If it's a total and utter lack of a plan or vision for the country, well, I guess it's too late now! But we can still rely upon the premiers, who did all the hard work of keeping us safe, for those solutions.
The PM rejected Queensland's proposal for Wellcamp, saying, 'We can't have these things out in the desert.' Do you know the name we have for Toowoomba? As a proud Queenslander, Deputy Speaker Llew O'Brien, you would know. It's 'the garden city'. It has a carnival of flowers, Deputy Speaker. So you, as a proud Queenslander, will agree with me: we will never be lectured to by a New South Wales Prime Minister about whingeing.
Callide Power Station
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn—Deputy Nationals Whip) (13:53): On Tuesday this week, just before 2 pm, there was an explosion at the Callide Power Station in Biloela in my electorate of Flynn. Catastrophic damage was done to the C4 generator and it was taken offline. Generator B1 was already offline, due to maintenance, and generators B2 and C1, C2 and C3 were shut down as a precaution, rendering the whole plant inactive. Thankfully, all the 236 personnel on site were evacuated safely and no injuries were reported.
Sixteen per cent of Queensland's power comes from the Callide Power Station. The result was that thousands of homes and businesses were without power for a few hours. Power stations around the country, including the Gladstone Power Station, ramped up their production to help cover for the loss of power in the grid. All turbines are likely to stay offline until late next week, as the company continues to investigate the issues. CS Energy CEO Andrew Bills has kept me informed all the way along the line. He said the company was aiming to have the first of the three remaining units working on Friday of next week.
Members of Parliament: Staff
Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat) (13:54): On Tuesday, the Prime Minister tabled a report undertaken by his chief of staff into whether staff in his office had backgrounded against Ms Higgins's loved ones. Contrary to the Prime Minister's assertions that the report found in the negative, it in fact found that the evidence available fell short of what would be required to determine what happened one way or the other. To be clear, the Prime Minister's right-hand man did not find that the backgrounding didn't happen; he just didn't find that it did. As the chief of staff would well know, journalists, particularly at the moment, will not give up their sources, especially given the vindictiveness of this government.
The report itself is a masterclass in political smear, deliberately repeating what was said about Ms Higgins's partner and even suggesting that it was the fault of journalists. Ms Higgins was not told that the report was to be released. She was not told what it would contain, nor that it would directly quote her, and she was certainly not given the courtesy of been provided with a copy beforehand.
For the Prime Minister and for those senior people in his office who have been involved in this sorry episode to seek to discredit an alleged rape victim by smearing her partner is despicable. There is no justification for it. It bridges every ethical and moral code. Prime Minister, I do hope, when you reflect some time upon this and what you've done to this brave young woman, you understand how badly you've let all of us down. (Time expired)
Forest Industry
Mr PASIN (Barker) (13:56): I rise today in support of the Australian forest industry, which is a foundational industry in the Limestone Coast in my electorate of Barker. It employs 7,500 people across the sector. The industry contributes $2.6 billion to the South Australian economy and $23.7 billion nationally. The sector has been turbocharged, of course, by the supports our government has put in place for the runaway success that has been the HomeBuilder program. Many in this place, however, might not know that Australia is a net timber importer. We import timber valued at $6 billion, while we export timber valued at $4 billion. However, the domestic forest industry supplies around 80 per cent of the timber used in Australian residential construction.
While domestic demand for timber is strong and it has been strong for some time, our local mills are struggling to obtain the raw product they need. While government policy is focused on putting more trees in the ground, that's the long-term solution; the supply constraints exist in the short term. The House standing committee on agriculture recently considered this problem. The committee's inquiry into timber supply constraints in the Australian plantation sector has recommended that the federal government support the development of an industry-led code of conduct. I support this industry-led code of conduct because it will give processors an even playing field, because, after all, Aussie logs need to be used to support Aussie jobs.
COVID-19: Quarantine
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (13:57): My heart goes out to everyone in Victoria going into lockdown today. You've been through this before, and I know the next seven days are going to be tough for so many. As you know, the outbreak began in hotel quarantine in Adelaide. It is the 17th outbreak from hotel quarantine. The truth is you should never have been put in this situation, because the Morrison government should have fixed quarantine months ago. I met with John Wagner this morning, from Wellcamp. His proposal could be up and running in 12 weeks, housing a thousand people and not requiring a single dollar of government funding to proceed.
I can't tell you why the government Morrison government hasn't fixed quarantine, why it hasn't sorted the vaccine rollout, why warnings from experts have been ignored, and I certainly can't tell you why this government is declaring itself comfortable while thousands of Victorians pay the price for its complacency. What I can tell you is that Australians are with you, Victoria. The virus anywhere is a threat to people everywhere. I wish it wasn't the case. I wish that Victorians weren't being asked to do the heavy lifting, but I say simply: thank you, stay safe, stay strong, we're thinking of you and Australia stands with you.
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
COVID-19
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (13:59): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that he had two fundamental jobs this year, to get the COVID vaccine rollout right and to create a safe national quarantine system, and this week he has been shown to have failed at both?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:00): I have had two very important jobs from the day this COVID pandemic first hit this country in January 2020: to save lies and to save livelihoods.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on both sides!
Mr MORRISON: That is what our government has been working to do in concert with all state and territory governments around this country and, most importantly, with the people of Australia, whether it is frontline health workers, those keeping Australians employed in their businesses, those working in community organisations all around the country or those manning the phone lines and supporting people with their mental health.
Mr Watts interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Gellibrand will leave under 94(a).
The member for Gellibrand then left the chamber.
Mr MORRISON: Wherever they may be, Australians have been doing their job, and we have been doing our job to support them each and every day, whether it was through the JobSeeker and JobKeeper initiatives or the more than $20 billion in health support that we put in place in concert with the states and territories who have added that amount. Each and every single day, Australians have been working together and our government has been working together with the state and territory government to ensure that Australia is in a position, even despite the very significant challenges that we now face in Victoria—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr MORRISON: In Victoria—as I've just remarked outside of this chamber—they will go through a difficult period over the next seven days. But we have faced these challenges in the face of COVID before and we will overcome them again. The way we will do that is by working together, staying focused on the problem and solving that problem together and ensuring that we open up Victoria as soon as possible.
The SPEAKER: Just before I call the next question, I again reiterate everything I said yesterday, so members aren't surprised if they interject they'll be ejected. I heard one interjection after I asked the member for Gellibrand to leave, saying, 'That took two minutes.' There is no time limit on which I'll wait to eject someone. It is very simple. The standing orders are very clear. They're outlined in the book you all have—and, in fact, you all voted for them. So I am just making it very clear indeed.
COVID-19
Dr ALLEN (Higgins) (14:02): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister please inform the House how the Morrison government's ongoing response to the COVID-19 pandemic will continue to protect lives and livelihoods, especially in my home state of Victoria?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:02): I thank the member for Higgins for her question. I thank her and the many members of this chamber who have shown such strong support to their communities over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Given the member's medical background and experience, I've greatly appreciated her counsel and advice over these many, many months—18 months, in fact—over the course of this crisis.
Once again we are faced with another challenge in combating this virus. It is not the first challenge that we have faced, and it won't be the last. But this is a challenge now in Victoria that we will face together with the state government of Victoria, and I commend them on their efforts to date in addressing this latest challenge. It's a challenge and a battle, but we have overcome these many times. There are no certainties in the fight against the global pandemic, whether here in Australia or anywhere else. There are no guarantees. Our best defence is the steadfast resilience of the Australian people working together to put in place the protections that have been so enabling to Australians to come through to this point in the virus. That is what will sustain us all into the future, continuing on in that cooperative, collaborative and supportive way all around the country.
The next seven days will be important. They will be difficult for Victorians, as the member for Higgins and many members from Victoria in this chamber know. They will be difficult but, in my discussions with the acting Premier this morning and yesterday as well, we are determined together to ensure that we provide every support and assistance to assist Victorians through this next difficult period. It is important nationally as well. It isn't just relevant in Victoria; it is important nationally. I know that all Australians will be supporting Victoria in every way they can to ensure that they overcome this latest challenge, as other states and other communities around Australia have combatted these challenges in the past and equally have overcome them. I particularly want to thank the many contact tracers working as part of the Victorian government's effort right now.
This latest outbreak is a very complex one with many points, and I especially want to thank the 40,411 Victorians who came forward for testing yesterday. I want to thank the 30,426 Victorians who came forward and were vaccinated yesterday. I want to continue to encourage all Australians. Whether you are in Victoria or any other part of the country, the vaccines are there with the GPs. They are there in the state clinics that have been established for that purpose. The events in Victoria will remind all Australians that, despite the fact that we have been able to live in this country in a way that virtually no other country around the world has been able to live, it comes with its challenges, as Singapore, many other countries and even Taiwan have realised in recent times. But I would encourage all Australian to get vaccinated and to take up that opportunity.
COVID 19: Vaccination
Mr MARLES (Corio—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:05): My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware there are 237 aged-care facilities in my state where residents have not been fully vaccinated and 29 facilities where residents have not even received their first dose? This morning the Minister for Health and Aged Care said he was 'very comfortable with the vaccine rollout'. How can the government be comfortable with older Australians being left so vulnerable?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:06): I will ask the Minister for Health and Aged Care to add to my answer. The figures the member referred to in his question are not current. I will allow the Minister for Health and Aged Care to update you on those figures. What I do know is this: in Victoria today, more than 50 per cent of those aged over 70 have been vaccinated.
Ms Catherine King interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Ballarat.
Mr MORRISON: They have had that dose and that is important. That is an important difference, as we go into this challenge, to what we have faced in previous challenges. I will ask the minister to update the House on the status of vaccinations in those aged-care facilities.
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Aged Care) (14:07): To add to the Prime Minister's answer, around Australia approximately 97 per cent of aged-care facilities have been vaccinated so far. That means 4,322 visits to aged-care facilities around the country—that is, across age and disability care, 337,227 vaccinations. Very specifically, within the Victorian context, there are 598 residential aged-care facilities in Victoria; 582 of those have received at least their first dose, seven are to receive their first dose today and the remaining nine tomorrow. That will bring residential aged-care facilities within our home state of Victoria to 100 per cent and will provide a very important measure of protection to the most vulnerable. That is why we have prioritised them and why we have made sure that teams from around the country have been going into aged-care facilities in every state and territory. In particular, within the Whittlesea local government area, there are 16 residential aged-care facilities, all of which have not only been vaccinated but have been vaccinated twice.
These are important projections. I want to thank all of those who have been vaccinating and all of those who have been facilitating that. In addition to that, as the Prime Minister has said, over 50 per cent of Australians over the age of 70 have been vaccinated. These are important and significant developments.
Regional Australia
Mr DRUM (Nicholls—Chief Nationals Whip) (14:09): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House how the Morrison-McCormack government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic is protecting jobs and driving growth in regional Australia, particularly in my electorate of Nicholls?
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development and Leader of the Nationals) (14:09): The member for Nicholls absolutely understands, because he lives in regional Victoria, regional Australia, how the measures that the Liberal and Nationals government have put in place are benefiting not just our country areas but indeed all of Australia, and never more so than during this time of a global pandemic. If we look at the assistance measures, it's a long list. JobKeeper—for how many businesses did that keep the doors open and people engaged with their employer? The Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program—each and every one of the 537 councils across the nation is benefiting from that program.
There has been $3 billion of additional funding for road safety measures. The Building Better Regions Fund has gone up to a quarter of a billion dollars in the recent budget. But in round 5, which will be considered very shortly, half of that, $100 million, is going to tourism—so hard-hit by the COVID pandemic. The National Water Grid fund has $3½ billion to support farmers and it is supporting agriculture in the electorate of the member for Nicholls. I know how hard the minister for agriculture is fighting to make sure that agriculture can realise its potential as we work towards $100 billion by 2030.
There is the sector-wide assistance that we have provided to aviation—$4½ billion worth with the Tourism Aviation Network Support, making sure that we get planes and tourists into those hard-hit areas. And I know how much of a difference HomeBuilder has made in regional Australia—making sure that we get tradies on the tools building the homes that we need. There is the instant asset write-off, making sure that farmers, small businesses, can buy that ute, that trailer, that header, that seeder. That's been so well received, particularly in regional Australia but in small businesses right across this nation.
Indeed, as I talk about the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program, five councils—Campaspe, Greater Shepparton, Moira, Strathbogie and Mitchell—have shared in $41 million of support in the electorate of the member for Nicholls. These grants can be used by councils to upgrade roads to build that local community infrastructure which is so important.
Fifty-nine and a half thousand people in Nicholls are benefiting from the tax cuts that this government is putting in place. That makes such a difference—regional people having more of the money that they earn to spend on the things they want. The Echuca-Moama Bridge—what a construction that is. We're getting on with building that sort of construction, that sort of infrastructure, as part of our $110 billion pipeline supporting 100,000 jobs. (Time expired)
COVID-19: Vaccination
Mr BUTLER (Hindmarsh—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (14:12): My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister keeps describing Australians who've only received a first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine as 'vaccinated'. Given the Prime Minister knows full well that these vaccines require two doses, why does he continue to use such misleading language about such a serious public health issue?
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left! The Prime Minister will pause. A question has been asked. It is ridiculous that people behind the questioner start yelling out what the answer should be. I'm not going to warn anyone again. I'm now issuing a general warning. Your behaviour is appalling.
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:13): As the member would know, whether on a first dose or the completion of two doses, one of the great attractions of the AstraZeneca vaccine is the medical evidence that a significant level of protection against serious disease is afforded by that first dose. So to suggest that someone who has only received a first dose is not afforded any protection from that vaccine would be misleading. That would be misleading, and I think the member is being misleading by putting it in that way. But I will ask the minister for health to add further.
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Aged Care) (14:14): I am respectfully but deeply concerned by the implications of the shadow minister, implying that a first dose does not provide significant and fundamental protection. That is the case around the world. As members may know, one of the fundamental decisions which the United Kingdom made was to stretch out the second doses in order to ensure that as many people as possible received a first dose at the earliest possible time. They settled on a 12-week difference between first and second doses, on the basis that the medical advice was that it would provide the maximum protection to the maximum number of people at the earliest possible time. This has been a global strategy, but it was reaffirmed in the advice of the Therapeutic Goods Administration in their decision to recommend a 12-week differential, which serves two purposes. It is deemed to be the optimal period of time at which the doses should be given, but it also serves the purpose of ensuring that as many people as possible, as early as possible, are vaccinated with the vaccine.
I understand that on many occasions the opposition have done their best to assist the vaccine rollout. But this particular question, I have to say, must be a source of deep disappointment to many, because it is implying that there is inadequate protection, it is implying that a first vaccine does not work and it is implying that a dosing strategy based on medical advice is not the appropriate thing to do. There are many things that the opposition has done to assist, of which they should be proud, but this is not one of those moments.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:16): Just before I call the member for Melbourne, I would like to advise members that we have present in the gallery Cheryl Kernot, former senator and former member of this House. Welcome back.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
COVID-19
Mr BANDT (Melbourne—Leader of the Australian Greens) (14:16): My question is to the Prime Minister. In my electorate of Melbourne, shoulders are slumped and hearts are heavy as we face yet another lockdown. But we're angry too. You said you'd put the national cabinet on a war footing, so why isn't there strong national quarantine, which may have stopped the latest update? The US has managed to fully vaccinate 50 per cent of its adult population, so why can't you even break five per cent? This is a Morrison-government lockdown—
Mr McCormack interjecting—
Mr Chester interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Melbourne will resume his seat. The Deputy Prime Minister is warned, as is the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. The member for Melbourne will begin his question again.
Mr BANDT: My question is to the Prime Minister. In my electorate of Melbourne, shoulders are slumped and hearts are heavy as we face yet another lockdown. But we're angry too. You said you'd put the national cabinet on a war footing, so why isn't there strong national quarantine, which may have stopped the latest outbreak? The US has managed to fully vaccinate 50 per cent of its adult population, so why can't you even break five per cent? This is a Morrison-government lockdown in Victoria. In Victoria we've already done more than our fair share to stop a third wave, so why haven't you done yours?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:17): I thank the member for his question. To all of his constituents, I will again repeat what I said earlier today. These next seven days will be very difficult for his constituents, but I have no doubt that, in the same way that Victorians have faced previous challenges like this one, and as people in New South Wales, Queensland and even, quite recently, Western Australia have, the same processes that worked to protect people on those occasions will also work here. I am confident. The contract tracers are working admirably in Victoria right now to track this down, and this circuit-breaking lockdown, up to the next seven days, will provide them with further opportunity to identify those who need to be isolated so Victoria can soon reopen again.
It is true that the Commonwealth has put half a billion dollars into the national resilience facility in the Northern Territory, and that is a direct result of the recommendation put forward by the Halton review to the national cabinet. It is true that the national cabinet arrangements were put in place to support hotel quarantine, which I note is a measure that is used in other jurisdictions, including New Zealand, and I can report that, here in Australia, hotel quarantine has been even more effective than in the New Zealand situation. It has been very effective, when you consider that over 300,000 people have come through the hotel quarantine system in Australia and there are around 20 cases where we've seen breaches.
But we have been able to do as well as we have across the states and territories because of the additional measures that have been taken—through the contract tracers, through the isolation and through the testing—to enable these brief lockdowns to be in place and then be lifted and to ensure that Australia can go on living with this virus in a way that few countries in the world can.
It is my job to continue to focus on working with the states and territories to focus on those who are most affected, your constituents and the many constituents of Victorian members here in this parliament. It is not my job to be distracted by those who might seek to engage in some other process.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MORRISON: I will simply stay focused on the job of working with Australians and working with the premiers to continue to keep Australians safe, to protect lives and livelihoods, as we have done over the past 18 months.
Budget
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (14:20): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline to the House how the Morrison government's support to households and businesses through lower taxes is supporting Australians through the COVID-19 pandemic?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Treasurer) (14:20): I thank the member for Bennelong for his question and acknowledge his experience in many fields before coming to this place, including being an Australian tennis great. The member for Bennelong understands that the budget is about creating more jobs, lowering taxes and guaranteeing essential services. It's a budget that was put together in the midst of the pandemic. Today, my fellow Victorians got some very difficult news about another lockdown, and our thoughts and our prayers are with all Victorian families and, indeed, businesses at this time as they go through a very difficult and challenging seven days.
In this budget we put in place policies to drive down taxes, including extending the low- and middle-income tax offset to provide tax relief to more than 10 million Australians. So, if you're earning $60,000, if you are a tradie or a teacher or a truck driver, then you will be more than $6,400 better off at the end of next financial year compared to before our tax plan rolled out. We also put in place the immediate expensing provision, which will support up to $320 billion of investment. And, today, we got new ABS data for the March quarter which showed that capital expenditure is up by more than six per cent, the biggest increase in a quarter for nine years, and manufacturing investment had the biggest jump in 16 years. We also, yesterday, got construction data for the March quarter which showed that construction for new homes was up by more than 10 per cent, the biggest increase in 20 years. This is the product of our policies.
We also put in place in the budget a new policy with a patent box for the medical and biotech industry. I have the opportunity to join with the member for Bennelong in his electorate at a great Australian company Cochlear, who are going to use the patent box to commercialise research and development undertaken in Australia and register it in a patent. That business, like so many others, is developing cutting-edge, world-leading technology which is saving lives and improving the lives of our fellow Australians. On this side of the House, we stand for lower taxes, and the budget does exactly that.
COVID-19: Vaccination
Mr BURNS (Macnamara) (14:23): My question is to the Prime Minister. Jewish aged-care facility residents in Windsor in my electorate went to get their first dose of the COVID vaccine on 11 May. Their appointment was cancelled at the last minute. They've still not received their first dose. Prime Minister, aged care is your responsibility. The vaccine rollout is your responsibility. Why are residents in this facility in my electorate being left vulnerable?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:23): I'll just seek clarification. What was the name of the centre you referred to?
The SPEAKER: We can ask the questioner if he can stand up.
Mr Burns: It's the Jewish Care aged-care facility in Windsor.
Mr MORRISON: I'm seeking to answer the member's question. He's asked a very specific question about the Jewish Care Residential Home Windsor. Dose 1 is scheduled on, I understand from the schedule I have here, for 28 May. I'm sorry—yes, 28 May. This is one of those facilities that the minister was referring to earlier—that is, tomorrow—and there is a small number of centres that remain to receive their first dose. The Jewish Care residential home centre in Windsor will be given their first dose tomorrow.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on both sides!
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Shortland and the member for Franklin will now excuse themselves from the House under the provisions of standing order 94(a).
The members for Shortland the Franklin then left the chamber.
COVID-19: Health Care
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (14:25): My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Will the minister please outline to the House how the Morrison government is continuing to support states and territories during the COVID-19 pandemic?
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Aged Care) (14:25): I want to thank the member for Goldstein. Right throughout the pandemic he's focused on the needs of his community. Together we visited one of the early general practices which began the COVID-19 vaccination program. Across the country, we know that Australia is achieving results which, compared with the rest of the world, are extraordinary. But always we seek to achieve stronger and better results. This year there have been 94 days with zero cases. But right now, it's a difficult day for my fellow Victorians. It's as difficult and challenging day as we have had in the past. But we'll get through this. Having said that, the support is real and significant and tangible. The Commonwealth has invested $25 billion in supporting the states and territories and the Australian public through COVID-19 with health measures and with, in particular, over $2 billion for supporting our aged-care facilities in terms of workforce retention, in terms of support with PPE, in terms of In-reach for vaccination.
The second thing that has happened, of course, is that the primary healthcare network has been supported with over $6 billion of investment. A very significant part of that is that we now have well over 57 million telehealth consultations. Telehealth has been a fundamental part of our defence of individuals, to give them access to medicines where the circumstances do not allow them to leave their homes and also to protect our GPs and our health professionals. This will be an important defence for Victorians in coming days, for those who wish to stay at home and for those who do not feel that they can safely venture to the doctor or their circumstances do not allow it. In addition to that, we have more than $7 billion invested in medical research and the vaccine program, a program which has now reached 3.9 million vaccinations around the country. That program is absolutely fundamental. That is ultimately backed by the $9 billion which has been invested in our hospitals and our PPE.
With the PPE, or the personal protective equipment—masks, gloves, gowns—whilst much of the rest of the world has had catastrophic shortages, we ran an airbridge. We've continued to make sure that Australian health facilities are supplied with PPE. We've continued to ensure that, whether it's aged-care facilities or the states and territories, those supplies are available. They have been fundamental to keeping Australians safe. The budget invested and increased the funds available. All up, Australians are in a strong position, but we are working to keep them safe every day. (Time expired)
COVID-19: Vaccination
Ms THWAITES (Jagajaga) (14:28): My question is to the Prime Minister. There are aged-care residents in my electorate who have not even received their first dose of COVID vaccine, and aged-care workers in my electorate have been told to go and find their own vaccinations. Why are aged-care residents and workers being left vulnerable?
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Aged Care) (14:29): I'll deal with the question in general, but I understand the member made specific comments about a particular facility today, the Iris Grange Heidelberg Heights facility, if I'm correct. Iris Grange is a facility which is a private supported residential service. The Victorian government had accepted responsibility for vaccinating that particular supported residential service in Victoria, and the date which had been advised to us was 11 July. The Commonwealth is stepping in to vaccinate that facility. Iris Grange is not a Commonwealth regulated or funded residential aged-care facility, but, despite that fact, and despite that it was listed on the Victorian register, we are stepping in to do that.
More generally, I will move beyond Irish Grange—where, as I say, it was a facility that Victoria had acknowledged and accepted was one that they were going to vaccinate; we will take that. In Victoria, 582 facilities were done prior to today. There are another seven today and the final nine tomorrow. I believe the Prime Minister was able to refer to one in particular from the member for Macnamara's electorate.
What this means is that we have been vaccinating Australians around the country, but, in particular we have been focusing, as our highest priority, on our aged-care residents. That's 337,227 vaccinations in aged and disability care. The in-reach program has now covered 4,322 aged-care facility visits, and 97 per cent nationwide. Very specifically, in relation to aged-care workers, where vaccines are available and additional, those present at the time of an in-reach vaccination are being vaccinated. As with every other Australian, where there is the capacity for them to visit their GP, to visit a Commonwealth clinic or to visit a state clinic, they are being encouraged to do so at the fastest possible rate—at the fastest possible time. That is actually the fastest way to do this. That is something—using our general practice network and using our state and Commonwealth network. At this point in time, total Commonwealth vaccinations are 2.522 million. Total state vaccinations are 1.38 million. All those systems are working together. We are able to have in-reach and have the capacity for those workers who may not be there on a particular day, or for whom there were not additional vaccines, to visit state clinics, general practice respiratory clinics or general practices. This means there's a comprehensive approach. (Time expired)
COVID 19: Aged Care
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (14:32): My question is to the Minister For Health and Aged Care. I ask him to expand on his previous answers to update the House on the support that the Morrison government has provided to aged-care residents and providers throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Aged Care) (14:32): I want to thank the Member for Menzies and acknowledge that tomorrow is the three-decade anniversary of his being sworn into this House, which is an extraordinary achievement.
In particular, as we look at the work that's been done to protect our oldest and most vulnerable Australians, with the focus being on the aged-care rollout around the country, and the fact that that is nearing completion, it is important, I think, that we outline the actions that have been taken to protect older Australians. I would note that the Commonwealth Chief Medical Officer has advised me that, following the meeting of the medical expert panel, he will be declaring greater Melbourne as a hotspot area for the purposes of Commonwealth support. That, in particular, includes single worker support for all aged-care residential facilities within that hotspot area.
More broadly, during the course of the pandemic we have provided $204 million for supporting aged-care preparedness—for surge workforce, which has been fundamental in those facilities where they have faced challenges, because when a staff member has been exposed in the community, as was the case during the Victorian second wave, often multiple staff members are then not able to work due to contact tracing and self-isolation requirements. $442 million has been made available for the aged-care continuity of workforce program. These are workforce retention payments. Around the world in other places, in parts of Europe and parts of North America, we have seen many staff who did not feel that circumstances were safe and, therefore, they were not able to be retained.
At the earliest possible time, we realised the importance of supporting our aged-care workers, and the workforce retention payment was a way of both recognising and supporting those workers. They have done an extraordinary job. We owe those aged-care workers, and the nurses and everybody involved, a deep debt of national gratitude. There has been over $200 million to support the COVID-19 response for the Commonwealth Home Support Program, and $93 million for aged-care workers in COVID-19 grants for additional actions within the region. In particular, when we look at what's occurred, there has been $57 million in additional support for aged care under the National Partnership on COVID-19 Response, and $35 million, very importantly, for expanding mental health support for aged-care residents. That mental health support is a fundamental element of supporting both residents and workers. We thank all of the workers and we provide our support to the residents. (Time expired)
COVID-19: Vaccination
Mr ROB MITCHELL (McEwen—Second Deputy Speaker) (14:35): My question is to the Prime Minister. Last week the disability royal commission heard that 99 per cent of residents in disability care facilities have not been fully vaccinated. How many residents in disability care in my state have not been fully vaccinated?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:36): In an answer to an earlier question this week, we updated the House on the overall numbers of those in residential facilities who are getting disability care. We updated those figures. From memory, it was around 8,400 doses that had been administered, and that was significantly higher than the previously reported figure, which was just around 1,000. That is because there are many residents in disability residential settings who are accessing the vaccine through measures other than the in-reach program. I'm happy to come back to the member with a more detailed number on the situation in Victoria, because that is something the Department of Social Services and, particularly, Services Australia is working on with the providers, those residential facilities, and dealing directly to ensure that we can get a more accurate assessment of the number of those individuals who've been able to access vaccinations in other settings. This is a high priority, particularly for the Minister for the NDIS, working with those providers and operators to ensure the in-reach services—which have been so effective, as the minister has just been outlining—into the aged-care settings, where 97 per cent of those facilities have been supported by those in-reach services. As that program now comes to a conclusion, those same in-reach services can be used to support the in-reach program into those residential settings for disability services.
There have been two populations, over the course of this pandemic—from the start of the pandemic, some 18 months ago—that have been of great concern, and they are Indigenous Australians, particularly in remote communities, and Australians who live with disabilities. Over the course of this pandemic, the incidence of cases that we have seen, both for Indigenous Australians—in particular, in remote settings—and Australians living with disability has been very, very low. I think that is a testimony to the protections and support that have been put around people, whether it be those Indigenous communities—and I particularly want to pay credit to Chief Minister Gunner in that respect, with whom we've worked closely with so many of those communities. I know he has worked closely with Minister Wyatt to that end. But also in the area of supporting people with disabilities the incidence of COVID in that group of Australians has been very low—particularly, as I understand, by international standards. If the minister wishes to, he may add further, but I may have covered the matter off, and we'll come back specifically on the issue the member raised.
COVID-19: Regional Australia
Dr WEBSTER (Mallee) (14:38): My question is to the Minister for Regional Health, Regional Communications and Local Government. Will the minister update the House on the measures the Morrison-McCormack government has taken to safeguard the lives and livelihoods of rural, regional and remote Australians throughout the pandemic?
Mr COULTON (Parkes—Minister for Regional Health, Regional Communications and Local Government) (14:39): I thank the member for Mallee for her question. At the start of the pandemic, there was great concern around regional, rural and remote Australia about what the impacts of COVID might be—and the Prime Minister just alluded to that in his last answer—particularly in remote and regional Aboriginal communities. But regional Australia stepped up admirably, with the assistance of programs put in by the Commonwealth, with respiratory clinics across the country. Telehealth has been a huge boon for delivering health services to regional Australia. There is the deal with the Royal Flying Doctor Service on retrievals. I'm looking forward to catching up with them tomorrow again to look at how the Flying Doctor Service might help us in the next phase of this program. So, as a result, there is probably no other place on the planet that has been a safer place to be in the last 18 months than regional Australia.
The member asked about livelihoods as well. What was discovered was that people can work from regional Australia and keep their jobs. Many people were supported with JobKeeper and JobSeeker, but many people chose to work from home. As a minister in this government I worked on a Sky Muster satellite connection for 10 weeks. All my phone calls and all my Zoom meetings went through the Sky Muster satellite. We had children—sent home from boarding school—being educated right across the country on the connections we have. But we have recognised that this is the way of the future, and, through the Regional Connectivity Program, the last two rounds, there is $153 million delivering high-capacity broadband right across regional Australia. Last week I was in Richmond, in northern Queensland, and those communities right up through there, in the member for Kennedy's electorate, are going to be covered by high-capacity broadband.
The other thing that we did as a government through the pandemic was that we went to a sector that this government has a very close relationship with, and that's local government. We understood that we needed to put stimulus in right from the start, and local government stepped up, with three rounds of the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program, in the first instance, delivering jobs to people who found themselves in difficult circumstances because of COVID, and, ultimately, leaving those communities with infrastructure that is going to help sustain and grow them—a long-term legacy for those communities. So I would like to pay tribute to the local governments right across this country that have stepped up and supported their communities.
There is one more step to go, and that is the vaccination program. Regional Australians are stepping up. I've been to Aboriginal medical services, I've been to respiratory clinics, I've been to GPs right across this country, and they're saying that the Aboriginal communities and the people of regional Australia understand that they are still vulnerable to this COVID, and they are stepping up and they are taking the vaccine. They're protecting themselves, their community and their country. (Time expired)
COVID-19: Vaccination
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (14:42): My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Yesterday I asked how many of the Victorians infected in the latest COVID-19 outbreak had been vaccinated. The minister undertook to seek that information. So I ask again: how many of the Victorians infected in the latest COVID-19 outbreak had been vaccinated?
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Aged Care) (14:42): I'm not aware that any person who has been infected has been vaccinated, and I think that that's a noncontroversial statement. What I am noticing here is that there are two implications which are coming through today. The first is that the opposition is indicating that, in some way, shape or form, if the Commonwealth were operating the quarantine system, the result would be different. We think all of the states and territories have been doing an excellent job. All of the states and territories—
The SPEAKER: I'd just say to the minister: he's making some observations, and I understand he wants to do that, but he can't do that when he wasn't asked that question. He was asked a very specific question. I do say to the member for Lalor, the minister can come back either at the dispatch box or by way of a written answer. But it was a very specific question.
Mr Hunt interjecting—
The SPEAKER: You said you believe you answered it in your first sentence? In that case, that's the end of the matter.
Mr Hunt: I was then adding—
The SPEAKER: No, that's the end of the matter.
Mr Hunt interjecting—
The SPEAKER: No, that's the end of the matter. You just told me you answered it in the first sentence.
COVID-19: Australian Defence Force
Ms HAMMOND (Curtin) (14:43): My question is to the Minister for Defence. Would the minister please update the House on the Defence Force's Operation COVID-19 Assist and advise how the Morrison government is working to keep Australians safe during the pandemic?
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Defence and Leader of the House) (14:44): I thank the honourable member for her question. Like all Australians, I'm incredibly proud of the work that the Australian Defence Force have done right across the country, not only in relation to the fires and floods and a cyclone but, most importantly, in their continued effort in relation to the COVID-19 response. The work of the Australian Defence Force, where they have provided support to Australians, not just in Victoria, has been quite remarkable and they should be commended. In many cases, they've spent a lot of time away from their family and friends. They have held up the best in our Australian Defence Force, and we should be very proud of that.
I also want to acknowledge the efforts of Commodore Eric Young CSC, RAN for his work in the vaccine operations centre—the work that he has done in leading the people within that centre, providing his special support in logistics and planning—and the whole team that works with him. Defence vaccine delivery teams have delivered vaccines in 181 aged- and disability-care centres. Sometimes these are very, very difficult cases, particularly those with disabilities who have comorbidities and other health needs and issues and anaphylactic reactions in some cases. All of that needs to be taken into consideration by the health teams as they roll out that vaccination program.
The Australian Defence Force has provided significant efforts in protecting the cybersecurity and providing advice and assistance in this regard to key entities involved in the vaccine supply chain through the Australian Cyber Security Centre. It's almost unbelievable to conceive that organised criminal groups and, indeed, state actors would seek to exploit the health information and patient records of aged-care facilities, of health facilities and of state health authorities that hold important, confidential and essential information, but that is the case. So the work of the Australian Defence Force, along with the staff of the Department of Home Affairs, is absolutely crucial.
Operation COVID-19 Assist has seen the ADF deliver significant support to the Victorian government throughout the pandemic. Over the course of the pandemic, almost 4,000 ADF members have been deployed in Victoria as part of the operation. Since the start of the pandemic, those personnel have undertaken tasks in Victoria, including planning logistics support to the Victorian government, manufacturing facemasks, border control, quarantine compliance, clinical testing, community engagement, contact tracing, support to Ambulance Victoria, logistical and clinical support to the Aged Care Response Centre and vaccination of aged-care and disability residents. As we speak, 218 personnel are employed in Victoria currently providing support, in particular, to the Victorian Police.
COVID-19: Quarantine
Mr BUTLER (Hindmarsh—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (14:47): My question is to the Prime Minister. The infection which sparked Melbourne's latest outbreak was caused by aerosol spread of the virus in hotel quarantine in Adelaide, the latest in a series of outbreaks caused by poor ventilation in hotel quarantine. Given the Prime Minister's refusal to create a safe national quarantine system, why has the Prime Minister failed to implement strong national standards on ventilation to prevent these repeated outbreaks from hotel quarantine?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:47): I don't accept the assertions made by the member in posing that question. The matters involving the source of this latest infection have been considered by the South Australia state government, and I note that they have just noted that their protocols were followed.
I also note that the recommendations that were provided by the Halton review to establish a national facility were adopted by national cabinet and, in particular, by the Commonwealth government. On the facility at Howard Springs, at a cost of some $1.5 billion—to pick up on a question that was asked yesterday—I am advised that their capacity will be at 2,000 this month. That capacity won't be realised for some time yet in terms of the number of people there, but that capacity has been reached—to go from 850 to 2,000. That was the recommendation of the review on international quarantine facilities around the country. The member will be aware that, a number of weeks ago, the Victorian government put forward what I think is a very favourable proposal. One of the important things about that proposal is that it does not propose that hotel quarantine be discontinued. It says that this facility be put in place in addition to hotel quarantine facilities. So we will continue to implement those recommendations from the review, and we will continue to work with the states and territories to support them with the work that they do and, indeed, undertake the work that we are responsible for.
COVID-19: Economy
National Security
Mr CONNELLY (Stirling) (14:49): My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government is driving our economic recovery and creating a stronger Australia by taking positive action to keep our borders secure and our communities safe?
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson—Minister for Home Affairs) (14:50): I thank the member for his question and I thank him for his service to our nation. The safety of our families and our businesses is absolutely critical to Australia's continued economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, and that's why our government has so strongly backed our national security agencies, including the Australian Border Force, the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, ASIO and AUSTRAC. In the budget earlier this month we provided record funding to those agencies, and that included an extra $1.3 billion for ASIO, to significantly improve their capabilities not only now but well into the future. The great men and women of those organisations work hard every single day to protect us from a range of evolving threats, from terrorism and cyberattack right the way through to child sexual exploitation and drug trafficking. Our government is making sure that our national security agencies have the resources and the legislative power to protect Australia's critical infrastructure, our businesses, our families and our way of life.
The recently publicised ransomware attack on the Colonial Pipeline in the United States is a significant example of the threat that cybercrimes present and of the potential impact that those crimes have on the day-to-day lives of people when critical infrastructure is sabotaged. It doesn't matter that, in the Colonial Pipeline case, the attackers were motivated by money and not by the politics and political issues that some cyberattacks clearly are. The effect on consumers and businesses was that there were massive disruptions—in that particular case, fuel shortages, price hikes and panic-buying.
While Australia has not experienced an attack of that scale and that impact, we are certainly not immune. This government is determined to make sure that we are putting in place the infrastructure, the changes to legislation and the resources for our national security agencies to be able to deal with the increasing threat that is coming our way through cybercrime and cyberattack. We understand that continued vigilance is so important to our recovery, and, as we come through the COVID-19 pandemic, to make sure that we are going to have a safe and secure Australia for generations to come.
COVID-19: Vaccination
Mr BURNS (Macnamara) (14:53): My question is to the Prime Minister. Earlier in question time, Prime Minister, you said that Jewish Care would receive its first vaccination of the COVID vaccine tomorrow. My office has spoken to the CEO, who says it can't be tomorrow because they've only recently had their flu vaccine. Prime Minister, don't elderly Australians deserve better than this?
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left! The Prime Minister has the call.
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:53): That is the advice that is provided to me by the department, that is working with all those facilities, and we have been working over these last few days. As the health minister noted, 582 of the 598 residential aged-care facilities have received their first doses. A further seven facilities will be completed today, and the remaining facilities will be completed—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business—
An opposition member interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Whoever it is behind the Manager of Opposition Business, interjecting, is about to be ejected. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.
Mr Burke: On direct relevance: while I respect that the information the Prime Minister is providing is important information, it is not relevant to this, and this question goes exactly to whether the information we've been provided today in question time has been accurate or not.
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. Yes, it was a specific question and the Prime Minister needs to address himself to the specifics of the question, not to any other element. The Prime Minister has the call.
Mr MORRISON: Prior to the member making the point of order, the point I was seeking to make was that seven facilities of those remaining will be completed today. As for the remaining facility, which refers to the one that the member has raised, our advice is that it is scheduled to be completed tomorrow. I can't speak in every case to the level of engagement that has taken place, but that is our advice. We will make further inquiries after question time today, and we're happy to come back to the member and confirm these arrangements. But, as the member would appreciate, with the large number of facilities that we've been involved with through this program, that is the advice that I have from the Department of Health. We will confirm that advice and be happy to report that back to the member, but I'll ask the Minister for Health and Aged Care if he'd like to add further.
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Aged Care) (14:55): I am happy to be able to provide some additional advice. The Chief Medical Officer of Australia was specifically asked to address the question of any facilities which had had flu vaccination within the period of the two weeks and whether that should be a prevention for a further vaccination. His advice is that it should not be a prevention and that the issue raised by the member is not a barrier, is not a prevention, to a—
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney will leave under standing order 94(a).
The member for Sydney then left the chamber.
The SPEAKER: If the minister could just rewind a couple of sentences, I'd like to hear what you were saying. The minister has the call.
Mr HUNT: Not only is that our advice, but the very question raised by the member for Macnamara was one which we had discussed in relation to the practice to allow a gap of two weeks between a flu vaccination and a subsequent vaccination. The Chief Medical Officer's advice today is that that is not a barrier and that it is not a reason for a facility not to be scheduled. Therefore the advice that we have, and the expectation, is that the vaccination process will proceed.
Dr Allen interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Higgins will leave under standing order 94(a).
The member for Higgins then left the chamber.
Mr Hill interjecting—
The SPEAKER: And so will the member for Bruce.
The member for Bruce then left the chamber.
The SPEAKER: The member for Boothby has the call.
Domestic and Family Violence
Ms FLINT (Boothby—Government Whip) (14:57): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Women. Will the minister please update the House on the Morrison government's commitment to improving the safety of all women and children in Australia?
Ms LEY (Farrer—Minister for the Environment) (14:57): I thank the member for Boothby for her question. There is no excuse for family or domestic violence, and everybody has a role to play, including governments. The Morrison government is acting to make sure women are safe in their homes, safe at work and safe in their communities. Between 2013 and this budget, we committed more than $1 billion to this effort, including the $150 million package last year—so important as we responded to changing needs throughout the pandemic. For example, we boosted support to 1800RESPECT, the national family, domestic and sexual violence helpline, which responded to more than 200,000 contacts last year.
There's always more work to do, and in this budget the Morrison government has committed $1.1 billion for women's safety. This represents a down payment on the next National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children. Key measures include: more financial assistance for escaping domestic violence, with $5,000 payments; a two-year national partnership agreement for frontline services; $35 million in primary prevention; and $26 million to target online abuse. Importantly, it includes $12.6 million to expand the Safe Places program and provide more crisis accommodation for those who are fleeing violence. From this funding, Salvation Army, Southern Aboriginal Corporation and Goldfields Indigenous Housing Organisation projects will share in $9.6 million. Part of the funding will allow for six self-contained units to be built, which will support an additional 166 women and children each year in Albany.
I know that the support given to the Goldfields has been well received. Chair Dianne Logan points out that many Aboriginal women fleeing violent situations are just not comfortable in mainstream women's shelters, and having Indigenous-specific housing is critical to those who are otherwise living rough on the fringes of Goldfields communities. Local leaders like Dianne and her mother, Betty, are doing amazing work in their communities, helping women escape violent situations and shifting community attitudes. With all of these measures, the Morrison government is demonstrating our resolve to address the scourge of domestic and family violence for every Australian woman. I look forward to seeing this vital work continue.
COVID-19: Vaccination
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:59): My question is to the Prime Minister. Back in March the Prime Minister said the vaccine rollout was 'not a race', and just last week the Prime Minister said he was not 'overly troubled' about low vaccination rates. Does the Prime Minister regret these statements?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (15:00): Throughout the course of this pandemic we have taken proactive steps to ensure that Australian livelihoods and lives have been protected. Australia has been able to succeed in these areas like so many other countries haven't. That does not mean that we are in any way immune to the challenges of COVID-19, as the recent outbreak in Victoria has demonstrated. That's why we will always encourage Australians to take the vaccines and to take them by engaging with their local GP to put in place the network of GPs all around the country, who are doing around two-thirds of the vaccinations around Australia. By the end of this week, we anticipate some four million doses of vaccine will have been administered, despite the fact that we've had to deal with the challenges of the ATAGI advice, which has changed the nature in which the AstraZeneca vaccine could be used for those under the age of 50, and also because of the supply disruptions that we saw earlier in the year.
It is true that we did not take the approach of emergency procedures to take the approval process through the TGA. We did not go through that process of cutting any corners or taking any different process, because we wanted Australians to be assured that the approval processes for the vaccines went through the proper checks and balances, and, indeed, they did. It was because of that caution that we were able, through the processes of ATAGI and the TGA, to identify the issues of clotting that have arisen in other countries. As a result, the advice was able to flow through in this country. Australians have been in receipt of that advice and can be making their decisions about ensuring that their health interests are respected and protected according to decisions that they wish to make.
Whether it's the $7 billion we've invested in ensuring that these vaccines are available not just now and over the months ahead—indeed, the Moderna vaccines have been accessed by the government for booster shots next year because we know that this pandemic is raging. It's not going anywhere. There are no silver bullets. There are no guarantees. There are no certainties that can be provided in the middle of a pandemic. Our response is to work with Australians. Our response is to support Australians. We will keep fighting the virus. What others fight is up to them. We will keep fighting the virus and fighting the virus with other Australians right around the country, working with state and territory governments.
Importantly, I want to note that there are 28 Commonwealth funded respiratory clinics in Victoria that can be accessed now. I also remind people about the pandemic leave disaster payment, which is available for people in Victoria, who can access that payment if they have to stay home for 14 days to be isolated because they're a close contact or they're undertaking testing. Some $18 million, I think it is, has been provided— (Time expired)
COVID-19: Income Support Payments
Dr MARTIN (Reid) (15:03): My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workforce, Skills, Small and Family Business. Will the minister please inform the House about how the Morrison government has supported Australians with financial assistance as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and how it continues to support them?
Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Minister for Employment, Workforce, Skills, Small and Family Business) (15:03): I thank the member for her question. The Morrison government has strongly supported Australians throughout the pandemic and through the recovery. We have provided and will continue to provide record assistance to pensioners, families and jobseekers. I think the whole House appreciates the great challenges this has caused across our nation. Luckily, we've been able to use our comprehensive welfare system to provide the emergency support to Australians who have found themselves in very difficult circumstances.
As part of the government's response, we have provided four economic support payments, totalling $2,000 per recipient. Through these payments we have supported 2½ million age pensioners and 750,000 family tax benefit recipients, in addition to much-needed support for those on the disability support pension, carers and, of course, veterans.
All up through the social welfare system, the government has provided a staggering $32 billion in emergency support payments. I note for the member of Reid that 8,377 individuals in your electorate alone have received the coronavirus supplement, let alone the other support payments that have come through. We have also seen the largest increase in unemployment benefits since 1986 at a cost of $9 billion. We will continue to drive the economic recovery from the pandemic and we will continue to see the number of people in receipt of income support from the government decline. It shows that the Morrison government's economic plan is working.
As at last week on 21 May, there were 1.132 million people in receipt of unemployment payments—that is 149,000 fewer than eight weeks ago when JobKeeper came off. It is 515,000 fewer than the peak of 1.65 million we saw in May last year. And of course there are 45,000 more Australians in work now than there was pre COVID, the only industrialised nation on earth that has been able to achieve that. It is 900,000 higher than the trough of the labour market in May last year. We will continue to drive the economic recovery, we will continue to focus on jobs, and we will continue to focus on skills. It is why the budget we saw a combined $2.7 billion to get another 170,000 apprentices into work, and we have extended that to March next year so we pick up all of those school leavers. For the member for Reid—
Ms Ryan interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lalor will leave understanding order 94(a).
Mr ROBERT: that is 1,405 apprentices in the member's electorate right now getting skilled, getting supported, because that member has stumped up for boosting apprenticeship commencements. We will continue to work hard—another billion dollars for the states and territories on JobTrainer, another 40,000 young Australians in transition to work. The Morrison government's economic plan is working and we can— (Time expired)
COVID 19: Vaccination
Mr BUTLER (Hindmarsh—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (15:06): My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care, and I refer to his previous answer. Right up until today, GPs have been advising patients they require a 14-day gap between COVID and flu shots. Only this morning, the aged care minister cited that 14-day gap as the reason for the slow COVID vaccine rollout in aged-care facilities. Minister, when did the Chief Medical Officer's advice change and when was that change communicated to the medical profession?
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Aged Care) (15:07): I happen to have with me the Chief Medical Officer's letter. I will have a copy sent down to the chamber and I will table it. That has come about precisely because of the circumstances in Victoria. It is advice, as we always do, where we respond to the circumstances of the day. I will, with the grace of the House, read the relevant parts of the letter from the Chief Medical Officer. Yes, it is a response to the Victorian outbreak and, therefore, the ability to ensure that everybody is vaccinated. The letter states:
Dear colleagues
Administration of seasonal influenza and COVID 19 vaccines
Thank you for your continued efforts to ensure our most vulnerable populations are protected…
… … …
You may be aware, that the co-administration of a seasonal influenza and COVID-19 vaccine on the same day is not routinely recommended. This advice, generated by our independent medical experts, the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) was first developed on what was an absence of data on the safety and effectiveness of those vaccines being administered on the same day.
… … …
I am writing to today to advise that I have consulted with members of ATAGI and can assure you that given the evolving COVID-19 epidemiological situation in Victoria, it is my strong recommendation that residents and staff in residential aged care settings be vaccinated as quickly as possible against COVID-19.
In order to do this, it will mean that there is a shortened interval of time placed between the administrations of the seasonal influenza and COVID-19 vaccine. It is important to note that this will not have an impact on the effectiveness of the two vaccines, but rather ensure that our most vulnerable are protected at a time when COVID-19 is circulating with more readily within the community.
Thank you once again for your continued efforts to combat COVID-19.
Yours sincerely, Professor Paul Kelly, Chief Medical Officer.
Veterans
Mr PEARCE (Braddon) (15:09): My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and the Minister for Defence Personnel. Minister, I refer to the Morris government's budget commitment to additional veterans' wellbeing centres in Tasmania and South-East Queensland. Can the minister update the House on how our budget is helping veterans and their families to access the services that they need in their own communities?
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Deputy Leader of the House, Minister for Defence Personnel and Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (15:09): I thank the member for Braddon not only for his service to our nation in uniform but also for the work he's been doing in his community in the north-west of Tasmania. I want to congratulate the member for Braddon on the work he's been doing to engage with veterans and their families through the north-west veterans group. I had the chance to visit with the member just 10 days ago. I've got to say, I'm very impressed by the way they're working in partnership to outreach throughout the more remote parts of Tasmania to deliver services to veterans and their families. I also had the opportunity on that visit to catch up with the member for Bass in Launceston and see the work the Launceston RSL is doing to support our veterans in their own communities. The member for Braddon asked me about the six wellbeing centres which were announced as part of the 2019 election campaign. I must say, we are delivering on those right across the country.
Just to update the House, in Perth, the ANZAC House Veteran Central, organised by the Western Australia RSL, opened in November last year. I had the pleasure of visiting this facility just a month or so ago. It is providing a range of services, including health services, to our veterans in Western Australia. In Adelaide, the Veteran Wellbeing Centre opened in April within the site of the former Repat General Hospital. The member for Boothby was instrumental in delivering that service for her community. The Oasis Townsville is in its final stages of completion. I had the pleasure of joining the member for Herbert as we toured that facility only a few weeks ago. There are a number of interim facilities also underway in Nowra. I know it has the support of the local member. In Darwin there's a facility, Mates4Mates, that's already working there. Also, in Wodonga, the Victorian RSL is working in partnership with the community to deliver services in that region. These services are making a real difference already. They're helping to save lives in those communities. One veteran said of the Darwin service: 'It's great to know Mates4Mates are here. I left the Navy 27 years ago and have really missed the camaraderie of the forces. I love that there are activities out there that I can go to and be around ex- and current-serving members again.'
In the most recent budget, the Morrison-McCormack government announced a commitment to expand the network of wellbeing centres to include Tasmania and South East Queensland. That federal budget announcement for South East Queensland and Tasmania is very important, because this is not about Canberra. It's not about bureaucrats dictating solutions to local communities or dictating solutions to our veterans. This is about working with local communities to seek local solutions. Each of these wellbeing centres or networks will respond to local needs and deliver services on the ground to those communities when and where they're needed.
What we want to do is work in partnership with our communities to build on the excellent work they are already doing to support our veterans and their families. There are so many people every day out there saving lives, working with our veterans community, and we're very proud of the services they're delivering. This is part of the ongoing commitment of the government to improve the health and wellbeing of our military families right across the nation. It is saving lives. It is making a difference. It's an excellent program.
Mr Morrison: I ask that further questions be placed on the NoticePaper.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS
COVID-19: Vaccination
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Aged Care) (15:12): If I may, I'll table the advice from the Chief Medical Officer to which I referred previously.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Defence and Leader of the House) (15:13): 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.
AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS
Report No. 39 of 2020-21
The SPEAKER (15:13): I present the Auditor-General's Audit report No. 39 of 2020-21 entitled COVID-19 procurements and deployments of the National Medical Stockpile: Department of Health; Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources.
Document made a parliamentary paper in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 28 March 2018.
DOCUMENTS
Access to Committee Documents
Presentation
The SPEAKER (15:13): Pursuant to the resolution of the Senate on 6 September 1984 and the House of Representatives on 11 October 1984, I present a report on access to committee documents.
Agreement for Members to Contribute Remotely to Parliamentary Proceedings
Presentation
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Defence and Leader of the House) (15:14): on indulgence—I table an Agreement for Members to Contribute Remotely to Parliamentary Proceedings. This is an agreement that has been struck in concert with the Manager of Opposition Business. It extends the same arrangements as we experienced earlier in the year. It will allow members to remotely contribute to the next sitting period. I want to thank the member for—
Mr Burke: Watson.
Mr DUTTON: Watson—of course! I should know that well.
An opposition member interjecting—
Mr DUTTON: I can give you 20 minutes on that topic if you want! I thank the member for Watson for the way in which he's engaged.
The SPEAKER: I thank the Leader of the House. The Manager of Opposition Business.
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:15): on indulgence—I thank the Leader of the House. This has been turned around very quickly. What this means for members is, if over the weekend we end up in a situation where you are not able to return to Canberra for next week's sitting, the video systems that you would have to access from your electorate office will be available in the House again. They will be available here and they will be available in the Federation Chamber. Obviously we don't know how many people that may or may not apply to at this point in time. I know a number of people are staying in Canberra over the weekend to avoid it. I want to thank the Leader of the House, the Speaker and all the staff. This now initiates a lot of work, and it is very much appreciated, to be able to allow people to participate in pretty difficult times.
The SPEAKER: I thank both the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business and for both pointing out that it will operate on the same basis as it did before. So that should answer any questions people have about it's operations.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Mr BUTLER (Hindmarsh—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (15:16): I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the member claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr BUTLER: I do.
The SPEAKER: Then you may proceed.
Mr BUTLER: This afternoon in question time I questioned the use of the term 'vaccinated' by the Prime Minister to describe Australians who have only received one dose of a two-dose COVID vaccine. Being asked to respond on the Prime Minister's behalf, the minister alleged that my question was—and I quote the minister—'a suggestion that someone who has only received the first dose is not afforded any protection from the vaccine' and that that would be 'misleading'. I made no such suggestion and I've never made such a suggestion. What I was reflecting was the well-understood position about both vaccines; that is, that they are two-dose vaccines—a position reflected on the government's own health website at health.gov.au, which says in relation to Pfizer, and I quote:
After your first dose, you will need a second dose … at least 21 days later to complete the vaccination schedule. It is important that you receive two doses of the same vaccine. You may not be protected against COVID-19 until seven days after your second dose.
The government's website goes on to say on AstraZeneca:
Two doses of the Astra/Zeneca vaccine are required.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
COVID-19
The SPEAKER (15:17): I have received a letter from the honourable member for Hindmarsh proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government's failures on the vaccine rollout and hotel quarantine.
I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Mr BUTLER (Hindmarsh—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (15:18): As the Leader of the Opposition said, the Prime Minister had two principal jobs this year: a speedy, effective rollout of the vaccine and a safe national quarantine system to protect the Australian community in the meantime, and he has failed on both counts. These are the Prime Minister's failures.
I want to say this about the Minister for Health: I would rather that the member for McMahon was the minister for health during this period, but there is no-one on the government front bench that I would prefer to be the Minister for Health than the member for Flinders. He has worked hard. He is an intelligent man. He has the national interest at heart. He has been generous about briefings to both the member for McMahon and myself. We disagree on a number of occasions, but the failures that I point out today in the MPI are the failures of the Prime Minister, because, in a national emergency, the buck stops with the Prime Minister of the country. The nation is being held back by a Prime Minister who continues to duckshove his responsibility to others—to blame the media, to blame the opposition and, anything serious, to duckshove to the state governments, Labor and Liberal alike. We are being held back in the fight against this virus by a prime minister who has become dangerously complacent about the seriousness of this fight.
On vaccinations, last year the Prime Minister promised that Australians would be at the front of the queue to get a vaccine. Well, at the moment we are sitting at 113th in this nation—per doses per head of population. We are so far back, we cannot even begin to see the front of the queue. The Prime Minister promised 4 million doses by the end of March. He failed on that. He then promised there would be 6 million doses by 10 May. He has failed on that. The Prime Minister said that, over time, we would ramp up the daily and the weekly dose schedule. We have entered the fourth month of this vaccine rollout and, still, we are at about 510,000 doses per week. That is the seven-day average as of today. It was the seven-day average in the middle of last week as well. We are simply not ramping up fast enough—510,000 today, from the latest figures, and it was 511,000 on Thursday last week, when you peaked at 100,000 for the day. You went down to the 80,000s on Friday and you were at 79,000 doses on Monday. There is not an upward trajectory. And 500,000 a week, or anything close to it, is simply not quick enough to get where we need to go.
In the January strategy, also, the Prime Minister promised that those vulnerable groups, rightly identified by health experts as priority populations, would be vaccinated by Easter. But, as we heard in questions from my colleagues during question time, too many residents of aged-care facilities remain not fully vaccinated. Indeed, there remain residents of aged-care facilities across Australia, including in Victoria during this lockdown, who have not even received a single dose. We're glad that the government is moving quickly to remedy that situation—yesterday, today and tomorrow—but, still, those doses will not be effective for a number of days. They should have been done before now.
Scandalously, we heard from the disabilities royal commission last week that as many as 99 per cent of residents of those facilities have not been fully vaccinated either. This is a position that counsel assisting that royal commission described as nothing short of an 'abject failure'—an abject failure for some of the most vulnerable members of our community.
The Prime Minister said, way back in March, that this is not a race. There's no rush. Even last week, when he knew what had happened with the ATAGI advice on AstraZeneca and the supply constraints that happened earlier, he said that he was not overly troubled at the position Australia found ourselves in. This morning the aged-care minister said he was very comfortable with the position of the vaccine rollout. I think we all know, and those opposite know, that this is a race. It's a race to protect the population's health. It's a race to protect the strength of the economic recovery against these outbreaks that are happening in Victoria today. They happened two weeks or three weeks ago in Perth in the Peel region. It's a race against the variants—the mutations of this virus that are spreading all around the world. They are either more infectious or, in some cases, even resistant to natural and vaccine induced community. It is a race, and the Prime Minister's complacency around this has Australia falling too far behind.
The second job the Prime Minister had was to put in place a safe national quarantine system. This is unambiguously a Commonwealth job. I don't think any of us can remember a politician in recent memory who has made more of the role that the Commonwealth has in securing our borders than the former immigration minister who is now the Prime Minister. He was so bullish about borders for so many years of his career, but, now that the country faces a global pandemic, he washes his hands. It's a matter for the states. It's got nothing to do with him. He'll sit passively back in his chair and simply wait for people to bring proposals for a quarantine facility and decide whether or not they are worthy of his attention. The ridiculous rejection of the proposal from Toowoomba is just emblematic of this fellow's inability to grasp his responsibilities as the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth in the middle of a national emergency.
It was him, back in March 2020, who, quite rightly, imposed mandatory quarantine requirements on anyone returning to Australia—14 days of mandatory quarantine. The states stepped up to put in place hotel quarantine arrangements very, very quickly. But that is not a long-term solution. We've had 17 outbreaks of COVID from hotel quarantine in just the last six months, since the November outbreak from the Peppers Waymouth Hotel in my hometown of Adelaide, which was very clearly related to aerosol transmission in poorly ventilated hotels that, after all, were built for tourism. They were built for tourists, not for medical quarantine. Too often we have seen aerosol transmission from the room of an infected person into a corridor and then back into another room in the same corridor, which is exactly what happened a couple of weeks ago in Adelaide and that has led to this lockdown in Victoria today. The Prime Minister stands up and proudly says '99.99 per cent effective'. I have to say that I don't think that is of much comfort to five million Melburnians who are locked down for seven days. I don't think it's much comfort to the million or so members of the regional Victorian community who have been disrupted as well or to the two million people in the Perth and Peel region a few weeks ago, including veterans who were not able to gather on Anzac Day because of an aerosol related outbreak from hotel quarantine.
We've said, for a couple of months at the very least, this Prime Minister has got two jobs in quarantine: first, put in place a network of dedicated facilities. Yes, there is Howard Springs. It was supposed to be expanded to 2,000 places in April-May. April-May was the time line that the Prime Minister put in place only in March. He told us today that it's all done, the rooms are there. But are the staff there? Does it actually have the expanded capacity to take the pressure off our CBD hotels as Australian citizens come home in the middle of a global pandemic? Again, he won't tell us clearly what the answer is. But he's rejected Toowoomba. I hear that they're now negotiating furiously with the Victorian government—good, at least there's something on the table. But a network should be proactively sought out by the level of government that actually has responsibility for quarantine, not just sitting back passively expecting people to bring him proposals.
The second thing we've spoken about is there should be strong national standards while we continue to rely upon hotels. There should be particularly strong standards on ventilation, on PPE, on making sure that all staff working in these hotels have been fully vaccinated. That's still not the case around the country. Yes, there's a level of state involvement in that, obviously. But the national cabinet, chaired by the Prime Minister, is the place to put these standards in place. So many experts have been calling for this for so long. But, again, he simply washes his hands of it and says, It's not my responsibility, it's the responsibility of state governments.' He was a little bit more even-tempered today in question time. But yesterday he was over the top. Whingeing, he called us, for deigning to question the government's performance in one of the most serious issues we have faced in our lifetime.
We were constructive last year. We supported the government's response last year, unlike the Victorian Liberals whose only position was to try to free up golfers who wanted to get out on the golf courses during the 111-day lockdown in that city. We were constructive, but we are not going to sit quietly by while this country languishes at 113th on the world table in vaccination and while we have had 17 outbreaks from hotel quarantine, many of them related to poor ventilation in buildings built for tourists and not for medical quarantine. We will be constructive, but just because the Prime Minister doesn't like it, because it makes him feel uncomfortable, because he's got a glass jaw, we're not going to sit quietly by while this performance does not improve.
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Aged Care) (15:28): I'm pleased to respond on behalf of the government. Firstly, I acknowledge that for Victorians this is a difficult day. They have been through the challenges which followed the Victorian second wave. My family, other families, residents, constituents, friends—all Victorians—we all lived with and witnessed those challenges which followed that second wave. The sources are well-known and well-understood. Again, Victorians are having a difficult time and I express my deep and profound support for them. Our support as a government is strong and clear. We have provided an additional 130,000 vaccines on top of the 666,000 which have been provided to the state, of which 398,000 have been administered. We have ensured, as I mentioned in question time, that the hotspot definition has been triggered by the Chief Medical Officer, which then leads to payments in aged care and leads to asymptomatic testing being made available through the Commonwealth GP respiratory clinics. We have stood up the Victorian Aged Care Response Centre. We have offered contact tracing support through the national incident centre. We realise that these are deeply regrettable decisions that have been taken today in Victoria, but, given the particular circumstances in that state—in our state, in my state—they are nevertheless necessary.
Having said that, the context for all of this is a world in which the global pandemic has seen more cases this year already than last year. In the last 24 hours, there have been 557,000 cases and 12,000 lives lost. We're not immune in that circumstance, but we have been remarkably protected to date—94 days without community transmission in Australia. The thing which has prevented that, the thing which has exclusively prevented that occurring, has been the border protection. The other measures then stop the spread of community transmission once it occurs. But what has prevented it is the quarantine system in Australia, arguably the most effective quarantine system in the world. It's the first line of defence, not the last. It's the first of many rings of containment.
We have seen a new position adopted today, I would say, by the opposition—a presumption that a state can be immune from the virus. That is not an accurate position. Every country is at risk wherever it deals with other countries. Perhaps the most easily understood case in point is the New Zealand airport worker who was twice vaccinated, was wearing full PPE and acted with all the appropriate behaviours and protocols and nevertheless contracted the virus. What that shows is that the virus is by its nature an almost uniquely contagious virus, as we see in a pandemic. That is what has led to the global pandemic.
There's a global pandemic, but in Australia we've been in a vastly different position. Nevertheless, having said that, every day we fight to make sure that we are protecting Australians. In terms of quarantine, we put in place a system which I think almost any other country in the world would embrace, but every day we push for it to be stronger. That's why we had the Halton review. That's why we've endorsed the measures that have been put in place.
I would note in particular, in response to the shadow minister's comments, that the Prime Minister and I met with the president and the deputy president of the AMA. The deputy president of the AMA may well be known to the shadow minister—Dr Chris Moy, an esteemed Australian GP. He said, of the facility in South Australia, it's an outstanding facility, outstandingly run. There were no obvious breaches of protocols. Everything that could have been done, to his understanding, was done. But we recognise that, with a highly contagious disease, human interaction with those who come from overseas creates the possibility.
What the opposition has been talking about are some very odd proposals—proposals to put Australians in remote areas, which would mean flying a workforce in and out; proposals which would mean that we would have to be transporting patients who are positive precisely—
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
Mr HUNT: No, no—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Llew O'Brien ): The member for Isaacs!
Mr HUNT: The opposition has talked about remote facilities, which would mean transporting people who were diagnosed as positive, moving them right across the country, moving a workforce in and out—all things which both the Halton review and the Coates review spoke against. They recommended against the very things that the opposition are proposing.
The opposition also imply that, all of a sudden, one system would be closed down and another could magically be created. In reality, what we have done is create a facility in Howard Springs—which Professor Murphy and I visited at the start of February last year to work with the community, to win their confidence—which has operated with 100 per cent effectiveness. I believe it's the only one, of the systems in the country, which has been Commonwealth run. But I would say that we have full confidence in all states and territories—full confidence. Those opposite, by their words, imply that they do not have confidence in the states and territories—we do—because, if they did have confidence, they would not be advocating the change that they are proposing, a change away from a system that has kept Australia in a vastly different position from almost any other country in the world.
Having said that, let me turn to the rollout, because what we've seen now is Australians coming forward in record numbers—record numbers yesterday, record numbers again today. In recent weeks, we have had a record 402,000, then 436,000 and then 512,000 last week. And the indications, part-way through this week, are that we may be on track to well exceed that again. That's before the 12-week period for AstraZeneca leads to the second-dose program commencing, in line with medical advice. Those things will come together. Over the course of the year, as supply allows, then the rollout will continue. I would note in particular that, when we look to the states and territories, in Victoria we appreciate the 398,000 vaccines they've administered. Six hundred sixty-six thousand vaccines have been delivered to the Victorian government, and 398,000 have been administered. Interestingly and importantly, there will be another 71,000 Pfizer vaccines tomorrow, and there will be another 130,000 AstraZeneca vaccines over the coming weeks, including 20,000 extra today.
All of these elements have been fundamental. We have now achieved 582 residential aged-care facilities, with another seven today, and the final nine due tomorrow, on the advice we have. I think it is an important protection. It's a fundamental difference between this and the previous outbreak in Victoria. We know that those vaccinations are very important and we urge all Australians to continue to come forward at the earliest possible time. If you are in an eligible group and you catch COVID, you could die. That is why the Prime Minister, myself, the Chief Medical Officer, Professor Brendan Murphy, the President of the AMA and people right around Australia are urging everybody who is eligible to come forward. We think that, if that message is loud and clear and strong, and Australians see other Australians being vaccinated, then they will continue to come forward in record numbers. Now that the supply has allowed large volumes to be available, we want everybody to come forward, to feel the confidence, to feel that they can make a difference, that this is their moment, that they can have a fundamental impact in not only protecting themselves and their family but protecting every Australian. It is one of those rare occasions where one can help protect all. That's a very noble cause. It's a practical cause but, above all else, it is a fundamental part of being within the community, of the community and for the community.
Ultimately, I want to acknowledge that this pandemic, globally, has been agonising. We have seen death on an extraordinary human scale—12,900 people, officially, in one day alone. The World Health Organization is saying that the over 3.7 million people who have lost their lives represent between 50 per cent and one-third of the likely real total. To see that is to recognise a pandemic on a grand scale. Whilst we're not immune, Australia has pulled together and taken action in an extraordinary way. The steps that we've taken, we hope, have assisted, but I'm proud of— (Time expired)
Mr ROB MITCHELL (McEwen—Second Deputy Speaker) (15:38): I've listened to 10 minutes of just falsehoods, platitudes—nothing serious. Every single day, Victorians have been living under the pressure. If you were from Victoria and for Victoria, you would know that what we've been going through is very awkward and painful and hard. Now we're going into a lockdown for two reasons: a failure of quarantine and a failure of vaccine rollout. Both of those lie fairly and squarely with the federal government—no ifs, no buts. The person from South Australia who brought COVID into Victoria arrived in Australia without having COVID and caught it in the makeshift quarantine facilities. We have been asking the government to work together—and we supported the government on everything they did last year—but the government have done the usual thing and taken away support and service, to turn it into a political football.
We've seen the arrogance of this failure of a prime minister who decided to have a national cabinet but not involve the Leader of the Opposition, because it was about politics not about people. That is the big problem that we've faced throughout. Support for the government has been strong from this side all they way through, but we keep seeing failure after failure. Questions need to be asked about when we are going to get this right. When are you actually going to do your job and look after Australians? We just heard the Minister for Health—just to show how arrogant and out of touch he is—say that proposals put forward by the Victorian government are in the outback. It's in Mickleham. It's 20 kays from the airport! It's closer than the motels are in the city. So we've got to ask: why do you want to use motels and not a purpose built quarantine facility? It's clearly because you don't want to fix this properly. You don't want to sit down and work together. You just want to sit there, make your photo opportunities, do your press releases and do nothing. You came into this place two days ago and said that in the Whittlesea area there are 15 aged-care facilities and they've all been vaccinated. That is untrue. There are two in Whittlesea, not 15, and when we spoke to them staff hadn't been done and not all the residents had been done. So I want to know why the minister comes in here during question time, when the cameras are on, and spouts these things that are just not factual. Families—
A government member interjecting—
Mr ROB MITCHELL: Table the list. There are two in Whittlesea, but you wouldn't know that because you're not for Victoria. You'd much rather spend your time up here than be down with the people who matter.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Llew O'Brien ): The member for McEwen will direct his comments through the chair.
Mr ROB MITCHELL: I certainly am, and I know you want to be with your community, Deputy Speaker O'Brien, because that's what you're here for. But I wish that other members on that side of the chamber were in that same situation.
The vaccine rollout has been an absolute failure. There is no doubt about that. We have been out there day in, day out willing people on to get vaccines, but they can't, because the government can't keep its lines straight for two days. It was the Minister for Health who said, 'If you don't like the AstraZeneca one, don't worry. There'll be other vaccines in months,' and then sat down and said, 'Gee whiz, why aren't people getting a vaccine?' It's because this government is too busy focusing on itself, focusing on trying to keep away the political heat. We saw it yesterday with the rants and the raves from the ministers and the Prime Minister when questions were being asked about vaccines and quarantine. These lie fairly and squarely at the feet of those sitting opposite.
People in Victoria are now going to go through another lockdown because of the failure of the Morrison government to deliver two basic things: quarantine and vaccines. We're going to keep repeating it and repeating it and pray and hope that one day it will sink in and they'll get to understand it. In the meantime, all Victorians are going to be going through a very tough week. I'm proud to be going home to be with my community. I ask the Victorians over there: are you going to go home and be with your community? No, you're not. We know you'd rather spend a weekend up here than go and stand out there with the people who actually matter, the people who put us here. That's what I'll be doing, because that's the right thing to do. Rather than sit up here and pontificate like you do, get out there and actually be with the people who matter.
This MPI was brought on by the member for Hindmarsh because we actually care about people. We're on the side of Australians in this situation. The government is on the side of its photo ops and its press releases. If they rolled out vaccines as fast as they rolled out press releases, we would not be in this situation now. But when 1.4 million vaccines come in and the government is only distributing 450,000, you've got to sit there and say, 'Why are people missing out? Why are people not getting it?' It's all because of them.
Mr COULTON (Parkes—Minister for Regional Health, Regional Communications and Local Government) (15:43): It's the definition of irony that the member for McEwen's speech was about bringing politics into the debate about COVID-19 and the vaccine rollout, and it was probably one of the most political speeches I've heard in this place in my 14 years here. The truth of the matter is that we have the luxury to be having these debates in this country, because if we were in nearly any other country in the world we would have loved ones, people we know and people from our communities who would have died by now.
This country is in a very, very safe position because of the leadership from not only this government but the health sector, the state governments and people all over this nation. I believe we should be actually showing some relief and respect for the fact that we are there, because we are probably one of the safest countries on this planet and the focus on the negativity is not helping the confidence of the Australian people when it comes to be stepping up and taking the opportunity with the vaccine.
I want to pay some tribute to the health professionals around, as the minister for regional Australia. Over the last 18 months their contribution through round tables, largely through zooms and telecommunications, were feeding information back in from Aboriginal communities, from all the states, from the GPs, from the surgeons, from the pharmacists, from the allied health workers.
I don't want people to forget the issue that we were facing right from the start. We were facing a pandemic that was killing people on a scale right across the globe, and the Australian people have stepped up admirably and followed and taken advantage of the processes that have been put in place.
To say that the people in Australia aren't being vaccinated is just not true. So far we've seen three million doses completed across the country. Across the globe, we've seen 3.7 million cases in the last week alone and 80,000 deaths in the last week. So, while we have the luxury of being able to have these debates in the safety of this country in which we live, we should remember that we are in the middle of a global pandemic. I have great sympathy for the people of Victoria, and I understand the emotion that the Victorian members bring to this place because they're in for a very, very tough time, but the actions that are being taken are stopping people from dying, they are keeping them safe. We do need to make sure that we keep that vaccine rollout continuing on. Across regional Australia in the places I visit, whether they're GPs or Aboriginal medical services or respiratory clinics that are being funded by the Commonwealth, what I've been told is that people in regional Australia are taking the opportunity, they are stepping up, they are having the vaccine when the opportunity arrives.
I've booked in to a clinic at four o'clock on a Saturday afternoon in the member for New England's electorate. Medical staff right across the country are stepping up and putting in that extra effort to make sure that they can cover people and protect them in a timely manner. My encouragement is that everyone, when they have the opportunity, step up and take that chance, because, until we have this country vaccinated and people protected, then we'll not get back to the normality that we had. But we must not forget that in this country we have people in employment and we have people who are being kept safe from the virus, and that hasn't happened by accident; it's happened because of the work of a lot of people right across the country, led by this government, who has shown leadership right throughout this pandemic in conjunction with the states to make sure that the Australian people are protected.
Ms THWAITES (Jagajaga) (15:48): This week in this place it's felt like living in an alternative universe as we come in and hear government member after government member pat themselves on the back for the wonderful job they've done managing this crisis, yet what's really going on is we're heading into a lockdown. Today in question time we had the Prime Minister say these brief lockdowns don't really matter, they don't really affect anyone's lives. The Treasurer, a Victorian, instead of talking about what's going on in his home state took a dorothy dixer to talk about how wonderful his budget was and how he's really helping everyone. In fact, we've just heard from the member for Parkes who's implied that actually we've never had it so good in this country and he doesn't know what we're complaining about. It's a luxury, he says, that we're having this debate, and, while he has sympathy for people in Victoria, it's sympathy only. We don't want your sympathy. We want you to do your jobs.
There are two clear responsibilities that the government has failed on—quarantine and vaccines. Quarantine is a federal responsibility. This outbreak came from quarantine. It is clear the government has failed, and people in Melbourne, people in Victoria, are going to bear the consequences of those failures. So when those opposite talk about these brief lockdowns, when they say they have sympathy, let me tell you about what that means for people's lives. There are people in Melbourne now deciding who can come to the funeral of their loved one. They are making heartbreaking decisions about who they have to say, 'I'm so sorry, this is the toughest point in my life but you cannot come to that.' There are people in Melbourne right now, parents, who got stretched the very edge last year, who are, once again, looking at what it looks like to home-school and to try and work. There are kids who are only just getting back to the routine of school who will be back home again. I have been to school after school in my electorate. They have worked so hard to try to get those kids back into a state where they can be supported at school, where they can socialise again, where they are back on track. This is a setback, a major setback for them.
There are businesses in all of our electorates, in my electorate, who are facing another lockdown. They were not prepared for this. They have done their absolute best to get to this point through this lockdown. But every time they have to do this again, every time, they are left without support. They are left in a precarious position and they are left wondering: can they continue to keep going? Can they continue to employ people in our community? Can they continue to support our community? It should not be like this. There should be quarantine facilities that are fit for purpose. We know that hotel quarantine is not the solution here. Quarantine that is fit for purpose, that is safe, is what we need.
But of course, it is not just quarantine; it is vaccines. Last year, during the height of Melbourne's lockdowns, I had to make a number of very difficult calls to people in my electorate who had lost loved ones in aged care. Those were some of the hardest conversations I have had as a member and I don't ever want to do that sort of work again. But I am very, very afraid that I may have to, because elderly people in aged-care homes in my electorate are not yet fully vaccinated. They are still at risk. The aged-care workers in these homes are not fully vaccinated. In fact, many of them have been told that they need to arrange privately to get their vaccination. There is no scheme for them to be a priority and to get their vaccination.
Again, if we think about all of the experience of last year, about what we learned about how this virus spreads amongst vulnerable populations, amongst vulnerable people in our aged-care homes, what did we learn? Most of that spread happened because aged-care workers worked across a number of facilities and they took the virus across with them. Nothing has been done to prevent that happening again. The government have had over a year. They have failed to do your job, so we don't want their sympathy. We don't want to hear platitudes from the Prime Minister about how we will get through these brief lockdowns together. We don't want to hear the Treasurer pat himself on the back for the wonderful job he's done with the economy. We want the government to do its job, two jobs—quarantine, vaccine. Look after the vulnerable; get on with it.
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (15:53): As a Victorian, I am proud to contribute to this debate because it goes to the heart of the confidence the Australian people and, critically, at this time, the people of Victoria need to have in their vaccine system and the tragedy is the cheap politics of the opposition—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr TIM WILSON: Sorry, it is not cheap; that is unkind. I withdraw. It is well beyond cheap; it is bargain basement derisory politics which does nothing to advance the sense of confidence that Victorians need right now. Because when they look at this chamber, what they should actually see is their parliament backing the people of Victoria and supporting them, and that is what the Morrison government is doing. If the Labor Party found a way to rise above it, they would come and continue to support the efforts that have been made by this government, by state governments, to make sure we can address the risks of this virus.
On 30 March, in the Goldstein electorate, I visited the Bluff Road medical clinic with the health minister, during one of the earliest stages of the vaccine rollout. There we saw local residents who were taking the opportunity to get a vaccine. That was in the early days, when there were only about a thousand clinics that were part of the build-up of the vaccination rollout. It was at the start of the curve, or at the precipice or the tipping point, where it went up to 4,000 by the end of that week. But there we saw Australians who wanted to get vaccinated, GPs who wanted to deliver the vaccine, and local health services, working with state and federal governments, to deliver the vaccine rollout, and they did so because they understood how critical it is to getting Australia back on its feet.
Thankfully, following that, the state governments rolled out major super-sites, so people could also get vaccinated there, not just through local GP centres. But it's very disappointing, because, for instance, just yesterday, as we knew we were on the precipice of a very serious potential outbreak in Victoria, people went to the Royal Exhibition Building centre in Melbourne—which is a site managed by the Victorian state government—and, at 4.30 in the afternoon, they were turned away. So there is definitely room for some improvement in some parts of the vaccine rollout, I agree. No-one should kid themselves. When city office-workers are leaving their offices at the end of the working day and going to state government vaccine sites and they're not getting admitted and nobody is there to support them, it kind of suggests there's room for improvement. We'll work with those governments to seek improvement—as we've continued to work on improving the hotel quarantine system and as we've doubled the size of the Howard Springs facility to enable more Australians to return to our country. In the same way, we are looking very confidently at the proposal put forward by the Victorian government.
But of course this requires an understanding of the nature of the virus. There's a reason our hotel quarantine system has almost perfect efficacy. That is because it's a system designed—
Ms Murphy interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Llew O'Brien ): Member for Dunkley, I suspect you don't want to be kicked out under 94(a).
Mr TIM WILSON: to work collaboratively with the states, with the Commonwealth, across facilities, to bring many Australians home. Of course, there will still be problems, as have been experienced elsewhere, and now it's up to us and our sense of responsibility to make sure we get it right, vaccinate, manage quarantine and, hopefully, get Australia back to a position where we can avoid the spread, the transmission, of the virus.
But let's not forget that, amongst the tin politics of the opposition at the moment, there are Victorians facing really difficult challenges and choices. Seven days is not a short period of time. Many people have the scars from last year, from being locked down for up to three months under the long Victorian lockdown.
I want to give a big shout out to all those people who are going to support Victorians at this critical time: the nurses and the doctors who will provide the vaccines, if people go and get vaccinated—and we should encourage them to do so. To the parents and the teachers, critically, who will be assisting children being educated from home—and many of them faced very difficult circumstances, juggling work and other personal arrangements, last year, and now are being called upon to do it again—we say thank you. And to everybody else who is providing critical services at this time, we say thank you. But the people whom we thank the most are those who take the responsibility to protect themselves and their community by getting vaccinated. Thank you.
Ms MURPHY (Dunkley) (15:58): Well, it's a rare day indeed that the member for Goldstein can't even work himself up into some sort of outrage at the Labor Party or talk about how magnificent his government is, because even he knows that this government is to blame for its failure to roll out the vaccine and to set up proper quarantine facilities. That five-minute contribution, ladies and gentlemen, was the admission of defeat on behalf of this government.
Our communities in Victoria are going back into a lockdown that they would not have had to go into if there had been a better vaccination rollout and a proper national quarantine facility. And can I just say: calling something 'the national resilience centre' doesn't actually solve quarantine; all it does is to give a facility that already existed a Utopia sort of name to roll out and repeat: 'national centre for resilience' or 'national resilience centre'!
What does that even mean? It doesn't mean a national quarantine strategy and facilities that this government, this Prime Minister, should have been putting in place last year.
Mr Simmonds interjecting—
Ms MURPHY: Who cares what it's called, Member for Ryan? Do it. Set it up properly.
Mr Simmonds interjecting—
Ms MURPHY: I take the member for Ryan's interjection.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: All members will pause. The member for Ryan will cease interjecting. The member for Dunkley will direct her comments through the chair.
Ms MURPHY: Thank you, Deputy Speaker; I appreciate that. Having calmed down after the ridiculous interjections that were being directed towards me, I would like to read an email that I received at 2.07 pm today from one of my constituents—Linda Forster, who runs a travel agency. Linda is someone I have had a lot of contact with over COVID. I didn't know her before I became the member for Dunkley, but I've had a lot of contact with her because of how badly this federal government's bungling has affected her. So let me just read her email. She writes:
Hi Peta …
Just wanted to express my sheer anger at the Federal Governments complete incompetence resulting in Victoria's latest lock-down announced this morning and to provide this, a clear and concise example of how the federal government's refusal to accept responsibility for quarantine on a national level (section 51 and point 9 of the constitution) has affected me both personally and professionally.
What does the 7 day lock-down mean for me?
First up, 7 days is likely to be 'at least' 14 days when talking about the world of travel. As a result of this lock-down, I have many a booking affected. Affected in terms of my time (currently working for nothing due to NIL job-keeper) and affected in terms of my finances (point in same).
It is unacceptable that this government does not offer support for the blatantly obvious industry struggle that continues to follow us since and relentlessly since the onset of this crisis in March 2020. The federal government's rhetoric means nothing, their words mean nothing. They need to STAND UP and act and ACT now both in terms of a national quarantine center and more importantly in financial support whilst both International and now domestic borders are continually impacted in this way!
Enough is enough! Pass this example over to whomever can get through to this useless government!
I would very much like to tell my constituent that, perhaps by raising it in this parliament, it could get through to this useless government. But, based on the responses from the people in this chamber on the government's side, it doesn't look like they are going to pass it onto the Prime Minister.
I'd like to tell the 10 people who rang a GP in Frankston South today to ask for a COVID injection and were told that they cannot get one for two weeks because the federal government supply hasn't turned up that they can get vaccinated, and I would like to be tell the aged-care workers at Baxter Village who are waiting until 30 June for their vaccination that they will get one—but I can't, because of this Prime Minister. (Time expired)
Mr SIMMONDS (Ryan) (16:03): You would think in a time of global crisis, in the time of a global pandemic which is unprecedented, that perhaps in this one moment we might see a little bit of bipartisanship from the Labor MPs, but it's not to be. Disappointingly, for older Australians, it is not to be. Australians have shown incredible fortitude throughout this. They have shown the true embodiment of the Aussie spirit to so far get us through the COVID pandemic in a way that we are the envy of the rest of the world. They have supported each other and they have supported their families—and Victorians will be doing it again over the next seven days.
But does the Leader of the Opposition truly think that Australians, who have duly done the hard yards, who have helped the country to get where we are, want to see the ridiculous politics and politicising and political game-playing that we saw from Labor MPs just now? The member for Dunkley spent a whole two minutes of her five-minute speech talking about the name of the quarantine centre. Could there be cheaper politics in her speech than that or in the Labor position than that? No, and they just don't—
Ms Murphy interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Dunkley is warned under standing order 94(a).
Mr SIMMONDS: Again and again, they ignore the facts. Cheap politics, alright; if Labor want to play those games then so be it. We don't want to see that happen, but we can't control their actions. Their actions, in this instance, have real consequences. Don't they understand that, when the member for Dunkley stands up and for cheap political gains tries to bash the vaccine rollout and claims it isn't working, that stops Australians who are watching her on TV from picking up the phone and making the booking they need with their GP or vaccine clinic? They think, 'Labor says it's not working, it's not worth it.' We have to be bipartisan in showing the Australian people that it is important to pick up the phone, make that booking with your GP. If you're listening right now, don't listen to the cheap politics of Labor talking down the vaccine. It is vital to get the vaccine. If you are in an age group that makes you eligible to get the vaccine, go and make that booking.
We had shadow ministers go even further in question time today, when they stood up and somehow insinuated, again, for cheap political points, that it isn't worth getting your first dose of the vaccine. That has a real impact. Labor MPs are playing cheap political games, but they have a real impact. No Australian should be under the misapprehension that it isn't important to get the first dose of the vaccine. Go and get it. It is so important, it is part of our path out of the COVID pandemic. Do not listen to the game-playing and cheap politics of Labor MPs. What we want to see, and what Australians really want to see, is the whole parliament behind them in this effort, rolling out everything that we can, as this government has shown over the last year and a bit, to support them in their efforts to defeat the COVID virus. They want to see Labor MPs supporting that. They're disappointed that they don't. But that's okay, we will continue to have the backs of all Australians. In the words of the Leader of the Opposition, he's more interested in fighting Tories than he is in fighting the virus. We have no interest in those kinds of ridiculous games in the middle of a global pandemic that's killing thousands of people across the globe every day.
Our interest is in everyday Australians, helping support them and their families to get through times like we'll see in Victoria over the next seven days, ensuring that they have the confidence to get out there and be vaccinated. They should have that confidence because this government is rolling out vaccines at a record rate. Over 12,000 people in Victoria alone got vaccinated yesterday. We delivered over 3.9 million doses, including over 111,000 in the last 24 hours. We have the backs of all Australians and, in particular, the backs of all Victorians. We announced today that we're releasing an additional 130,000 vaccines to support Victorians to accelerate vaccination in that state. That is real action, as opposed to the cheap politicking that we saw from Labor during question time today. They also undermine the confidence of Australians in the national quarantine program, a quarantine program that is over 99 per cent effective, arguably the best in the world in terms of its effectiveness. It is keeping Australians safe, the vaccines are keeping Australians safe. Both are being delivered by this government. It is this government that has got the backs of everyday Australians to get them through the COVID pandemic, rather than the cheap politics of Labor. (Time expired)
Mr HILL (Bruce) (16:08): We're again facing an incredibly serious situation in my hometown of Melbourne, a city that I love and a city that I've lived in my entire life. Once again, COVID is spreading across Melbourne: 26 cases, 10,000 contacts identified this morning, one person in ICU fighting for their life already. The Victorian government are taking the only responsible action they can take, with a seven-day lockdown. I think it's hard for people who are not from Victoria or Melbourne to actually understand, as we've heard from these almost sociopathic contributions, just how traumatising—
Mr Falinski: Point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will withdraw.
Mr HILL: I withdraw. It was for the city—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Bruce will pause for a moment. The member's point of order is?
Mr Falinski: The point of order is unparliamentary language, and it is a consistent—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I've dealt with it, and it's been withdrawn. The member will sit down.
Mr HILL: It's hard to understand just how traumatising it was for the city to be locked down for 111 days last year. It was particularly traumatising for older people living alone and for families, not from rich electorates, holed up in flats with three or four kids they were trying to homeschool. Family violence rates were out of control. Small businesses now have no JobKeeper.
We beat it before, and we'll beat it again, with or without this Prime Minister. But we shouldn't be in this mess, and we need to be very, very clear here: this outbreak is a direct result of the Prime Minister's failure on vaccinations. No amount of spin and marketing and interference and screaming and shouting and blame-shifting in question time or elsewhere can cover that up. It's his responsibility. He had two jobs: vaccinations and quarantine. Vaccinations? About one per cent of the country is fully vaccinated. We've had the 17th outbreak from hotel quarantine in Australia, this one from South Australia. Because of the Prime Minister's failure, Victoria is exposed. Forty per cent of aged care facilities in Melbourne are not fully vaccinated. When this outbreak started, 29 didn't have even a single first dose. He's dangerously complacent. He says it's not a race.
It is a race. It's a race against the virus, it's a race against mutations and it's a race to save lives and livelihoods. Last week, the Commonwealth got 1.4 million doses and they handed out 500,000. There's no public health campaign. In eight years, the Liberals have spent $1 billion in taxpayer funds on advertising themselves. But there's nothing for public health or the vaccine, when it really matters. They are advertising roads they haven't even built, but nothing for the vaccine. This has been one of the biggest policy failures in Australia's recent history, but the Prime Minister takes no responsibility. He just yells and screams and blames everyone else.
Every time there's an outbreak from hotel quarantine, it is a direct result of the Prime Minister's failure to set up safe, purpose-built quarantine. They look after dogs, cats and horses coming into the country—that's a Commonwealth thing—but not human beings. It's so he can blame the states when it suits him. He says quarantine is 99.9 per cent effective. Well, the 0.1 per cent is devastating. The Northern Territory facility, purpose-built, is 100 per cent effective. He's had a report on his desk for seven months and done nothing with it. There have been more lockdowns, more deaths and billions of dollars lost. The best time to start building purpose-built quarantine facilities was last year, and the second best time is today. It's not necessarily a short-term thing, either. It's way too early to know whether we can allow quarantine-free travel to this country next year, even when the vaccine's rolled out. Tell us what the mutations look like.
Meanwhile, the Prime Minister needs to fix hotel quarantine, get national standards, accept it's airborne, put in place ventilation that works and get N95 masks. Get the staff vaccinated; they're not even fully vaccinated. As the member for Dunkley said, the anger at the Prime Minister in my home state of Victoria is visceral. People know that this is his fault and they know it's his failure. They will rightly blame him for illness, future deaths and other outbreaks.
I've been a harsh critic of the Prime Minister. You've heard me call him fake before. I don't like him, I don't trust him and I do not think he is up to his job. But this is serious. Lives and the economy are at stake. So I beg, I plead: for once, step up to the mark, Prime Minister, and do your job. Apologise, take responsibility, set targets, speed up the vaccine program and get cracking on purpose-built quarantine. He doesn't hold a hammer? He doesn't even hold a nail.
Make sure there are no more outbreaks.
Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne) (16:14): This vaccine issue is being ramped up purely for political purposes. The system is working. The last time we had a mass vaccination for the whole country was: never. It's never been like this before. It does take time to rollout a massive campaign like this. But you've just got to look at the figures. There are 3.9 million doses delivered. They make a big deal about 'not fully vaccinated'. That's because most people in nursing homes are getting the AstraZeneca vaccine, and there's a 12-week interval between them. That is why they can throw that statistic around. But, some of the statistics are: 2.5 million of these have been through Commonwealth outlets and the remainder through state systems. Both systems have had hiccups. Like I said, when you've got a system rolling out to 25 million people you expect a few logistical problems, but it is ramping up. Last week there were a couple of days when over 100,000 doses were administered in a day.
With the outbreak in Victoria, the system there will smother it. It will contact trace—they've got systems in place. Look what happened on the northern beaches. The numbers that they had in the northern beaches were controlled. I think there were 40 or 50 immediate cases that were identified, and they tracked them all down and they controlled it. It's not like we're starting from point zero. We have systems in place.
About the quarantine stations, it would be good if we did have quarantine stations. Everyone knows that. But we have empty hotels that have individual bathrooms that are isolated and that do have the logistics to keep people in quarantine as long as the paradigms and the policies are strictly followed, but every system has occasional breakthroughs. That's the nature of such an infectious disease. What's happened in South Australia is apparently through a door that was opened for less than a minute or two during a meal changeover. The quarantine and the tracing teams have identified that. How can you prevent some leakage? So, look, we have a system in place. People should just stop panicking, and the other side should stop ramping people's anxieties up.
If our immigration centres—which the opposition keeps saying we should have used—didn't have shared bathrooms and shared dormitories, yes, it would have been useful to convert them, but they aren't suitable. You need something like Howard Springs if you are going to set it up, and, if you hadn't noticed, we're in the middle of the biggest building boom with a shortage of materials. And most of the centres are in difficult to get to locations, so, again, there's another logistical challenge.
We have provided vaccines for the nation. We've got Indigenous supply happening through CSL. We have got the Pfizer, Moderna and Novavax, which is another sort of vaccine—not a messenger RNA one but a protein based vaccine—which is possibly going to come on. We've invested in the COVAX facility. We have spent billions of dollars ensuring the doses for our population are here. If we were in some of these European countries or South American or Indian subcontinent situations where it was going rampant, sure, we could get the army in and just go round and jab them like they did in America, but we're not in that situation. We have 5,300 practices that are registered to give it. It will be run out in the later stages through pharmacies. We have 142 GP practitioner-led respiratory clinics—they're now called Commonwealth vaccination centres. We have 107 Aboriginal community controlled health centres lined up. We've got the Flying Doctor Service lined up to help distribute and administer the vaccines in really remote parts of Australia. We have a system in place. It is working. People just need to follow infection control guidelines and roll their sleeve up and get their vaccine.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The discussion is now concluded.
BILLS
Private Health Insurance Amendment (Income Thresholds) Bill 2021
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 urges the Government to better protect Australians' health during the pandemic and deliver a more sustainable, equitable, and effective health care system".
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (16:20): The Private Health Insurance Amendment (Income Thresholds) Bill 2021 continues the pause of the annual indexation of private health insurance income thresholds for another two years. The pause of annual indexation levels effectively lowers the real income thresholds at which private health insurance and the Medicare levy surcharge are applied. The net effect is that the government is collecting more money from the Medicare levy surcharge and rebating less for private health insurance. It is backdoor taxation that will raise $304 million over the next four years. It is a stealth tax from a government that preaches lower taxation.
The indexation freeze has now been in place since the coalition took office in 2013, costing Australians hundreds of millions of dollars over those years. And now the Morrison government wants to once again extend the freeze, for another two years. The shadow minister, in his contribution to this debate, highlighted the impact that will have on individual households. This is a government that, in opposition, actually argued against the introduction of income thresholds for the private health insurance rebates and the Medicare levy surcharge, claiming at the time that thresholds would cause a massive fall in people taking out private health insurance. So, at a time when private health insurance costs are straining household budgets, and private health insurance rates are actually falling, having dropped from 47.4 per cent in 2015 to 44.2 per cent at the end of the March quarter this year, the Morrison government wants to now take more money out of people's pockets.
Australia's public health system is already under stress, with public hospitals being overloaded by people who should be getting treatment in specialised mental health centres or being properly cared for in aged-care or medical rehabilitation facilities or even just going to their local GP clinic. Instead, they are presenting at public hospitals, because it is more affordable and more convenient to do so. Public hospitals are being overrun. Waiting times in emergency departments can be hours, putting lives at risk. Ambulance ramping has never been worse, with patients at times being kept in ambulances for hours and hours. At the same time, those ambulances are being tied up from attending other critical call-outs. The situation cannot continue like that. Patients are also being discharged from hospital earlier than they should be, in order to free up hospital beds—again, putting their health in jeopardy. Mental health services have reached crisis levels across the country. In my state of South Australia recently, some senior mental health doctors resigned from the public system in frustration—again, that cannot continue. We have new and effective medications in use overseas that are still not listed on the PBS here in Australia, and every year around a million prescriptions go unfilled because people simply cannot afford the cost.
One in four Australians do not get recommended dental treatment—again, because of cost. Unlike several other countries, Australia's public health system, Medicare, does not cover dental services, and the Morrison government has further reduced the limited amount of money that previously was going into dental care from the federal government. Nor does Australia have a national public vaccination injury compensation scheme, unlike the USA, which has had one for three decades—and I understand some 24 other countries have a similar scheme. Right now, in the midst of a COVID pandemic, when so many people are hesitant about taking up the COVID vaccine, a public injury compensation scheme would provide much-needed reassurance and would very likely increase the take-up of COVID vaccination.
The overlap between the federal and state governments in managing Australia's health system and the health services more broadly is failing our community. Cost shifting between both government levels is causing considerable inefficiencies, wastage and a lack of accountability, with governments blaming each other for the failures and refusing to accept responsibility when failures are, indeed, highlighted. We have seen that with aged-care funding, where the aged-care facilities will very quickly send patients to a public hospital rather than provide the medical service in-house. Again, that transfers the cost to the state. We have also seen it with public dental services, where both the state and federal government would provide some money but both blame each other for the inadequate amount of money being provided. We are seeing it with mental health services and, I have to say, in my own state, it has reached absolute crisis levels in recent times, to the point where the minister had to meet with many of the mental health professionals in order to come to some agreement about the way forward. And we have seen it with public hospital funding. Again, it's a case whereby, while people are going to the public hospitals, much of the cost is being picked up by the state and being transferred from the federal government to the states. Where possible, the states do the same and try to direct costs to the federal government wherever they can.
Right now, we are seeing it with the COVID pandemic. We have just had a matter of public importance debate on this very issue. We heard the debate not only about the lack of responsibility coming from this government but, equally, the constant blame game being passed from one level of government to the other and back again. It doesn't resolve the problems and it doesn't answer the questions that the public are asking each and every day. Whether it is to do with the hotel quarantine issues, whether it is to do with the vaccine rollout, and any other matter to do with COVID-19, the public don't want to hear about who is responsible; they simply want the issues resolved, and we're seeing that because we do not have a coordinated health system across this country.
The reality is, with COVID-19, we should be grateful that we haven't had the mass breakout that other countries have. Indeed, when I think about what the situation would be like had that happened, I shudder. Because, quite frankly, if, given the state of our public hospital system right now across the country, we had had a massive COVID-19 breakout, I doubt very much that we could have managed it. I have no doubt at all that the situation would have been absolutely chaotic. But what we see instead is the federal government—we saw it again today, particularly in respect to some of the comments about what is happening in Victoria—blaming the state governments for the problem, when the reality is that both the COVID vaccination rollout and the question of having proper places or facilities for people to go into when they come back from overseas, the quarantining system, fall fairly and squarely in the lap of the federal government. There is no denying that.
Quarantine and COVID vaccination rollout are responsibilities of the federal government. How they engage the states is their call. By all means, they should be working with the states. But the prime responsibility rests with the federal government, and we have seen failures. I will be the first to acknowledge that this is an issue that we have been confronted with for the first time in the last hundred years. I expect that problems might arise but there is no denying that things could have been done better. The government has been too slow to secure adequate supplies of the vaccine; indeed, we now here we might get some of the Moderna vaccine towards the end of this year. The government has been too slow to explore the actual manufacture of the mRNA vaccine here in Australia, has been too slow to put out an adequate public health awareness campaign with respect to the importance of the vaccine and, quite frankly, has been way too slow to get the medical professionals on board so that they can actually deliver the vaccine. In fact, many local GP clinics only came on board in very recent times and, even then, in very limited numbers.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Llew O'Brien ) (16:30): It being 4.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
COVID-19
Ms COKER (Corangamite) (16:30): People of my electorate of Corangamite will tonight be plunged into the fourth lockdown in a year. Hearts are heavy, and people are rightly angry. In the past year, Victorians have put up with so much. They have shouldered much of the heavy lifting when it comes to stopping the spread of this virus. They have done the hard yards, and they will do them again, because they deeply care for their community and for each other. We don't want to see this virus get a hold again. One year on, it is harder to go into this lockdown, because people know, while we have done the heavy lifting, the Morrison government has not.
When it comes to quarantine and the vaccine rollout, this government has been complacent. Its lack of urgency means that we are now facing lockdown. This latest outbreak comes from hotel quarantine. It's the 17th outbreak of its kind. The government isn't taking up its responsibility and establishing a national quarantine facility. Hotels are not designed for quarantine; they are designed for tourists.
In October of last year, the Prime Minister was handed a report by the former Health secretary, Jane Halton. That report was the National review of hotel quarantine. It outlined serious concerns about potential for aerosol transmission in hotels. Poor ventilation in hotels—built for tourism, not medical quarantine—was an issue that needed to be solved. Seven months later, nothing has changed. The Morrison government could have included funding for a national quarantine facility in the last budget or in the one before that. But, hey, we had zero cases nationwide. So why bother, right? The result is lockdown for Victorians who have done the heavy lifting before.
At every chance this government has shirked its responsibility for quarantine despite the Constitution stating quite clearly that it is the responsibility of the federal government. The Prime Minister only had two jobs this year. Firstly was to fix national quarantine. He's failed that. Secondly was the timely rollout of the vaccine. We're now in May, and we're not even close to getting the population vaccinated. The Prime Minister said this is 'not a race', but he's wrong. It is a race against the virus, and the virus is shifting and changing every day, making it harder for us to defeat it.
As it stands, there is no public health campaign to encourage people to get vaccinated now. They can't even vaccinate our most vulnerable and the people who care for them. For example, residential aged-care facilities in my region report staff vaccination rates of less than 30 per cent. This is a disgrace. We are dangerously behind schedule, because this government has been complacent and incompetent. One only needs to look at the national cabinet.
It was only in April that the Prime Minister triumphantly declared the national cabinet was 'on a war footing'. Now the country's second-largest state is being thrown into yet another lockdown. The national cabinet is not even meeting until next week. It's about time the Prime Minister stepped up and took responsibility for the vaccine rollout and quarantine rather than blaming the states when things don't go well. You only have to look to my home state of Victoria, where today Acting Premier James Merlino put it best: 'There is only one path to defeating this pandemic—that is, through the successful rollout of the Commonwealth's vaccine program and an alternative to hotel quarantine. Time to step up, to show up and to make things right.' Or do us all a favour, Prime Minister: call an election and allow the people to elect a government that will actually do the work and look after the Australian people.
Fairfax Electorate: Aged Care
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (16:35): As we know, aged care was the centrepiece of the federal budget brought down by the Treasurer only two weeks ago, with a $17.7 billion reform package. Today I wish to give credit to the residents of the Sunshine Coast, especially older residents, for the role they have played in what has turned out to be a multiyear process that has brought us to where we are today with respect to aged care. Indeed, those same people will be lent on as we move forward.
It was 8 October 2019 when the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety was established. In the lead-up to the establishment of the royal commission, I called on constituents in my seat of Fairfax to provide input into the commission's terms of reference. True to form, they provided input, which was passed on through the minister to inform the creation of those terms of reference. Then, upon the royal commission's having been established, and together with my fantastic seniors advisory committee, I hosted three forums across my electorate to gather input that would form part of an electorate submission to the royal commission. There was a forum with the operators of aged-care facilities, a forum with the workers and staff members of such facilities and another forum with families and loved ones of residents of the facilities. The forums, together with a bunch of other discussions and meetings, involved well over 120 people and led to an enormous amount of input. There were some people, as you can imagine, who weren't comfortable speaking in a forum environment and speaking openly, so my staff and I also had multiple one-on-one discussions.
The consultation led to a submission of 20 pages on behalf of the electorate of Fairfax to the royal commission. The submission expressed the views of those with whom I had met and included recommendations on the need to improve the availability of service packages and on providing different and more sustainable models of care, and recommendations relating to staffing and governance issues. The royal commission presented its report to the Governor-General on 26 February this year.
The themes of the royal commission's recommendations echoed many of those that came from my electorate of Fairfax, in particular those in chapters 4, 6, 12, 13 and 40, which focused on, among other things, program design and the need for more home-care packages, the need for more sustainable models of care and accommodation and the need for more support for workforce development. Those recommendations of the royal commission have in turn informed the unprecedented aged-care reform package that we saw announced in the budget only two weeks ago. It is a package of $17.7 billion, which includes additional home-care packages, an increase in frontline care, and support for providers to deliver better care services, especially for more vulnerable senior citizens.
It would be gilding the lily somewhat to suggest it was solely the input of the residents of the Sunshine Coast that led us to this $17.7 billion package. Nevertheless, I do wish to pay tribute to those who provided input. It's a wonderful reminder of the power of democracy, of grassroots representation, where those who have the experience and knowledge can provide their input and that there's a process in place that allows that input to go through to a royal commission and its recommendations and, eventually, into a federal budget with a record amount of spending. As we move forward, not only do we need to ensure the effective implementation of the suite of measures from the government but we need to remember that the responsibility to show respect and dignity to senior Australians is one carried not just by government but by each and every one of us, each and every Australian caring for our older citizens.
Donations to Political Parties
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs) (16:40): Canstruct International is an obscure Brisbane-based company which was handed a $1.4 billion contract to provide welfare and garrison services on Nauru in October 2017. The company is owned by the Murphy family—three brothers and their father is. On Monday, papers revealed that, since October 2017, executives and associates of Canstruct have made 11 donations to the Liberal National Party. I would like to put the timing of these donations on the public record.
On 10 October 2017, one day after negotiations on the $1.4 billion contract began, the CEO of Canstruct, Rory Murphy, donated $3,500 to the Liberal National Party. On 21 November 2017, a company called Mag Modular Pty Ltd, which is owned by the Murphy family, donated to the Liberal National Party. That donation was made approximately three weeks after Canstruct's contract was extended. On 19 November 2018, Mag Modular Pty Ltd made another donation to the Liberal National Party. That donation was made several weeks after Canstruct's contract with the government was extended again. On 2 and 3 May 2019, the chief operating officer of Canstruct and his own private company made four donations, totalling $20,000, to the Liberal National Party. On 17 October 2019, the chief financial officer of Canstruct donated to the Liberal National Party. That was about one month before the contract was extended again, for a further six months. On 17 March 2020, another related entity of Canstruct International made two separate donations, totalling $10,000. Those donations were made in the months before negotiations between Canstruct and the government commenced in relation to yet another extension to the contract. On 9 July 2020, a week after the contract was extended for another six months, the same related entity of Canstruct made a further donation to the LNP.
I have referred to 11 separate donations to the LNP over the life of this $1.4 billion contract, and those are just the donations that we know about. It is already a matter of public record that the government offered Canstruct this $1.4 billion contract without a competitive tender, despite multiple other companies expressing an interest in providing the services and despite a representative of the Nauruan government telling the Australian government that its decision to pursue a sole tender arrangement with Canstruct International 'deeply offended us and, in our view, has damaged the sense of partnership and collaboration between Nauru and Australia'.
As revealed in Senate estimates this week by my colleague Senator Keneally, the contract was offered to Canstruct despite it having no assets and generating no revenue at the relevant time. The amount of private profit that this family of Liberal National Party donors has made from public funds is scarcely believable. According to the company's own financial reports, Canstruct International made almost $52 million in profit from the Nauru contract in 2017-18. In 2018-19, it made a $91.5 million profit. In 2019-20, its profit was $130 million.
Since October 2017, the value of the contract has continued to increase significantly, despite the dramatic decline in the number of asylum seekers on Nauru—from 1,094 to fewer than 150—and despite the government of Nauru taking over the provision of welfare services in 2019. In December 2017, the company received approximately $27.3 million to provide welfare and garrison services to 1,084 people. In January 2021, it received over $40 million to provide fewer services to only 145 people. In other words, this family of Liberal National Party donors is receiving millions of dollars more to do less work for fewer people. This stinks! It looks like yet another example of the Liberal National Party using public money like it is Liberal Party money and helping out their mates. It is no wonder that the Morrison government has no interest in establishing a national anticorruption commission.
Riverland Citrus Industry
Mr PASIN (Barker) (16:45): Mr Speaker, you know that I've often spoken in this place about the Riverland and its citrus industry. It's an industry worth $1.3 billion per year to the South Australian economy and it will be instrumental nationally if we are to meet agriculture's aim of $100 billion by 2030. Part of the reason for this success is that the Riverland was declared a regulated, pest-free area more than 20 years ago. This pest-free area status means that produce from the Riverland can be shipped directly to international markets who recognise this PFA status without the need for disinfestation treatments for fruit fly, reducing costs and delays for producers and exporters right across the supply chain. It's estimated that $4.2 million is saved in a normal year in the citrus industry in South Australia by avoiding the need for cold and chemical treatments.
Riverland citrus is exported to premium international markets like the US, Thailand, Japan and New Zealand. These markets would not be accessible without additional treatments if South Australia didn't have it fruit fly-free status. South Australia is the only mainland state recognised as being free from Queensland fruit fly and Mediterranean fruit fly. Mediterranean fruit fly—or medfly as it is commonly known—is a serious horticultural pest in Western Australia. Queensland fruit fly, of course, as the name suggests, is endemic in the eastern states. South Australia sits between Qfly in the eastern states and medfly in the west.
Our local industry has done an amazing job to maintain the pest-free status. Nevertheless, we're not without our outbreak. Unfortunately, the industry in the Riverland is facing a second season of fruit fly restriction that cost industry hundreds of thousands of dollars. There are currently five outbreaks in the Riverland and 11 outbreaks in Adelaide. Some growers are reporting losses of up to $300,000 in terms of extra costs of treatment and lost markets, while the state government has spent $22 million fighting the outbreaks. It's in the national interest to protect South Australia from medfly from the west and Qfly from the east to ensure not only that our local industry in South Australia is protected but also that South Australia acts as a buffer between these two and their respective endemic flies.
The South Australian industry and government have carried the burden of this issue for a long time, both protecting the industry from outbreaks and eradicating the pest when outbreaks occur. Phytosanitary measures that are undertaken to protect South Australia from fruit fly include maintaining and monitoring a surveillance network of thousands of traps across the state with over 100,000 visits to those traps by inspectors; biosecurity control measures; numerous quarantine stations; regularly serviced quarantine bins; random roadblocks; and regular audits of certified businesses importing fruit fly host produce into the state. We also of course have the National Sterile Insect Technology Facility, a world-leading national sterile insect technology, SIT, facility in Port Augusta.
South Australia is leading the charge in the fight against fruit fly. We've done a good job to date but we need a much more coordinated approach. In fact, we need a national approach to fruit fly and national recognition of the importance of protecting South Australia, the buffer state, from fruit fly. Protecting our biosecurity status protects on-farm returns, access to overseas markets and our biodiversity, generating real, significant benefits for the Australian agricultural industry, regional communities and, of course, the environment. Effective management of fruit fly is essential to gaining and maintaining access to premium markets for Australian horticultural products and relies on cooperation between all levels of government and the industry and research institutions—including, of course, the states. This isn't just a South Australian problem.
Let's stop the spread of Qfly. Let's stop the spread of medfly. We can win this fight, but only if we pull together to fight the pest on a national scale. We need a coordinated approach to fruit fly management, with all stakeholders committed to a national strategy because this is, quite frankly, an issue of national importance.
Defence Procurement
Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (16:50): You could be forgiven for thinking that this government's new defence minister, its fifth defence minister in eight years, in his clamouring to get his hands on the keys to the kingdom, had neglected, failed to read, his brief. It's like he magically missed the pages about cost blow-outs. It is so galling when this government talks about and compares and contrasts Labor governments past and how they have handled defence and how this present government is handling defence. Defence contracts have blown out to the tune of billions of dollars under this government, with the Future Submarines program running over by $40 billion and the Future Frigate program by $10 billion. So this government that would have us believe that they are the economic geniuses, they are the maestros of money, has had the most significant blow-outs and delays in our national sovereignty and security than any government before. It is truly remarkable and galling.
I can't decide if the Morrison government is neglecting its responsibilities or hopelessly incompetent. Perhaps it is genuinely a mixture of both. Common sense would dictate that those opposite shouldn't boast about increased defence expenditure when they have not managed at all the expenditure that they already have. Every question time, we see the Minister for Defence jump up and respond to dorothy dixers in this vein. It seems as though we have ever-shrinking lead times but ever-expanding excuses, even from the new minister who's hardly had time, as I said, to get his hands on the keys to the defence cupboard.
As well as being indecisive and secretive and presiding over massive cost blow-outs, we know the government is cutting defence capital expenditure. The latest Morrison government budget forecasts $4.3 billion in cuts to defence capital acquisition budgets over the next three years—again: this government has forecast $4.3 billion in cuts to defence capital equipment. This is the equipment that we use to keep our nation secure. In the same breath, this minister taps his foot while those who advise him speak of the chance of the drums of war. It is truly remarkable. After five defence ministers in eight years, we need a minister who is focused on delivering defence capability on time and on budget.
I want to take a minute to talk about some of the missed opportunities in this government's defence spend. This government is missing vital opportunities to create thousands of jobs and opportunities to build IP for small and medium businesses across Australia because it isn't investing enough in Australian firms. We have a real opportunity, through defence spending, to build the intellect and the know-how and to do the actual build of what goes into our defence procurement, and we are missing this opportunity.
Now, there are some bright lights on that horizon that, even though they haven't been very well supported by their government in many respects, are still getting on with this. Murray Consulting Solutions is one such example in my electorate of Paterson. They employ over 40 staff. The business has grown because they have successfully engaged themselves in the areas that they see we are going to need in defence in the future. They do fantastic work and have built a cutting-edge, first-class team. But they know there is so much more to do.
So, as I've talked to people who are involved in defence industry, the one big thing they've said to me is: 'The government needs to be spending money to help us build our capacity so that we can build the capacity of defence, so that we can build the defence of our nation.' I appeal to the minister, I appeal to the Prime Minister: help Australian businesses build, and help them defend our nation.
Braddon Electorate: Local Government
Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program
Mr PEARCE (Braddon) (16:55): The electorate of Braddon, which covers the north-west of the West Coast and King Island, I'm told, by many of my constituents, is the best place to be in the world—particularly during the pandemic. I've said many times in this place that the further away from the big capital cities you get, the stronger is the sense of community.
One of the most important drivers in making sure that our regions remain strong and resilient is the important work undertaken by local government—local councils—and Braddon's local governments are doing an outstanding job, working hard, day in and day out, for their respective communities. That's something the Morrison government is well aware of. We understand the critical role that councils play in delivering the vital services that each region relies upon.
The past year has not been easy. In fact, it's been tough. That's why, during this federal budget, the Morrison government has continued to deliver significant support to assist our region's eight local government councils, from King Island to the West Coast, from Circular Head to Latrobe, each region's economic recovery has been given a significant boost, thanks to additional funding provided through phase 3 of the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program. This is a funding stream that is directly targeted towards our local government. It provides the opportunity for them to deliver priority projects that they couldn't otherwise afford or undertake. The program has direct benefits to the communities that they serve.
It's important to remember that, when government spends money, it's not the government's money that we're spending—it's taxpayers' money, and it needs to be spent wisely. That's why the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program is so powerful and so well received. It's localised and it's targeted. It guarantees that everyone living across the north-west, the West Coast and King Island has a portion of their hard-earned taxes spent back in their local communities. This funding will deliver projects that have been identified as important by local government, in their local communities, for them. It will also make local lives better, safer and more connected. Crucially, it will connect support to local business to create local jobs in our local towns and regions and will use local contractors. That's what this program is all about—local councils can deliver more funding to upgrade local roads and build pathways; to heat community halls; to revamp playgrounds, parks and sporting facilities; and to improve access to public facilities.
The program will also help communities bounce back from the COVID-19 pandemic. Australia-wide, this round of the program is expected to support around 3½ thousand jobs—but what it's doing is providing local jobs. And, in Braddon, that's important.
Across the three phases, over $18 million has already been distributed, right across our local councils: Burnie, Central Coast, Circular Head, Devonport, King Island, Latrobe, Waratah Wynyard and the West Coast. Across Tasmania, that figure is almost $74 million, and this funding isn't a commitment that will appear in one or two or three years time; the money has been delivered by the Morrison government. To their credit, councils have been rolling out these projects quickly and efficiently.
Here are just a few of the projects that have been identified so far through the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program. At Burnie council, they've installed more exercise stations along the coastal pathway, to provide greater recreational and exercise opportunities. At Central Coast, they've redeveloped Ulverstone's much loved skate park. They haven't had the capacity to do such work since it was built in 1970, but now it will be a modern activity hub, catering for all ages and all abilities. At Circular Head, Back Line Road has been made safer for pedestrians, and walking pathways have been provided. Over at Devonport, Spreyton Memorial Hall is having a heater replaced so that people can meet during winter months. At Latrobe, Tarleton Road is being made safer due to pavement repairs. Waratah Wynyard Council are protecting that endangered species, the Tasmanian devil, by installing virtual fencing to stop the devils crossing the road at Rocky Cape and being struck by vehicles. This system has proven to be extremely effective in preventing wildlife collisions and deaths in many other parts of the nation. The West Coast is upgrading Hunter Street in Queenstown to prevent serious accident or injury.
Every dollar spent on building a stable and effective local government sector is a dollar well spent, and it's at the heart of the Morrison government's economic plan for a more secure and a more resilient regional Australia.
House adjourned at 17 : 00
NOTICES
The following notice was given:
Ms Sharkie to move:
That this House:
(1) notes:
(a) there is currently no uniform commitment across the states and territories to support young people in care up until the age of 21 years;
(b) there are studies that highlight the importance of ensuring extended care between the ages of 18 and 21 as many young people who are required to leave their care setting at 18 years of age become homeless, involved with the criminal justice system, unemployed or a new parent within the first 12 months of being exited from care; and
(c) 17 per cent of young people experience homelessness directly after leaving their foster care, kinship care and state government care arrangements according to CREATE Foundation's national report released this week; and
(2) calls on the Government to:
(a) encourage state and territory ministers to extend care support for young people in all types of care, including foster care, kinship care and state government care, up to the age of 21 years; and
(b) to work with state and territory ministers to coordinate a consistent national approach to support for young people in all types of care, including foster care, kinship care and state government care, up to the age of 21 years.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Zimmerman) 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;
(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"
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (10:01): I'm pleased to speak to Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022 and the related bills before the chamber and also to the Morrison government's economic plan to secure Australia's economy from the COVID-19 pandemic. Our plan will create jobs, guarantee essential services and build a more secure and resilient Australia. It's already working. Unemployment has fallen to 5.5 per cent and the Australian economy has rebounded at the fastest rate on record, with more people in work now than at the start of the pandemic in March of last year. So, while there's more work to do, we do need to stick to this plan to support individuals, households and businesses to rebuild our economy.
This budget will deliver tax relief to 10 million Australians, support businesses in training new employees through the JobTrainer fund, commit $110 billion over the next decade to a national infrastructure pipeline, strengthen our communications network and boost workforce participation by investing in child care. The Morrison government is also continuing to invest in essential services, especially in our health and aged-care sectors—two very critical areas to my electorate. This includes a $17.7 billion investment into aged care following the recent royal commission, supporting hardworking providers to deliver improved care for our seniors.
A key measure of the budget is the extension of the tax offset for 10 million low- and middle-income earners for a further year, which means that eligible workers will benefit from tax relief of up to $1,080 for individuals and $2,160 for couples during the 2021-22 financial year. This includes around 55,400 residents in my electorate. This will result in more spending to stimulate our local economy and boost our recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. For businesses, we are extending the temporary full expensing incentive for another year, which will allow around 16,600 businesses in my electorate to deduct the full cost of eligible depreciable assets of any value in the year they are installed until 30 June 2023 Around 5,700 businesses across the Robertson electorate will also be able to use the extended loss carry-back measure to support cash flow. These policies will allow our businesses to create more jobs and invest back into our local economy.
I welcomed recently the Minister for Employment, Workforce, Skills, Small and Family Business, the Hon. Stuart Robert, to the Central Coast to meet with some small-business owners in my local area and hear how these measures will directly benefit them. This includes a great local business, Cakes by Kyla. They do fantastic cupcakes and sell them from their shop in the heart of Gosford. When we asked how the Morrison government's budget would benefit her business, Kyla said that she was able to use the instant asset write-off to buy a new car, which will help her to deliver her cakes and cupcakes across the coast. I'm proud to be part of this government that is supporting local business owners like Kyla who give so much back to our community and who also help to create more jobs for local people.
The Morrison government's also supporting business through investing an additional $500 million into the JobTrainer Fund. This will support a further 450,000 new training places to upskill those seeking employment and meet skills shortages. We're extending the highly successful boosting apprenticeship commencements wage subsidy for a further six months with a $2.7 billion investment supporting new apprentices and trainees who commence before 31 March 2022. We're already supporting 1,740 apprentices in the electorate of Robertson, and these new measures will provide many more opportunities for employment as an apprentice or trainee on the Central Coast.
The Morrison government has a strong focus on investing in the nation's infrastructure, and in this budget we are delivering a record $110 billion in infrastructure pipeline over the next 10 years, prioritising and supporting local jobs and improving the lives of Australians through faster travel time and better access to services. The budget commits an additional $15.2 billion over the next 10 years to road, rail and community infrastructure projects across the country, including $52.8 million towards improving two intersections along Manns Road in West Gosford and Narara in my electorate of Robertson. Upgrades to this very busy arterial road will benefit both motorists and businesses across the Central Coast and are expected to support around 150 direct and indirect jobs.
There are so many local projects that are supported by funding from recent budgets, and I'd like to take this opportunity to update the House on a number of these across the Central Coast. We're transforming the Peninsula Recreation Precinct in Umina Beach with a previously committed $8.25 million upgrade of the existing Umina Beach Skate Park, including a BMX track and new sporting facilities for the Umina United football club, the Southern Spirit Cricket Club, the Umina Beach Bunnies Rugby League Club and the Umina tennis club. This recreational and sporting upgrade is really important to our community. I do hear and understand the frustration from sports clubs and community members that construction has not yet started on this project, but I'm assured by Central Coast Council, who is responsible for the delivery of these improvements, that they have advised that consultation on the facilities is underway and some design work still needs to be completed before construction can start. I'm certainly urging that this happens as soon and as quickly as possible and will continue to work closely with council to see this project completed.
The new digital scoreboard at Woy Woy Oval is complete. Five years ago, I was pleased to open the state-of-the-art facility upgrade at Woy Woy Oval. It included a 600-seat grandstand, change rooms, clubhouse, ticket booth and kiosk, but there was one thing delivering. Delivery of the scoreboard has completed this upgrade, making the oval a great destination for local and regional events across the peninsula. The Rogers Park amenities building in Woy Woy is also being redeveloped, benefiting hundreds of young people and their families, who have been asking for these facilities to be improved for far too long. We've committed $800,000 to improve the building for clubs like Southern Spirit Cricket Club, Peninsula Junior Touch Association, Peninsula Swans Junior AFL and the Woy Woy Roosters rugby league club. I've been advised by Central Coast Council that they expect to commence construction in August of this year and complete the upgrades by March of next year.
In Terrigal, the recently opened Trojans rugby clubhouse is set to become a centre of excellence for Australian amateur sports in our community after undergoing a comprehensive redevelopment, and this project was partly funded with a $275,000 grant under the National Stronger Regions Fund. Facility upgrades and new women's change rooms at James Browne Oval are now complete. This upgrade is so much more than just a place for sport. It's about enhancing team spirit, creating a place for players and locals to long and ensuring that women's sport is better supported on the peninsula. Federal government funding of more than $488,000 for the project also included redeveloping the club's canteen facilities, creating a better working environment for volunteers, parents, players and supporters. This project is in addition to the $120,000 federal government investment under the Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program to improve and upgrade irrigation and drainage facilities at that oval.
Upgrades to the Lemon Grove Netball Courts clubhouse and amenities are on the way, benefitting hundreds of locals at the Woy Woy Peninsula Netball Association. Improvements include new change rooms with disability access, a club room so that members can hold functions after game days, a redeveloped canteen, a new first aid facility and a shelter and seating area for players and the public to watch games. The $1.45 million upgrade will be open to players in the next financial year. I look forward to joining players in the new clubhouse come next season.
We're also upgrading some of the Central Coast's worst roads and most congested intersections under our $86.5 million Central Coast Roads Package. Of the 29 projects that were funded in this package, 22 are now complete or under construction, and the remaining roads are in the planning stage with Central Coast Council. I'll continue to work with the Central Coast Council to ensure that the remaining projects are delivered across the Central Coast as soon as possible. A $35 million commitment for commuter car parking at Gosford and Woy Woy is locked in with detailed planning underway, which will help determine time frames for delivery. This work is being finalised, and I will have more to say once the final sites for each car park are identified.
The Morrison government recognises the importance of having access to reliable mobile and internet coverage, which is why we're continuing to invest in communications infrastructure to help make this possible. We're providing improved mobile coverage to thousands of commuters on the Central Coast and Newcastle line, and free wi-fi at 19 stations. The last stages of this project are now complete, and we're already seeing improved service on the train line for our hardworking commuters who leave early in the morning from their homes and return home to their families late at night. We're also delivering for residents along the Hawkesbury River in Spencer, Marlow and Wendoree Park with a new mobile base station recently turned on, which will significantly improve the ability of residents to make calls, browse the internet, stay connected with loved ones, conduct business, access education and, of course, remain connected, particularly during times of emergency when connection through the mobile network is so crucial.
This budget also includes reforms to the childcare sector to make it more affordable and accessible to families across the country and allow mums and dads to return to the workforce sooner, including an additional $1.7 billion investment over the next four years through the strategic reform agreement to cut the costs of living for about 250,000 families across the country, add up 300,000 working hours each week and boost GDP by $1.5 billion each year. Locally, these reforms will benefit over 1,590 families living in Robertson, meaning more affordable care for children and enabling parents to have more options for returning to work.
We're also delivering improvements in health care, including investments in respiratory clinics, pathology testing and tracing, and the continuation of the important telehealth services which have been really welcomed in my electorate. There have been, I understand, over 391,000 telehealth consultations in my electorate through Medicare since the start of the pandemic. I'm pleased to see these services are being extended. We've committed to fund every medicine on the PBS recommended by medical experts, meaning lifesaving treatments will be more available to Australians. Last year, there were more than 2.1 million free or subsidised medicines delivered in Robertson through the PBS, and I know what an important impact this has on the lives of residents and families across the Central Coast.
On aged care, we have committed to record funding, with an additional $17.76 billion over five years in response to the final report of the aged-care royal commission. This will help up to 30,918 senior Australians who live in my electorate of Robertson.
There are a number of fantastic initiatives underway to provide medical care and training to local residents. For example, the construction of the jointly funded $85 million Central Coast Medical School and Research Institute in Gosford, which is complete and ready to open to students, clinicians and researchers in July of this year. The building includes state-of-the-art facilities available for students on the Central Coast who wish to study medicine. Building on this project, we've committed $18 million towards stage 2 of the university precinct in Gosford CBD, with the funds going towards building a multicampus university. This is a significant step, and I'm looking forward to working with all partners involved, particularly the University of Newcastle, on the next stage of this important initiative.
Finally, the Morrison government has also committed $9 million towards a project that's very close to my heart: the Glen for Women, a drug and alcohol residential rehabilitation program. I'm advised that a tender for the construction of the centre has been signed and that the build is expected to be completed by early 2022. I really cannot speak enough, not only of the ripple effect that the work of Joe and the boys at the Glen do for those who go to the Glen and become part of the family that surrounds the Glen, but also of the ripple effect in our community and across our nation. It is an absolute honour to be able to have played a small part in being a voice for the community to see this very important funding made possible.
In conclusion, the budget is helping to secure Australia's economic recovery by creating jobs, guaranteeing essential services and building a better nation, which includes investing in projects that do matter to Australians in our local community, particularly in my electorate of Robertson. This recovery plan is working, it's driving down unemployment and boosting opportunity, and that's why I believe we should stick to this plan to build a better, stronger Australia. I commend these bills to the House.
Mr DICK (Oxley) (10:16): I'll be touching on a number of issues in my remarks to the House about the federal budget and the government's so-called plan, as we've just heard, and why we have serious concerns about the economic recovery, and in the areas of health, aged care, child care and infrastructure and the impacts that that has had, or the lack of information and details and announcements for the community that I represent in the parliament of Australia through the south-west suburbs of Brisbane and one of the fastest growing corridors in the country in the Ipswich and Greater Springfield region.
But I would like to take this moment, before I get into the health details of the budget, and aged care in particular, to pay tribute at the beginning of my remarks today to the passing of a great Queenslander, Sir Llew Edwards, who passed away, as we heard from the tributes in the parliament yesterday from the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. I was privileged to know Sir Llew and some of his family for many years. He was a great Queenslander, former health minister, former treasurer and leader of the parliamentary Liberal Party in Queensland. He represented the seat of Ipswich from 1972. In his role as a local member he shaped the modern city of Ipswich and the wonderful legacy of South Bank—he was appointed by the Hawke government as chairman—which was a turning point for our city's history. Although he shaped politics in the seventies and eighties, after parliament he went on to become one of the architects of contemporary Brisbane through various boards and as chancellor of the University of Queensland.
I extend my sympathies and condolences to his beautiful family and in particular, his wife, Lady Edwards, who has had a remarkable career in her own right. I quote from Lady Edwards in the media yesterday:
Llew was the most wonderful man and I loved him dearly. He fought the battle with dementia as best he could but despite the disease, he was always the man I knew and loved. Despite how busy he was and how many commitments he had, I always felt like the most important person in the world to Llew … I will miss him terribly as will his children and grandchildren.
I am a good friend of one of his sons Pastor Mark Edwards, from Cityhope Church in the Ipswich area. When I messaged Mark yesterday, I know how sad he was in losing his dad but also a wonderful grandfather as well. I extend my condolences to his family and pay tribute to him as a great Queenslander.
The budget in the debate today is a shameless political fix. I want to place on record a number of concerns that residents have raised with me regarding the budget's key announcements and what they will mean for my community. While we know this government is very, very good at making headline announcements, the actual delivery and implementation is where this government, after eight long years, continues to fail the people of Australia. The government has overseen record low wages growth, chronically high underemployment and still doesn't have a credible plan to create secure jobs. So we've seen, over the long eight years, a crisis in aged care, an energy crisis, a housing crisis and a skills crisis. We have seen a lot of announcements, but not a lot of follow-through from this government.
One of the first things I want to unpack in my remarks to the parliament today is the underdelivery of infrastructure, particularly for the state of Queensland. The Morrison government's 2021-22 budget has ripped off Queenslanders. We know that announcements were dropped before the budget was even delivered. The stark reality was that $1.6 billion for infrastructure was announced to be delivered for Queensland, but New South Wales were to receive $3 billion and South Australia $2 billion. So the Liberal states of New South Wales and South Australia get $1.4 billion and $2 billion in this budget. But, when the funding was announced after the budget, it was revealed that half of the $1.6 billion for infrastructure will not be delivered within the four years of the forward estimates. So it's not $1.6 billion announced in the budget; it's half of that. There are a whole range of projects in my electorate that are desperately in need of funding. We know that the Ipswich City Council has been lobbying hard this federal government. I was pleased to see the Mayor of Ipswich, Teresa Harding, come to Canberra with her wish list for the people of Ipswich, and she has been ignored.
The first issues I want to talk about are the Ipswich motorway and the rail corridor. My residents have been sitting in traffic for far too long. In light of the government spending $100 billion in the budget and racking up $1 trillion in debt, locals in my electorate are right to ask what they are getting for this. What is the return on investment that they're seeing from this government? The government has completely ignored projects that local residents have been crying out for. There are zero dollars for the Ipswich to Springfield rail corridor. The state government put money on the table, and the Ipswich City Council put money on the table for the initial planning study. We were waiting for the federal government to look at a commitment of around $1½ million. Zero! There are zero dollars on the table for this transformation project. This project would service high-growth residential areas and the Ipswich Showgrounds—the site of future exhibitions, entertainment events and evacuation centres—but, most importantly, it would provide long-term jobs in construction and would be a big boost to our local economy. This rail corridor was extended by the previous Labor state government from the Richlands train station to Springfield and then Springfield Central. That has completely opened up the Greater Springfield area. We've seen record amounts of investment happening as a result of the building of that rail infrastructure and the Centenary Motorway duplication. But the next stage must happen. The growth through the Ripley corridor through the Greater Springfield area dictates this. We all know this. It is a significant project. But this government fails to invest in the greater Ipswich region, and we've seen that time and time again.
Equally, the Ipswich motorway was completely ignored by the Howard government for years and years and years. Not a dollar was spent on the Ipswich motorway. The election of the Rudd and Gillard governments delivered that funding for the upgrade of the Ipswich motorway, thanks to the advocacy of Shayne Neumann, the federal member for Blair and Anthony Albanese, who was then infrastructure minister. The residents have now been able to get home more quickly. I was privileged to help open the next stage of the Ipswich motorway with the Premier of Queensland in a joint Commonwealth-state announcement. No-one from the federal government bothered to turn up, of course, but I was pleased to recognise the federal government and the minister in my remarks to the media—I give credit when we see joint partnerships.
But that took a long time to come; we are still waiting for the final section to be built. For residents, the Oxley interchange in particular is a nightmare in the mornings. I know this because I live up the road and residents and neighbours in my street have told me how long it takes them to get to Oxley State School. Whether they're trying to get to work or whether they're just trying to get into the city, they know that this is one of the worst bottlenecks in Brisbane. So I again call on the infrastructure minister and the federal government to make sure their priority and their investment.
Queensland has been short changed by this government. We haven't got the investment that our state needs. The Prime Minister seems more intent on coming to Queensland and picking fights with the Premier of Queensland over and over again.
Mr Entsch interjecting—
Mr DICK: I will take the interjection from the member for Leichhardt, who says that he thinks that's an appropriate way to engage with governments. I don't think so. I think we work best when we work together, and what we're seeing over and over again is that this government is more interested in the politics and more interested in the political fights and is not actually coming up with the solutions and the outcomes that residents want. I know from speaking to my local chambers of commerce that they are also on board and want to see that final piece of the Ipswich Motorway puzzle upgraded. They know that they've been lobbying long and hard for what's needed.
In my remaining remarks I want to touch on aged care. This is an issue of critical importance to local residents. In the budget, we were all waiting for the government to offer a comprehensive answer to some of the devastating findings of the royal commission. The Commonwealth is responsible for our aged-care system, but we know that the Prime Minister has refused to step up to the job. Once again, he is blaming the states. We saw a tragedy unfold during the COVID crisis. The sad fact was that 685 older Australians passed away in nursing homes during the coronavirus episode. Local residents are really worried about the future of aged care in the community where they live.
I was really pleased to have Clare O'Neil, the shadow minister for senior Australians and aged-care services, visit Redbank Palms, a great local residential community in Redbank in my electorate, along with our state member, Lance McCallum. We were able to hear firsthand the concerns and fears of local residents there. I may add that, while I was there, I asked them who had been vaccinated. This is an over-60s community. I said, 'Who's been vaccinated?' There would've been about 60 or maybe 65 people there; two people put up their hands. The government made a commitment that we were going to see four million Australians vaccinated and that people in residential and aged-care facilities would all be done by Easter. The fact is that this government had two jobs to do this year: to roll out the vaccine and to provide quarantine facilities.
In our home state of Queensland, where the Queensland government has put forward sensible quarantine solutions and has put sensible quarantine suggestions on the table, we've seen once again that the government is more interested in picking a fight with the Queensland government. I understand that Toowoomba is off the table and that he's not interested in that proposal. What is the plan for Queensland? He described Toowoomba as a desert. I don't think the people of the Darling Downs and Groom would particularly think that they lived in a desert. I know that, when the Carnival of Flowers comes around at the end of the year, that's not when they have a desert! But what is the solution for dealing with quarantine in Queensland? What is this government's solution? We've asked these questions in the parliament, and time and time again the federal government has simply said, 'We're not interested in dealing with quarantine, despite it being a constitutional responsibility.'
This goes back to the issue of responsible management for our older Australians. We've read the report Neglect. We understand the chronic underfunding of aged-care services. Locals in the Oxley electorate want to know that their parents and grandparents are safe and properly cared for.
The first thing we will do, which I'm really proud of is, to see the recognition for aged-care workers, the people who have gone beyond the call of duty during this pandemic and the people to whom we entrust all of our loved ones. I'm really proud to say that an Albanese Labor government would lift aged-care wages by 25 per cent and commit to minimum staff ratios. Everyone should age with dignity and safety, and that's exactly the feedback that I've heard from my local residents when on the ground with the shadow aged-care minister.
Whether it be how we treat our most vulnerable towards the end of their lives with the comfort and protection that they deserve, or whether it be at the other end of the spectrum, dealing with child care—an issue the government doesn't particularly talk about—we know that only a Labor government will deliver. Labor will deliver a policy for cheaper child care which will help out 97 per cent of families by scrapping the $10,500 subsidy cap, lifting the maximum subsidy rate to 90 per cent and increasing subsidy rates for every family earning less than $530,000. This is about making it easier for mums, children and working families to get ahead, and that is the clear feedback that my community has delivered as a result of this budget. They want a government on their side. They want a government that's going to focus on their issues, not simply on managing political fixes.
Mr BROADBENT (Monash) (10:31): Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the Gunaikurnai people, the traditional owners of the land known as the electorate of Monash. I pay my respects to their elders past, present and emerging.
National Reconciliation Week gives us all an opportunity to play our part as we continue to try as a country to grapple with the mistakes of the past. Australia is shamed by the victimisation of our Indigenous peoples through the ongoing effects of colonisation. From the stolen generations to our system of democracy, numerous policies, interventions and commissions have failed to remedy entrenched disadvantage and social dislocation caused by the brutality of colonisation. We must face this squarely. We must acknowledge our past and ongoing role in the sufferings of First Nations peoples. Our communal responsibility is to build strong connections with our Indigenous communities, based on open communication and understanding. Imagine if the need for change were acknowledged and acted upon at a personal, community, state and national level. We could move mountains.
Our Indigenous peoples extended the hand of reconciliation when they gave us the generous Uluru Statement from the Heart. As a nation, we should show grace and embrace it. We need to humble ourselves and accept into our hearts and minds the wisdom of people who have lived on this land for more than 60,000 years. Reconciliation is defined as the restoration of friendly relations, and that is exactly what we as a nation and as individuals should be aiming for. As I have said before, including the voice of the First Nations people in national policy should be non-negotiable for the government. It is essential for national healing. What are we afraid of? Reconciliation is more than a word. It means nothing without action. This is just as I see it.
One of the vulnerabilities that we have, as was borne out in the pandemic—and I'm going to pull a lot of my conversation out of Robert Gottliebsen's article this week that talked about coastal shipping and international processes—is the fact that we do not have a homogeneous fleet of our own Australian flagged ships in times of trouble. The article says:
Over the past 20 or 30 years Australia has based its industrial and retail systems on a global "just in time" supply chain network.
And for the most part it worked and led to a vast array goods at low prices arriving when required, so reducing the need for large stocks. This gave consumers greater choice, curbed our inflation and boosted corporate profits.
And it made us complacent.
But in the pandemic, the system broke down and became much less reliable and far more costly. Australian companies are only now starting to tell the market how they are being affected.
Suddenly, in large areas of Australian society we are realising that in recent decades we have forgotten the lessons of our history.
In World War II, Australia also realised just how isolated we had become, and partly driven by BHP chief executive Essington Lewis, we established large industrial complexes—
and our own shipping fleet.
But now the pandemic and the Chinese bans on our exports appear to be combining to change our attitudes.
Australians are increasing their purchases of Australian-made goods—
leading to promotion of goods made locally.
Few Australians realised that our shipping lifeline was based on a very complex ownership and operational system with the ships owned in one country and registered in another.
… … …
Integrated into that global system was our own coastal shipping.
Unlike Canada and the US, we use global ships to undertake almost all our local shipping. In theory, local regulations prevent global shipping on the coast, but all that is required to use global ships is to ask permission. It is almost always granted. We have only token numbers of local ships.
… … …
Then came two unexpected developments. The first was that whereas the Covid-19 restrictions substantially reduced the demand for services, the demand for goods surged. We saw that occur dramatically in Australia with spending on home renovation and building. But it was a global trend.
… … …
Sometimes it seems as though the Chinese control the distribution of our goods because they control so much of the trade.
Our first tangible response—
which I applaud the government on—
has been to prevent the closure of the Geelong and Brisbane oil refineries. We realised that, while oil is not part of the container trade, the sort of forces we have seen in containers could just as easily be applied to oil tankers—especially if there is military conflict.
But the Australian vulnerability goes much further than simply oil. Our total international and local shipping is in the hands of the global shipping cartel complex. We have no independence whatsoever.
… … …
Retailers are now assessing the long-term attraction of promoting Australian-made goods. Like shipping, modern machinery has lessened the labour cost component.
In practical terms one of the lasting legacies of the Covid-19 pandemic might be that Australia will go back to its history and devise better ways to lessen the dangers of isolation.
The fact is we need our own Australian-flagged merchant fleet. Probably 12 ships. Too much to ask? Let's try for six, just to cover our bases. This is affordable. It protects us against dependence on others. And it lets us not repeat the mistakes of the past. Our leaders knew what was needed a century ago. A century ago, they knew what we needed. Are we today sleepwalking to chaos and further vulnerability?
I suffer from Dupuytren's disease, a hereditary disease that curls up the hands. If you've attended a nursing home and gone from room to room, you'll probably find people in that nursing home with curled up fingers. If you haven't seen it, you will. Those of my age do. To address the issue of my fingers curling up like that, every now and again I go to my plastic surgeon, and he cleans out the inside of my hands around the tendons and straightens out the fingers—so I can do that, instead of that, which can be very difficult when you go to shake hands and your hands are all curled up. As you can imagine, as a politician that's fairly difficult.
It's miraculous the way this master of manipulation of the body is able to work. His name is Tam Dieu. He's Vietnamese. I asked him one day, while they were putting me to sleep to do the next hand or the next finger or whatever: 'What's your background, Tam? You were born here, I take it?' He said: 'Oh, no. I was with my family in Vietnam, and my parents said, "You are to go with your uncle on a boat to Australia. There's nothing for you here, and we're in danger."' He went with his uncle, hopped on a boat and made the perilous trip to Australia. He arrived here penniless, with his uncle. No family, no education, no nothing. Now he's one of the most brilliant surgeons in Australia. He takes off all my cancer spots. A couple of you would be nearly old enough to know what we did to ourselves as children, got out in the sun and did all those things, so I have bits taken off me all the time. I asked him: 'How do you know which bits to take off? How much of it is instinct and how much of it is your skill?' He said: 'Russell, I take a bit off you before it becomes a health problem. At the moment it's only a skin problem. If I leave it, it will become a health problem, so I like to deal with that early. That's the way I work.' He's one of the most skilful, talented, gentle men I know. He'd be at the top of my tree. He was a boat person. He came by boat.
I'll tell you another story. I have a friend. She's been ill for a long time. I was talking to her about boat people, refugees and those sorts of things and these terrible, horrible people smugglers. And this woman, who's a lawyer, a hotelier, a builder, a creator, with talented kids, wealth, style and living the Australian dream, her parents came out here from Serbia. She said to me: 'Russell, if it weren't for people smugglers, I wouldn't be here. They smuggled us out of Serbia through the hills one night, got us out and that's how we got to Australia.' There are two sides to every story.
The contribution that refugees have made to this country should never be underestimated. How we treat them in this country, how we treat people in this country who have done nothing but seek a better life yet have been imprisoned for coming up to 11 years, is something that I as an Australian can't be proud of. We can't walk away. As a friend of mine once said, 'There comes a time when you can't walk past the pile of rubbish; you've got to clean it up.' It's time for this nation to look where the rubbish is, confront it and see how we're going to deal with the lives of individual people who may go on to make a marvellous contribution to this country and look at the opportunities we might give to people who are already here but not allowed to work when we are desperate for employees right across every sector of this nation because of the results of COVID. Why can't we be sensible and let them work? Let them work. It's not something that's so great to ask—that while someone on a bridging visa is here in this country they get an opportunity to work. The benefits for us are unending. We have nothing to fear from these people being employed while they are on a bridging visa. In fact, we need them right now. There's not a business that I know of that hasn't got staff shortages and opportunities for people right across the board. I'll leave those thoughts with you today. They may not go down well with the people who have the responsibilities, but that's just as I see it.
Mr KHALIL (Wills) (10:44): I want to talk a bit about the budget that's just been passed as I'm speaking on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022, obviously. So here's the thing: when you scratch just a little bit under the surface of this budget, when you go beyond the hype and the headlines, it really is another short-sighted coalition budget that really does nothing for average Australians. Under this budget, real wages still go backwards. Under this budget, the highest income earners in Australia will enjoy a permanent tax cut while Australians on modest incomes only get a temporary, one-off cut. Under this budget the government have spent big to cover their political tracks, to cover their political problems, but they don't have the vision or the courage to invest in our economy, our environment or our universities. They've spent the big bucks. We're talking about $100 billion and around a trillion dollars of debt by 2024. For what? To pay for their political mistakes? It's another marketing exercise that tries to rebrand the mismanagement and the missed opportunities that define this government—another political fix. It's another budget with no vision, no plan—none of the economic reform that this country needs. People in my electorate of Wills see through this. They want a better Australia and a better world for future generations. But not the government; they just want to keep their own jobs. It's purely political.
The Prime Minister says that net zero emissions won't be achieved in cafes and wine bars—despite his own electorate office being on top of one. We know that Australia must invest in renewable energy to tackle climate change and create thousands of new jobs, the jobs of the future. Everyone seems to know this. Ask a business leader, an economist or a scientist. Ask anyone except for the members of this government, who somehow don't see that answer. The budget had nothing for Australia around taking real action on climate change. There was nothing about when Australia might reach net zero emissions. There was no new funding for renewable energy. It no longer needs government investment, according to the government. And, while neglecting renewable energy and infrastructure, the government continues to spend millions of taxpayer dollars on projects that are not commercially viable, making decisions driven by ideology and politics, not energy needs. The government really are the bunyip aristocracy. They're planning to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on the Kurri Kurri gas plant, a project that even their own experts don't support. The government's hand-picked chair of the Energy Security Board says that the Kurri Kurri project doesn't stack up because it's 'expensive power'—that's a quote! And the proponents admit that that plant would be used only two per cent of the time and create only 10 full-time jobs. Six hundred million dollars is being spent for that. If that's not political, I don't know what is. It's a bad deal. There's $30 million for a company owned by the iron ore magnate Andrew Forrest. I'm not sure why Andrew Forrest, a billionaire, needs public money. It simply doesn't make sense.
While the world acts on climate change and transitions to renewable energy, this government drags its feet. When you compare this budget to the investment that other countries are making, you see we really do risk being left behind. What a missed opportunity, Mr Deputy Speaker. It's quite baffling that, after a disaster-ridden 12 months of increasingly severe bushfires and floods and the COVID crisis—after all the things we've experienced—creating an urgent need to invest in economic reform that will create new, secure jobs here in Australia, jobs in renewables, the government have done none of it. They're not interested.
We've seen the election of President Joe Biden in the United States and his ambitious pro-climate commitments, including US$2.25 trillion in infrastructure funding that focuses on renewable energy. The government had the opportunity to invest in Australia's future in this budget—to do things differently as we rebuild postpandemic. But what did they do? They stuck with the status quo. They did not have the vision or the courage to make those investments, to grow the economic pie, to increase the tax base into the future. We know that investment in higher education and in renewable energy infrastructure are the types of investments—not spending, investments—that have a return in jobs and economic growth. But what they did was spend to save their political hides. What they did was spend in areas where they thought they had a political problem. No vision, no courage.
We're left with our state governments taking the lead. The ACT and Victoria have pledged investments more akin to what you'd see from leading countries in this space, as a proportion of their GDP. Victoria last year pledged $1.6 billion to clean energy investment. And, as of 2020, the ACT is already running on 100 per cent renewable energy, with further plans to create city-wide networks of renewable energy batteries and a $100 million investment. South Australia and Tasmania—I'm not being partisan here—are thinking beyond 100 per cent renewables, recognising the opportunity to export. Projects like sonnen's battery assembly plant in South Australia and the Kidston solar and pumped hydro project in Queensland show that it is possible. All you need is political foresight, the right investment, the courage and the vision to make it happen.
Our states shouldn't have to be doing the heavy lifting on this. The federal government really needs to lift its game. Imagine what we could do if the federal government of Australia stood up, took charge, took responsibility and didn't try to mitigate all its political risk by handing everything over to the states and territories, outsourcing anything that's too difficult to avoid paying any kind of price that might hurt them politically. That's not leadership. That's not courage. There's no vision. There's a lack of any semblance of showing leadership for Australia.
So, what would we do? Unlike the Liberal Party and the Nats, the coalition, we do live in the real world. We want to see Australia take urgent action for Australians and for the world. When we're faced with a global challenge, we don't shy away and say, 'Oh, it's all too hard.' We say, 'Let's be leaders; let's show global leadership.' And Labor is not afraid to step up and lead, because we have a plan. We will make Australia a renewable energy superpower. We've said it, but we're going to back up that rhetoric, that statement, with real policies, substantive policies. If we are elected, our Rewiring the Nation plan will invest $20 billion to rebuild and modernise the grid for the renewable age—important work to update and upgrade our infrastructure to make it workable for renewable energy. This will create thousands of new construction jobs, many in our regions, where it's needed. It will revitalise traditional industries like steel and aluminium and will allow growth in new sectors like hydrogen and battery production.
On top of this, our Power to the People plan will install 400 community batteries across the country to power up to 100,000 households, taking full advantage of the cheap solar energy and solar power that is so abundant in our country. Many Australians who live in apartments cannot install solar panels, and that's been a problem. The Power to the People policy allows these households to draw from excess electricity stored in those community batteries. It makes sense. It's a $200 million investment to cut power bills, cut emissions and reduce pressure on the electricity grid.
A Labor government will also introduce an electric car discount to make electric cars cheaper so that more families who want to can afford them and so that we can also reduce emissions. I know, Deputy Speaker Zimmerman, you've done much good work in this policy space and understand that this is a very important path on policy.
For those looking to do an apprenticeship, a Labor government will invest $100 million to support 10,000 new energy apprenticeships to tailor skills training to the specific needs of new energy industries. Labor will also invest $10 million in the New Energy Skills Program.
This is the future of Australia, the future that we should be investing in. We can reach net zero emissions. We can do it by investing massively in renewable energy and infrastructure, and we can do it by being honest with workers about how our economy is shifting and by creating jobs for them, with substantive investment in the economy and in renewable energy infrastructure. We can use this policy base to give us the moral standing to push the other big emitters, the global big emitters, to reduce their global emissions. That is an important task, but I'm not seeing much leadership. Let's forget about the domestic lack of leadership; there's in the much happening on the international stage either. And it's such a shame because it was Australians that invented solar panels. We've got the know-how, the initiative, the innovation. Talking about leadership on the international stage, it was Labor governments that led international agreements to protect Antarctica and the ozone. We can do that kind of work again as a responsible middle power, as a nation that has in its DNA that kind of global leadership which actually improves the lives of our citizens and our neighbours and makes for a better world. We've done that before. We just need leadership and courage, which are in such short supply with this government.
We still have an opportunity—but I'm not holding my breath—at the end of the year, at COP26, to show some of that leadership. Climate conferences come and go with barely a whisper from this government. But this year, as John Kerry said, COP26 is the world's 'last best chance' to avoid the climate crisis. It is critical that we take action. It is critical that we actually show leadership. It is critical that we engage at the very least in what our international partners, neighbours, allies and friends around the world negotiate and agree upon. We've got to be part of that because the science tells us that if we do not reduce emissions we will be really struggling to keep that average global temperature down to the limits that we agreed to at the Paris conference. If you believe the science, if you accept and acknowledge the reality that there is a problem and it's existential, then it's incumbent upon us and our government to actually show some leadership when it comes to international negotiation. We need to come to the table with some ambition beyond just engaging.
If we do miss this chance, if we don't act, it might be too late—too late for our neighbours, particularly in the Pacific, like Tuvalu, Kiribati and all the island neighbours that we have. We're not just acting for us; we're acting for our neighbours as well. We do have an obligation to the international community and our neighbours. Australians already know the impact on their lives and our nation's future. So we need to see some of this courage, some of this leadership, some of this vision from this government when it comes to these big issues. Don't just play the politics down to the wire to look after your jobs. Show leadership. It might not be popular, it might not be a in a focus group for the Prime Minister, but maybe he could actually lead the argument and people will follow. That's true leadership; not outsourcing it to others. I hope that we see some of this play out over the coming months because we do need to act.
Mrs ARCHER (Bass) (10:58): After starting out in dairy manufacturing around a decade ago, Robin and Karen Dornauf began dabbling in growing berries, and Hillwood Berries was born. A booming business now covering more than 40 hectares, growing strawberries, raspberries and blackberries, Hillwood Berries has over 45 full-time employees from the local region while also employing over 350 seasonal workers. It was a pleasure to welcome the Prime Minister and the Treasurer to Hillwood Berries last week to inspect their new expansion plans, including almost 15 new hectares set aside for additional crops—plans brought forward thanks to the federal government's instant asset write-off and other business measures. These expansion plans mean more jobs and more critical investment in our local economy.
Managing director of Hillwood Berries Simon Dornauf told us during the visit that the instant tax write-off has been instrumental in enabling their business to undertake two major projects that may otherwise have been delayed for over two years. The first was a project in renewable energy, with an investment of $400,000 on solar panels, which will provide 70 per cent of the power for their berry production. Additionally, a further $3.6 million will be spent in the development of an additional 15 hectares of covered farm capacity, which, as Simon told us on the day, gives job security to their workers. With the covering of the fruit, it can be picked day in and day out, regardless of the conditions. This will allow the business to employ about 75 full-time equivalents for that project, because of the instant asset write-off. Hillwood Berries is a significant employer in my local region and the investment in the extension of the instant asset write-off for businesses like Hillwood is strong evidence that we're securing our economic recovery.
It's not only our agricultural businesses like Hillwood Berries that are benefiting from the government's economic policies. There's plenty of proof that Tasmania is leading the charge when it comes to top-notch distillery products in the Australian market. Of the 300 locally owned distilleries across the country, 52 are situated in Tasmania, producing some of the best whisky you can find. A number of Tasmanian distillers have seen their products named the best single malt whiskies in the world, and, in Northern Tasmania, we have some incredible award-winning gin that rivals the products of distillers across the country and the world over. Just like our local distillers, Abel Gin, Corra Linn, Darby Norris, Fannys Bay, Flinders Island, Furneaux, Tamar Valley, Negative and Turner Stillhouse, the majority of Australian distillers are in regional and rural areas, bringing economic benefits through farm production, manufacturing, regional tourism and hospitality. However, until recently, local distillers and small brewers faced a block to their economic growth due to the high excise tax. I was thrilled that the Treasurer answered the call for tax relief in the latest budget, with this growing sector now benefiting from a tripling of the excise fund from $100,000 to $350,000 per year. This significant announcement will allow our local brewers and distillers to keep more of what they earn, helping them to invest in their company and grow their workforce. Liane Darby, co-owner of the north-east distillery Darby Norris, told me that the change to the excise refund cap will have a positive impact on their burgeoning business. The excise cap increase will mean that they can further expand their business with new equipment and also look at hiring new staff.
Of course, it's not just investment in business that's creating a better future for my community and communities across Australia. Our commitment to ensuring the lives of women and children affected by family and domestic violence has been demonstrated in this budget with an historic expansion of support for vulnerable Australians. We're delivering an unprecedented boost to services supporting women and children through the $1 billion Women's Safety Package. This historic investment across 16 new women's safety measures will build on the work of the Fourth Action Plan of the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, and will ensure a pathway to the new national plan starting in July next year. Part of this critical investment includes more than $160 million to provide financial support for women escaping violence. I recently sat on the committee inquiry into domestic and family violence, and it was very clear, through the numerous submissions made to that inquiry, that financial hardship, often brought about through coercive control, is a significant factor in whether or not a woman can escape an abusive relationship. The new escaping violence payment for women will provide women with access to up to $5,000 in financial assistance, and it is estimated that annually the program will help up to 12,000 women who need financial support to leave a violent relationship.
Importantly, there's also funding set aside for changing perpetrator behaviour and preventing violence before it begins. I've said many times in this place that, to truly move the dial on violence against women and children, we have to look at stopping the violence before it begins, and this begins with teaching respect. All violence against women begins with a fundamental lack of respect. We're allocating $35.1 million for a prevention package to expand national primary prevention campaigns, including a fourth phase of the award-winning national primary prevention campaign 'Let's stop it at the start', which encourages primary influencers of young people aged 10-17, such as parents, teachers and sporting leaders, to reflect on their own attitudes and to start conversations about respectful relationships and gender equality.
Additionally, there's a $129 million funding injection into specialised women's legal services which will support thousands of women and children to safely escape violent relationships, and that has been welcomed by women's legal advocates. As the CEO of Women's Legal Service Tasmania Yvette Cehtel told me, 'Women experiencing violence can take some comfort that they will have better access to justice and wraparound supports as a result of this budget. I also really appreciate that the work specialist women's services in this space have been valued and respected, especially following COVID-19 and the national debate around violence against women.'
It's important to remember that last year's budget, handed down just nine months ago, was the first step towards securing our country's economic recovery in the midst of this pandemic. This year's budget, laid out by the Treasurer earlier this month, is a road map to securing our economic recovery. While there are certainly still challenges facing our economy, particularly as we are clear that the pandemic is far from over, we are, as the Treasurer has said, better placed than nearly any other country to meet the challenges that lay ahead. Since the last budget, more than half a million jobs have been created. In the electorate of Bass, which I represent, around 40,200 taxpayers will benefit from tax relief of up to $2,745 this year. This is as a result of the decision to extend the low and middle income tax offset to 2021-22. An extended and expanded JobTrainer Fund will support 500,000 new places to upskill jobseekers and young people. We already have 1,825 apprentices in Bass, and these new measures will lead to more opportunities for apprentices for trainees, with expanded wage subsidies.
Just like Hillwood Berries, more than 12,000 businesses in my region will be able to write off the full asset of any eligible asset they purchase. Additionally, around 3,000 businesses in Bass will be able to use the extended loss carry-back measure to support cash flow and confidence. This has helped business invest more in the local economy and to create local jobs.
The JobKeeper payment support of 3,400 businesses and 14,000 employees in Bass to help them through the pandemic and keep them connected to their place of work set the groundwork for the recovery. The tax-free cash flow boost has helped around 3,000 small and medium businesses, providing $135 million in payments to help businesses in northern Tasmania stay afloat. We're also providing an additional $67.7 million to boost assistance under the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme. The TFES will be expanded for eligible goods shipped to Tasmania by the mainland where there is no Australian equivalent good. This boost means inputs to production for Tasmanian manufacturing, mining and primary industries will be eligible for TFES assistance. This extends the benefits of TFES and will help Tasmanian companies to keep producing at this critical time when business continuity is paramount. This is another example of the Australian government acting to keep Australians in jobs and businesses in business as the economy recovers from the impacts of COVID-19. Businesses in Tasmania will be able to submit TFES claims from 1 October for imported goods shipped to Tasmania from the mainland on or after 1 July.
The budget invests in major road and rail projects, road safety and community infrastructure programs, supporting additional jobs. Three hundred and seventy-seven million dollars is being committed in Tasmania for projects to ease congestion, connect communities and improve road safety. They'll support the economic recovery in the short term and boost productivity in the longer term. The Morrison government's HomeBuilder program has received 3,062 applications in Tasmania and continues to support jobs in the construction sector and assist owner-occupiers with grants of $25,000 to build a new home or substantially renovate their existing home. The Morrison government is providing additional investments in respiratory clinics, pathology testing and tracing, and the continuation of telehealth services.
In Bass there have been more than 208,920 telehealth consultations through Medicare since the start of the pandemic, and these services are now being extended. We're increasing funding for early learning in the region and making child care more affordable and accessible. Childcare reforms in this budget will directly benefit over 770 families living in Bass.
The budget delivers a record investment in aged care to help the 19,760 senior Australians living in Bass. This investment will deliver more home-care places and more funding for residential aged care and will increase the amount of time residents are cared for while strengthening regulations to monitor and enforce the standards of care. I was pleased to have visited a Uniting Care aged-care residential home in northern Tasmania last week and meet some of the residents who will benefit from this investment, including Jim Ockerbie and Joy Bryan, who was thrilled to tell me that she had just received her second dose of COVID-19 vaccine.
This budget is working to secure the economic future of the northern Tasmanian community.
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (11:09): This is the eighth budget to be delivered by a tired eight-year government. At the next election the coalition will be asking for 12 years in office, which is more than Prime Minister Howard had. Yet they've handed down another budget with no vision for our country. This is not a budget from a government that's trying to build back better after the pandemic. This is not a budget from an ambitious government that is trying to leave our country better off after the privilege of being in office for eight years. It is a poor attempt by the government to buy a few votes and solve a few of their political problems. Whilst spending $100 billion and racking up $1 trillion of debt, this government has quite miraculously managed not to fulfil two of its most important jobs: establishing a safe quarantine system and vaccinating our population. In the midst of this current crisis, the Prime Minister's primary job is to keep Australians safe and get our country through to the other side of this pandemic, which is exactly why quarantine and vaccine rollout should be firmly at the top of the Prime Minister's to-do list.
Australians have done more than their fair share of heavy lifting during the COVID pandemic. They've obeyed restrictions, closed their businesses, stayed home and worked and lost pay, missed important life events, balanced working from home with looking after children, stayed separate from their loved ones, and, of course, much more. Australians have held up their end of the bargain. As a result, Australia has performed incredibly well, in terms of the health outcomes. But make no mistake: that is thanks to the hard work of the Australian people. But it's now time for this federal government to uphold their end of the deal, which is quarantine and vaccinations. No matter how much hard work and sacrifice is made by the Australian people, we will not emerge from the other side of the COVID-19 crisis without a successful quarantine system and vaccination program. Both are important tickets out of this pandemic. Yet this government has failed dismally on both fronts.
Since last year, when Jane Halton handed down her review, it has been clear what must be done to make our quarantine system fit for purpose. There are integral measures that, shockingly, this government still does not have in place, like strong standards around ventilation and PPE. But what I believe is its biggest failure is this government's refusal to build dedicated, fit-for-purpose, national quarantine facilities. Hotel quarantine in the heart of our CBDs has been important, but it was never meant to be permanent. It was a short-term option, not a long-term option. Hotels are built for tourism. They're not built to contain contagious, deadly viruses. We've seen of the consequences, with COVID managing to escape hotel quarantine time and time again. It is unacceptable—and, frankly, unforgivable—that in this budget the government has not included any new money for new quarantine facilities.
This budget also does nothing to fix the mess that the Prime Minister has made when it comes to COVID-19 vaccinations. We are not even in the top 100 nations in the world, in terms of vaccine doses per head of population. Only two per cent of our population is fully vaccinated. In the United States, they've just passed 50 per cent. The rollout has been bungled from the get-go. The government was, true to form, focused on their announcements and the headlines. 'The eagle has landed,' the health minister said. Of course, they put the Liberal Party logo, not the Australian government logo, on the Facebook ads and made bold claims, such as the claim that four million Australians would be vaccinated at the end of March.
But it became clear very quickly that we were not at the front of the queue, that the four million target would not be reached and that, indeed, the eagle had not landed. As well as initial supply issues, the government, against many warnings, put their eggs in only two baskets: Pfizer and AstraZeneca—and there was very little in the Pfizer basket, may I add. This was despite the international recommendation to put your eggs in five or six baskets, which meant that the potential issues that emerged for the under-50s with the AstraZeneca vaccine resulted in further slowing. They like to make the excuse that it is the health advice that has slowed this down. Actually, if the government had done its job and had spread its risk, we would not be in this position. The UK didn't miss a beat when they changed their vaccination rollout. In one week they moved to: under 30s will not get AstraZeneca; under 30s will get Pfizer. They did it seamlessly. They did not miss a beat. But of course, once again, through this government's incompetence we have been flat-footed.
The administration of the rollout has been bungled too. I've heard countless reports from constituents who want the vaccine but haven't been able to find it. They've been told to call a number. The mobile number rings out. They can't book it online. There are GPs who are confused about how to obtain the vaccinations and, of course, how to work with the population. This has been nothing short of a debacle and a failure on every front.
We are now seeing the consequence play out in Melbourne. My heart goes out to all those in Victoria who have already sacrificed so much over the last 15 months, who have kept our whole country safe, and are now facing yet another outbreak. But let's be absolutely clear, if we had seen the vaccine rollout and quarantine as essential issues to be dealt with, not as the Prime Minister said, 'We'll just go slow—slow and steady with the vaccine rollout'—these are the sorts of things that happen when you don't do your job. I really am incredibly frustrated about this government's ducking and weaving when it comes to blaming others for this. It is always someone else's problem. Indeed, the health minister was interjecting yesterday: 'The Northern Territory wants to take over quarantine'. Why should we run quarantine? They probably don't have a lot of confidence in the Commonwealth based on this vaccine rollout.
It's not only the lockdowns, the ongoing restrictions also have consequences for businesses. I am constantly speaking to businesses in my electorate who will not be able to fully recover until all COVID restrictions are lifted. It's heartbreaking to speak to small business owners who, through absolutely no fault of their own, are still suffering the severe economic downturn because of COVID restrictions. Examples I've given a number of times in this place are party and event based businesses. This is an industry that simply cannot properly recover until restrictions on density are fully lifted and Australians can confidently recommence hosting large parties and events.
Another example is the tourism industry. I recently held a tourism forum in my electorate and heard firsthand the impact that restrictions are having on industry. I also heard from Murray, who operates a the Fleurieu Pantry in Port Noarlunga, about the impact that ongoing density restrictions are having on his business, but in particular on the numbers of staff that he can employ. He said he directly employs fewer people because of the density requirements. Bob and Julie own a tourism business at Port Noarlunga and they told me that they are still giving their tenant a concessional rental rate because they cannot fully operate at full capacity. These restrictions are having an impact on the bottom line of many businesses. It has been mooted in South Australia that until we get to 80 per cent vaccination rates then density requirements will not change. So these businesses will have to wait while the Prime Minister is on his go-slow. The AHA's head Ian Horne said publicans were told last year that QR codes would be the silver bullet. But full capacity is now not being considered and will be considered on vaccination levels. This is really significant for many businesses.
This budget also manages to continue to leave behind many working Australians. This government has presided over record low wage growth. Instead of putting forward a plan in this budget to overcome the worst wages growth in history, the government has delivered real wage cuts. We've had wage stagnation. This budget plainly predicts a cut in real wages over the next four years. But not only does this budget predict wages cuts, we are seeing the essentials go up. We even hear this from the government, the reason why inflation is going to be so high in the predictions is the cost of child care. We know child care is expensive. We've been telling the government that the system that they introduced in 2018 has failed dismally. We've been telling them over and over again. Despite that, we have heard the government dismiss that. We all know that, to fix a political problem, they did throw some money at childcare in this budget. But it does fall way short of what is needed and what Labor's plan is to combat the rising cost of child care. It also falls well short of what our economy needs to boost workforce participation, which, I might say, in this budget is predicted to go down. So that is one holy failure of their childcare policy and their spending. The levels of workforce participation are going to go down because fewer people are even bothering to look for a job.
The government spent the last few years denying that there was anything wrong with the childcare system that the Prime Minister himself designed. They dismissed Labor's bold plan for cheaper child care—a structural change that would boost workforce participation. But Australian families—and this is the truth—are being hit with some of the highest out-of-pocket childcare costs in the world. We know that there are close to 100,000 families who are locked out of the system because of child care.
The government spent a lot of time making sure they got their announcement right. They wanted to make as many families as possible think that they were going to be better off under their announcement. But, as usual with this government, you always have to read the fine print. This policy, firstly, does nothing for families that have one child in child care. There's nothing—zero fee relief. It is predicted 75 per cent of all families using the system will get nothing and no acknowledgement around the subsidy. The reality is that 86 per cent of families—that's 860,000 families—with children under six, including one or two children, are better off under Labor's policy compared to the Morrison government's plan. Every single family with one child under the age of five with a combined family income of less than $530,000 will receive absolutely no lift in their childcare subsidy under the Liberals but will under Labor's plan. The vast majority of families with a combined family income between $69,000 and $174,000 with two children in child care will be better off under Labor's plan. Any extra support the Liberals do provide to families with two children will be temporary, as it will be ripped away as soon as the oldest child goes to school because it does not apply to after-school-hours care, whereas Labor's policy also improves the level of subsidy for after-school-hours care. Parents struggle with the cost of both child care and after-school-hours care, but the government has ignored that, because this was a quick fix.
In contrast, Labor's boost will support every child for the entire time that they are in child care. Under our plan, one million families would be better off than they are now—four times as many as under the Liberals' plan. Ninety-seven per cent of families will be better off or equal under Labor's plan. That's because our plan helps more families for longer. It will also have a larger economic dividend—a boost to GDP three times bigger than the Liberal Party's plan. Our plan will provide more for families for longer, will result in a boost to GDP—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 11:24 to 11:36
Ms RISHWORTH: So the truth of the matter is that, when you compare the two childcare policies, we've got one from the Liberal Party that is a political fix, a con job, and one that delivers long-term, sustainable economic growth to help Australian working families. The Liberal Party stopped talking about child care the day after the budget. They don't want to talk about it, because they know more Australian families would be better off under Labor's plan. They know that Labor's plan would deliver more economic growth. They know that Labor's plan is structural reform, not a political fix job. We are committed to talking about this to the Australian people each and every day, because Labor is offering a better long-term solution than the Liberal political fix.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (11:37): The main responsibility of the Commonwealth government at the moment is to get as many Australians as possible vaccinated for COVID-19 as quickly as possible, and unfortunately the government is bungling this responsibility. We've seen that Australia's rates of vaccination, compared to other nations, are woefully inadequate. I've had several representations from GPs in my community telling me that they simply cannot get enough vaccines to meet the demand in the local community. The government have been talking about the additional supply that they've secured, and that's well and good, and it's a great thing for the country. But where they're falling down is on the delivery. They're not able to distribute that supply to GPs and vaccination centres throughout the country. As a consequence, I'm receiving letters such as the one that I got a couple of weeks ago from a group of GPs in my community, which said, 'There are 16 GPs in this clinic and they get 100 vaccines a week.'
It's simply not enough, and as a result there are elderly Australians who cannot get vaccinated at the moment because there simply isn't enough supply to vaccinate those who want it. That's a great shame, because it restricts the lives of people, particularly those who are elderly and are worried about their health and their frailty and, of course, Australians who have other health issues. That's resulted in their reluctance to leave their homes to socially engage. It brings a host of social problems, particularly mental health problems, when you don't have regular communication with people.
So the government really does need to get its act together on vaccinations, and the key to ensuring that we open up our economy in the long term is making sure we do the vaccination process right, and at the moment they're not getting that right. They really need to get their act together, and they should listen to what Labor has been suggesting about establishing mass quarantine centres that are purpose-built, have open-air facilities and are close to medical and transport links, similar to the one that's been operating very successfully in Howard Springs. There needs to be a public awareness campaign. There needs to be a public education campaign to inform the Australian public about the importance of getting vaccinated as quickly as possible and to remove the hesitancy that's been developing in the Australian population, with people saying, 'I'm happy to wait.' You shouldn't be happy to wait. As soon as your eligibility comes up, you should be putting your name down to get vaccinated as quickly as possible. So there are two areas in which, Labor believe, the government could improve, and we'd be happy to work with them, quickly, to improve things.
There's also a problem with Australians stranded overseas. The No. 1 responsibility of an Australian government is to keep Australians safe and provide them with safe passage home when they have an Australian passport and they want to come home. But many can't get home. It's another failed promise of the Prime Minister, who committed to having all Australians who were overseas returned home by last Christmas. He failed dismally in that commitment that he made to the Australian people. There are 36,000 Australians still stranded overseas. I've had some harrowing phone calls from the parents of people stranded overseas—indeed, some of those Aussies who are still overseas—unable to buy airline tickets unless they purchase a business class ticket. They simply can't afford it, so they get wiped and then don't have the opportunity to come home. People have done this eight or nine times. They book themselves on a flight, and then the flight gets cancelled because of the problems that the government has created domestically in not being able to take enough people into quarantine as they come into Australia.
The budget delivers Australia its largest ever deficit, $150 billion, and $1 trillion worth of debt. We in the Labor Party understand the importance of spending to ensure that we protect jobs and that our economy recovers from the recession that it went through last year. But it's what you spend that money on that's important. It's a question of spending that money in fixing some of the structural issues we have in our economy and ensuring that we get growth that brings about equality, better educational standards, better health care, better support for people with disabilities, and better business investment to grow small businesses and protect jobs. Unfortunately, in all of those areas, the government's budget fails to deliver. You only need to look at the government's budget papers to see that. The government admit that, over the forward estimates, real incomes for the Australian public aren't going to grow. People are doing it tough with the cost of living at the moment. Childcare fees are always going up. Private health insurance is always going up. Transport costs, associated with tolls and driving to and from work around cities, are going up. The costs of electricity and other utilities are always going up. The one thing that's not going up is people's wages, and the budget papers show that they're going to be flat over the forward estimates. So the government are spending all that money but they're not getting a dividend for the Australian public in terms of wages growth.
Housing affordability is a huge issue in Australia at the moment. Not a week goes by without someone in the community I represent coming up to me and saying, 'How are our kids going to be able to afford to buy a home in the future?' The prospect is that they're not going to be able to, and that's because housing is becoming less and less affordable and Australia has one of the highest rates of household debt in the OECD. I think Australia is in the top three, with a housing-debt-to-income ratio of 200 per cent. And it's only getting worse. House prices have increased by eight per cent over the course of the past 12 months, and there's no end in sight to that growth. What's the government's solution? It introduces all these first home buyer programs. They look good on the surface, but all they're really doing is pouring fuel on the fire. If you talk to a real estate agent in the wake of those programs being introduced, they'll always tell you that in the 12 months after a program like that is introduced prices will go up. It's because demand will once again increase but the housing stock isn't increasing. Again, this government is doing nothing to support housing affordability.
We're facing massive skills shortages in this country at the moment. Talk to any employer in any main street in any region throughout the country and they'll tell you, 'I simply cannot get staff at the moment.' Why? Because there have been 140,000 fewer apprenticeships since this government came to office. There's been $2 billion cut from the TAFE budget, so people from working families have less opportunity to get a trade. They simply can't afford it. State governments have pushed up the cost of TAFE because the Commonwealth has reduced the amount of funding that it provides for technical and further training. The problem develops in skills shortages. We're not training enough young Australians in the trades that we need and with the skills that we need in the future, and this budget does nothing to help with that. The program that it's putting in place is too little, too late. Its solution in the past has been, 'It's okay, we'll just import foreign labour, we'll import foreign workers, and they'll cover the gap.' Now the borders are closed, it can't do that. The result is skills shortages, and employers, particularly small businesses, are paying that cost.
When the interim report into the royal commission into aged care is entitled Neglect, you get a good insight into this government's approach to aged care in this country. They've neglected aged care for many years, and it has resulted in people being put in very, very difficult situations. Nurses being taken out of nursing homes. People are unable to afford to get into aged care. People are on waiting lists for irresponsibly long periods of time, and, unfortunately, they're dying while on waiting lists for an aged-care package. It's unacceptable the way we treat our elderly Australians trying to get into the aged-care system, and, once again, this budget does nothing to help fix that.
On the issue of aged care, I was delighted to help launch the Intergenerational Integration Initiative at St Nicholas Christian preschool in Coogee last month. The project is better known as Old People's Home for 4 Year Olds, which was very popular on the ABC. I was very proud that the last series was actually filmed in the electorate that I represent. This local project aims to obtain detailed evidence to prove that regular contact between our older citizens and preschool children provides an effective and low-cost way to counter dementia and to help delay the onset of frailty. The structured program is running as we speak—it's every Tuesday for 10 weeks—and it's scheduled to end next month. The focus is on bringing a group of older adults, who are living alone in our community, together with four-year olds in an intergenerational playschool for learning, connection and friendship.
The success of the popular ABC television program Old People's Home for 4 Year Olds has shown that time spent with older adults has been linked to enhanced social and personal skills for children. And the award-winning show is reality TV at its best. I often know when my wife is watching Old People's Home for 4 Year Olds because I hear the sobbing coming from the lounge room, quickly followed by the laughter and the joy. It's one of those programs that is so uplifting. If you haven't watched it, do yourself a favour and have a look at it. The first season followed a social experiment in which 11 preschoolers were introduced to aged-care residents at their facility. The program won an international Emmy award celebrating the best programs from around the world. It resonated with audiences here and overseas for giving a voice to the elderly while closing the divide between the generations with plenty of humour and joy.
In the second season, which was filmed in Coogee, in my electorate, older adults living in the community volunteered to spend time with children at a specially designed preschool, and this was at St Nicholas. But while it's excellent television, the reality is there are no empirical trials that have been conducted with preschool children and community-dwelling older adults to quantify the benefits for participants, and that's where this study comes in. There has been a study done in the United States connecting older adults and primary school children that reported benefits to child reading, and benefits to adult mood, function and, potentially, thinking skills. But that's it in terms of research and quantifiable evidence, and that's where the Intergenerational Integration Initiative, or 3i, in my electorate that I represent is making significant progress. While Australia and the world are watching, I'm proud that this pioneering research is being done in our community. I applaud the outstanding initiative of the UNSW Ageing Futures Institute, alongside St Nicholas' Anglican Church and Anglicare, in helping alleviate frailty amongst older Australians and delaying their transition into aged care.
We know around 40 per cent of Australians aged between 75 and 84 live alone, while more than half of those aged 85 and over are by themselves. Around 500 Australians a day become frail. Though some consider it inevitable with age, frailty is actually reversible, or at least modifiable. We know that frailty is a strong predictor for aged-care transition. Frailty brings poor health outcomes and is linked to a loss of independence and transfer to aged care. It has an estimated economic impact per frail person of $12,460 per annum. If this program helps alleviate frailty and delays the transition into aged care, it has the potential for significant financial savings as well as clear social and personal benefits. The cost of financing it in the community is likely to be relatively low in comparison to the benefit that it may bring. The research team will spend two months analysing the data and will reveal their results in August. The results of this pilot trial, testing the feasibility of the program, will drive the next steps towards expansion of the program in several sites across Australia. It's much-needed research and it aims to do good for older citizens as well as benefiting the next generation of young Australians and their families.
I'd once again like to congratulate all of those involved in this wonderful partnership between UNSW Ageing Futures Institute, St Nicholas Anglican Church in Coogee and Anglicare, with the aim of helping alleviate frailty in senior Australians and delaying their transition into aged care. I wholeheartedly congratulate the participants, and we look forward to the outcomes of their study.
Mr BURNS (Macnamara) (11:51): I rise to speak on the appropriation bills. I want to take you back, Deputy Speaker, to before the last election, when the Morrison federal government rolled the cameras into Macnamara and said, 'Come on, everyone, we've got something to say. We're going to make a very exciting announcement in Macnamara.' They turned up to Balaclava train station, a great local train station in my electorate—
Dr Aly: An unfortunate name, but yes.
Mr BURNS: Not 'baklava' but 'Balaclava'. I do enjoy a baklava. They said, 'We're going to spend $15 million building a commuter car park in Macnamara.' I thought, 'You know what, that's not a bad announcement, but I'd like to see some of the details, because something's a bit fishy here with the $15 million commuter car park announcement in Balaclava.' Like with many things with this government, you've got to look at the details. The announcements are great. People say mean things about this government, but boy can they write a press release. They can write a pretty mean press release. They will finesse that to the nth degree. But there is one thing they didn't do when announcing the $15 million Macnamara Balaclava car park. They forgot to talk to the local government, the City of Port Phillip, and they forgot to talk to the state government, because they announced commuter car parks on land that had already been designated for social housing. There was already a deal signed between the state government and the local government in Macnamara, in the City of Port Phillip, for social housing.
This is a classic way in which the Morrison government operates. They bring the cavalry in; they bring the cameras in and say: 'Come on everyone, look at me. We've got a fancy announcement. We're going to build car parks.' But then they say, 'We're not going to talk to any of the stakeholders. We're going to live in this Liberal Party slush fund bubble that doesn't actually engage with the real world.' Then, when it comes to actually being able to deliver, of course we went two years, and guess how many car parks were built, Deputy Speaker. Were there 10? No, there weren't 10. Were there five? No, not five.
Dr Aly: I know!
Mr BURNS: The member for Cowan is interjecting. It was zero—not a single car park, not even for a Smart car, not even for a bicycle. Not one car park was built, despite—
Dr Aly: Not even for a shopping trolley.
Mr BURNS: Not even for a shopping trolley, not even for a skateboard, not even for a pair of rollerblades! You can't leave anything there, because they haven't built a thing. There was a $15 million announcement but zero delivery in Macnamara, which just sums up the chaotic and ridiculous way in which this government operates. They think everything is all about the Liberal Party branding and the Liberal Party announcement, but there is nothing about the actual delivery.
The commuter car parks are a big deal. They are a big deal for my electorate. We absolutely want to see more people on public transport, and I know that the pandemic has meant that people have been a bit more reluctant to get on public transport. Obviously, in Melbourne right now we are facing another seven-day lockdown. We do want to see more people on public transport eventually, and enabling people to park at the station is a good idea. But the problem is that you need a federal government that is actually willing to deliver on the announcements that it delivers. It wasn't the Labor Party who delivered it; it was the federal government who delivered it.
The other big thing that I want to mention in the debate on this appropriations bill where they were very keen on the announcement but the delivery has been dangerously bad is the vaccine rollout. I remember when the health minister, pretty chuffed with himself, confidently strolled into the House of Representatives and said: 'Good news, everyone. The eagle has landed.' One eagle had landed. The problem is that not enough eagles for the rest of the country had landed. One single eagle—an eagle, singular—had landed in the country, but it was not enough. Even though he hadn't organised enough eagles, or vaccines, for the whole country, it didn't stop him putting the Liberal Party branding on the vaccine announcement. We all remember that social media tile: 'The Liberal Party secures 20 million Pfizer vaccines.' Well, we're still waiting for those vaccines.
Here is the thing that really is frustrating about the federal government. When the vaccines started to arrive, the government made all of their announcements, as they do. They wrote their press releases, put their Liberal Party branding on the Pfizer announcement and ran plenty of ads about themselves. They set their original targets: 'We're going to deliver four million vaccines by the end of March. We're going to get everyone vaccinated by the end of October. Aged care is going to be done. Disability care is going to be done.' This was the rollout. What that meant was that we were going to be averaging around 120,000 vaccines a day. As time rolled on and it became increasingly apparent that the way in which the health minister, the federal government and the Prime Minister had arranged this vaccine rollout meant there was no way they were going to be able to hit that in the early days—we're now almost in June, and we're still not hitting that mark—they did not say: 'Alright, how are we going to fix this? How are we as the federal government going to make this better? We made the plans. We made the announcement. We've got to deliver it. We have to. It's too important not to deliver it, so we're going to have to fix it.'
Imagine that. Imagine if we had a federal government that was actually interested in delivering the stuff that it announced. Imagine if the federal government were actually interested in delivering the vaccines that they'd announced. Imagine the health minister saying, 'Look, team, we're not hitting 120,000 or 180,000 vaccines a day, but we've got to, so here's what we're going to do: we're going to put these resources here, open up mass vaccination hubs and do extra deals with some of the vaccine companies.' But no. All they have done is stubbornly say: 'We're on track. It's all on track.' Then they were saying: 'Hang on. These targets are just too hard. We're not interested. I don't care that we're the federal government. It's not a race.' That's what this Prime Minister said about our vaccine rollout: 'It's not a race. It's not a competition.' Well, say to the person who's in ICU right now in Victoria that it's not a race or a competition. We genuinely hope that that person gets better, and we hope that no-one gets sick for the rest of this pandemic, but people are getting sick right now, and the federal government, instead of fixing the vaccine rollout and making sure that the residents and staff of our aged-care homes and our disability-care homes are vaccinated, just threw their hands in the air and said, 'It's all too hard.' There are over 30 aged care facilities in Victoria right now that have not had a single vaccination—not one.
We remember the devastation in the federally regulated aged-care facilities at the second wave in Victoria. It was devastating. And, instead of the federal government saying, 'You know what? This is an absolute race. We are going to act as fast as we possibly can, with the urgency as if every single life depends on getting this vaccine rolled out,' what did they say? 'It's not a race, and we don't have targets anymore.' They literally treated their vaccine rollout in the same way as they treated the Macnamara Balaklava commuter car parks announcement. They made the announcement. They brought the cameras. They put the Liberal Party branding on the vaccine announcement, but they didn't actually deliver. It's dangerous at the moment because this country is vulnerable.
There are other countries around the world—for example, the United States, which has had a devastating pandemic. Thankfully, there has been a huge turning point since November last year where they have started to really ramp up the way in which they deal with this pandemic through masks, through isolation, through distancing, through better contact tracing and absolutely through one of the most aggressive scaled vaccine rollouts across the world. Americans are coming out of this. Americans are seeing the back of this pandemic and they're doing it with strength and confidence. And we in this country are vulnerable to another massive lockdown.
To make matters worse, the thing that started this whole thing is that a man who travelled to India—he didn't catch this Indian variant in India, and we send our absolute best wishes to our friends in India, because they have had a devastating past few months. But this Australian didn't catch this variant in India. He caught it in a South Australian hotel quarantine facility. It is galling that the federal government pats themselves on the back. There are plenty of announcements: 'Look at me! Look at me! We're the federal government!' And then they do nothing to fix quarantine, despite their own experts saying that this is an airborne disease, that this has a risk of being transmitted via aerosol, so make sure that you're not in a hotel, where that can spread from room to room. Make sure that they're in their own enclosed quarantine arrangements like in Howard Springs.
They've done it before. They did it in Howard Springs. They know what works. That's the one facility that's had a 100 per cent success rate. But they are too stubborn. And so they spend a fortune. This budget they've spent a fortune. It is the biggest debt and deficit this country has seen in the history of our country. There has never been more spent. This is the most. And yet what have they got to show for it? They are leaving Australians vulnerable to this pandemic, refusing to take responsibility and refusing to deliver on the announcements that they had.
So they don't fix quarantine. They're not delivering the vaccines. Victorians are going into a lockdown. I have to say that last year one of the most important health measure that we had in this country was JobKeeper. It meant that people could make the choice to do the right thing. It meant that businesses could shut. They didn't make money, obviously—some did, but most of them didn't make money. They were just surviving on the JobKeeper supplement. But it meant that they were able to do the right thing, listen to the health advice and close their doors knowing that they've got a chance to get there on the other side. There are no protections at the moment. There's no JobKeeper that the federal government is willing to support Victorians on. There's no increased coronavirus supplement where, if this lockdown does cause your business to close, the federal government will be there to support you.
All of the good things that this federal government did over the pandemic have now been pulled away. They haven't said that they would support Victorians or people in any other state that potentially could face a lockdown. And so we are literally back at square one, where Australians are being left vulnerable by this federal government. Our economy is being left vulnerable by this federal government. The most important thing that we can do to secure our economy and to secure the economic recovery is to make sure that businesses have time and certainty to run their business. Australian businesses need time to get back on their feet, to get people through the doors, to get the customers back in, and to make sure that the books start returning to the prepandemic levels. That is the most important thing–a bit of certainty.
But, if you want to know the story of this budget, if you want to know the story of this government, it's not to protect Australians. It's not to follow and deliver the announcements that they have already made. It's to leave Australians vulnerable. It's to not protect Australians. It's to not be there and support them through this pandemic. This federal government is simply there for themselves. They're there for the cameras, and they're there for the photo-ops. They're there to hammer in the imaginary nails, but they're not there to support Australian businesses and the Australian economy. And the sad thing is that Australians have been magnificent throughout this pandemic. Australians have done the right thing. Victorians did the right thing in some of the most stressful and difficult times in our state. Victorians were sensational, and we thank them, and we're going to ask a lot of them over the next little while. But, right now, they have a federal government that is not there to support them and a budget that didn't deliver on vaccines and quarantine as it should have. They have failed the test. The economic security isn't there under this government, and Australians deserve better.
Dr MULINO (Fraser) (12:06): I rise today to speak in relation to the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022 and related bills and to provide my commentary in relation to the 2021-22 budget. We find ourselves in a situation where we have overcome some aspects of the worst of this terrible pandemic. We were in a situation last year where the pandemic was rife in parts of the country and where the economy was devastated in a way that it hadn't been since the Great Depression. Indeed, on some metrics, the economy was affected in ways even more severe than during the Great Depression.
What everybody agreed with last year is that we needed a bridge between that deep trough through to a post-pandemic world and that we needed to help individuals and businesses get through that period. So we, in a very constructive way, suggested JobKeeper, we suggested the JobSeeker supplement, and we implored financial institutions to provide individuals and small businesses with flexibility. And what we saw was that JobKeeper—which, as I mentioned, we suggested—and the JobSeeker supplement did help individuals get through the worst of that period. What we needed in this budget was for the recovery that followed that to be protected and preserved. The two KPIs that we needed the federal government to achieve out of this budget—this budget that was supposed to protect the recovery—were that we protect our borders and reduce the risks to our health and to our economy by accelerating the vaccine rollout. All of our public health experts and all of our economists say that we can, for a period of time, shut our borders and we can, for a period of time, provide a bridge, if you will, but we have to have a plan to get to a post-COVID world. The post-COVID world is one where we are vaccinated. The post-COVID world is one where we have effective border controls—not one where we have closed borders. What this government has failed to do in this budget is to provide any kind of vision or effective program for providing us as a nation, as a society and as an economy with a way in which we can move to a post-COVID world.
I want to talk about quarantine. Quarantine is one of the key responsibilities of the federal government in relation to protecting our people and protecting our economy. Let's go back to the Halton review. Recommendation 4 said that the federal government should consider options for new models of quarantine, with consideration by national cabinet. The Prime Minister has talked at great length about how effective national cabinet is, but, as the entity within national cabinet responsible for our international borders, where have the ideas been from the federal government for new models of quarantine? Recommendation 6 was that the Australian government should consider the establishment a national facility. What we see in this budget, where hundreds of billions of dollars are sprayed across every area of government activity, where a trillion dollars in debt is built up, is $500 million dedicated to an already announced expansion of Howard Springs. But, of course, what we don't see is anything actually delivered. There is an abject failure in this budget when it comes to quarantine. This is a government which spends tens and hundreds of billions of dollars on everything you can imagine, but on one of the absolute core KPIs of a federal government, it really gives us no confidence they've advanced at all. No increase in funding. No shovels in the ground. It's an abject failure. What we see today in Victoria are the risks that can arise as a result of that.
What about vaccination, the other of these two core KPIs of the national government? We rank somewhere around 110th in the world in vaccination rates. It is absolutely appalling that we rank at that level given the state of our public health system. We should be near the top. We have the funds and we have the experts, but it's now becoming clear that we didn't get timely deals with enough producers of vaccines, we didn't lay the groundwork and we didn't manage our risks. So what's happened is that perceived weaknesses in a particular vaccine have now created a huge blockage in our system and have also affected people's confidence in the rollout. This is a problem that is entirely generated by the government's lack of planning and lack of foresight in relation to risks that should have been entirely on the radar.
The vaccination rollout has been an unfortunate shambles. Experts are telling us that if we are to make the schedule that is an underlying assumption of this budget, which is that we essentially have the whole population vaccinated by the end of this year, we'll need to have 200,000 people being vaccinated a day. That's from Provocate. Yet yesterday in question time we had the health minister patting himself on the back because for one day we slightly edged over 100,000. On one day we were slightly over half the rate we need to be if we're to meet the budget's underlying assumptions. How much faith can we have in the assumptions underpinning this document?
We can look at this from a health perspective, obviously, at the massive health risks that a slow vaccination rollout poses to our people, our vulnerable people. I know, from talking to so many people in my community, how many elderly people in Fraser have been affected over the past year. But the economic impact is absolutely clear. Let's look at Richard Holden, one of our most prominent macroeconomists, who says that the economic cost of a slow vaccine rollout is in the order of tens of billions of dollars a year. Make no mistake: this recovery is being imperilled by the slowness of the vaccine rollout. Indeed, we only need to go to the government's own figures. Last year's budget—the 2020-21 budget—itself said that an early vaccine rollout from 1 July 2021 is worth $34 billion to the June quarter 2022. We've put this to the government on a number of times in question time: if their own budget papers last year said that an early rollout of the vaccine would produce such massive economic benefits, what are the economic costs of a slow vaccine rollout? We get no answers to that question, unsurprisingly. But it is absolutely clear from all of the economic commentators that the economic costs are massive.
There's also, of course, the fact that we are now going to be in an unnecessarily prolonged situation where our international borders are shut. This is leading to incredible stress and heartache for so many families separated from loved ones overseas. This is leading to incredible stress for so many thousands of Australians overseas right around the world who, of course, can't come home because of the lack of a quarantine system. But it also, again, has massive long-term consequences for our economy. Our international higher education system is being damaged by long-term disconnection between our system and international student markets.
Let's look at comments by Olivier Blanchard, who used to be the chief economist at the IMF. He said that border closures stop important interconnections between economies that are often difficult to measure but are extremely important. He talked about the fact that we can zoom between economies, but tacit knowledge is critically important to business connections, particularly when setting up new business connections. They need to be established face to face. As Blanchard says:
Can one put a number on these costs? … Not easily. Restrictions lasting a year or two might not have much effect. Longer-lasting impediments could, however, have a substantial effect on global value chains, trade, and overall efficiency.
The point is that this budget is coming after a period of recovery in our labour markets and our economy, but what this budget absolutely fails to do is bed down that recovery and protect that recovery from risk in two key areas of federal government responsibility. The Australian government is responsible for the borders and quarantine, and the Australian government is responsible for the key elements of our vaccine rollout that has slowed down so disastrously.
I want to talk about some of the government's spending. The government has spent a huge amount of money. We welcome additional spending in the many areas that have received additional funds. We welcome additional money in aged care, for example. What I would say, though, is that what we don't accept is that the spending that is occurring is dealing with the damning findings of the royal commission in a way that is going to address the needs of the residents of these facilities, most importantly, and also the workforce of these facilities. I alluded earlier to so many people in my electorate having experienced so much hardship under COVID. Of course, so much of that in Fraser and so much of it around our country was in aged-care facilities. It was failures in federal regulatory arrangements that were so critical to those aged-care facilities being overwhelmed.
What do we see from the government's additional spending? What we don't see is real reform. What we do see is an announcement. We see large numbers on a piece of paper. We see large numbers in documents, underpinned by assumptions that, as I alluded to earlier, one can only question. But we don't see significant reforms in governance, we don't see significant reforms in service delivery models and, very critically, we don't see significant workplace reforms. We don't see reforms in how much these critically important workers are going to be paid, trained or supported. We don't see changes that are going to help them have more secure working arrangements, which was so critical to the stress that those aged-care facilities were placed under early last year.
The Productivity Commission has advised that we will need 700,000 additional aged-care workers by 2050. This is actually an opportunity for us to imagine an economy of the future where there are hundreds of thousands of additional jobs—high-quality jobs, well-paid jobs, secure jobs. Of course, by providing the opportunities for so many jobs, we're going to be providing important high-quality services for people who need them in the aged-care sector. We don't see any kind of vision in this budget. We see some additional home-care packages, and we welcome additional home-care packages. But, again, I go to the royal commission, which said that we basically need to keep the waiting list clear in that area. What we have from this government is an ad hoc, piecemeal approach where each year we see an amount added to the amount the government's providing, but we don't see a holistic, systemic response that deals with this issue once and for all.
Finally, I want to talk about another systemic, major failure of this budget, which is that it spends so much and builds up so much debt, with deficits as far as the eye can see, deficits of $30 billion or $40 billion a year out to 2031. So it's a debt which is continuing to grow. But what do we get for it? What do families get for it? What we had before COVID was the worst real wages growth on record. What we had before COVID was real disposable household income declining. That's a remarkable set of circumstances in a country where, for so long, each generation has expected, and rightly, that their circumstances would be better than the generation before. Under this government, that is thrown on its head. But, after that period of failure by the government, they spent $1 trillion, and what do we get in the budget papers? We get more years of zero and negative real wages growth. What that reflects is not just years of hardship for households and workers but an absolute failure of vision, a failure of reform.
This budget was about bedding down an economic recovery which is attributable to the hard work, dedication and ingenuity of the Australian people. But this government, through this budget, puts it at risk because it fails on quarantine and it fails on vaccines. Because it doesn't embrace reform, because it spends money without reform, the Australian public is also going to be subject to years more under this government of falling real wages, falling disposable income and falling living standards.
Ms THWAITES (Jagajaga) (12:21): The Morrison government's budget was a chance to lay out a long-term strategy to rebuild our economy and our country for the better. Unfortunately, despite racking up $1 trillion of debt, this budget was more of the same—a short-term political fix full of missed opportunities. When you unpick the headlines, what you realise is that this budget doesn't fix the issues that are affecting all of us. It doesn't fix wages. In fact, it predicts a cut in real wages. It doesn't address the climate crisis. There was no new investment in renewable energy. It doesn't take seriously the very real and very genuine concerns of Australian women. In fact, in the last eight years, this government has spent nearly as much on government advertising as it has on addressing violence against women. It is a series of announcements without substance. It's the kind that make you wonder, 'What is the point of this government, when it doesn't follow through, when it doesn't improve people's lives and when it doesn't take responsibility?' When government members come to this place and they spend question time giving each other pats on the back and telling themselves how well they've done and how they wouldn't be anywhere else, what out-of-touch hubris that is.
We are feeling the extreme consequences of that lack of responsibility and of the focus on headlines over delivery in Melbourne right now. Right now in Melbourne parents are scrambling to once again prepare themselves for trying to juggle home schooling and working from home. Local businesses in my community are being pushed to the edge. They are wondering if they can survive another lockdown. And all of us are facing the mental strain of not knowing what's coming next. Why are we going into lockdown? Because this government failed on its responsibilities—quarantine and vaccines. The outbreak in Melbourne at the moment started with a case that was transmitted from hotel quarantine in Adelaide. And, yet, despite it being clear for more than a year now that hotel quarantine is not fit for purpose, despite quarantine being a federal responsibility, there are zero dollars in this budget for new quarantine facilities.
The Head of the Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Nancy Baxter, was talking about this on the ABC this morning. She said: 'I can't think of a rationale for not trying to improve quarantine. You know, if it's the money, how much money is it going to cost to shut down Melbourne for a week? This can't be about the money.' Well, it's clearly not about the money. It is about a complete failure of this government to do its job. And yet, once again, this government is congratulating itself on a job well done.
Then we come to the vaccine rollout or the lack of a vaccine rollout. I've been very concerned in the past few days at the rise in cases in Melbourne. Due to that concern, yesterday my office contacted all the aged-care facilities in my electorate. I was devastated to learn that there is an aged-care facility in my electorate that has still not had its first vaccine. In fact, it was not scheduled to have its first round of vaccines until July. What a disgrace. These are vulnerable older Australians who are being left unprotected by this government. Not only that, in at least four of the facilities in my electorate staff have not been vaccinated and there is no plan to get them vaccinated. In fact, they've been told that they should just arrange to do that themselves. Again, what an abject failure of responsibility. If we think about how the outbreak started last time, how Melbourne got into the position where we were left with a very long, very difficult lockdown, it started with workers moving between aged-care homes. And yet we haven't vaccinated those people. Despite this being a federal government responsibility, the federal government has not put any attention to this. This morning Minister Colbeck told reporters that apparently he's, 'very comfortable with the rollout'. Well, I hope Minister Colbeck is comfortable with telling that to families in my electorate.
Some of the most difficult conversations I have had in my time as a member were with families of people in aged care last year during Melbourne's lockdown. Those were families whose older residents in those aged-care facilities had died. They were devastated. Of course they were devastated. Those were families who couldn't see their older relatives for a long period of time and spent that time worrying about them, not being able to go and check on what was happening to them in the aged-care facility. Of course they were scared. That was a terrible time. Why are we still here all this time later? Why are families going to have to go through this again, because of the failure of this government to do its job and to pick up its responsibility? It is an absolute disgrace and I think that they should be ashamed of themselves.
It's not just on vaccines that this government has failed aged care. I've been having discussions across my community in the past few months about how people realise that there is a systemic failure in aged care in our country. We saw so much of that highlighted through the royal commission into aged care. In this budget the government tipped more money into aged care so you'd think that might fix it. Unfortunately, once again, it's all money that's not doing the job it should. It's this government looking for a headline, looking for the political fix, and not following through.
Let's look at what the Morrison government didn't invest in aged care in this budget. They didn't tie increased funding to providing better food and care for residents so that it's not just swallowed up by private providers. They didn't accept the royal commission's recommendation to require a nurse to be on duty at all times in residential aged-care homes. They didn't improve wages and conditions for aged-care workers who are at the frontline of our system. Again, when I'm talking to people in my community who have experience in aged care or who know that they're getting to close to having experience with aged care what they tell me most, and what they are concerned about most, is the level of care their elderly resident or they might get in that aged-care facility. They know that the level of care that is provided at the moment isn't as it should be. They know that staff are underpaid and underworked. Of course, those staff themselves know that they are underpaid and underworked. Who would be an aged-care worker, working for a wage less than what you can get in McDonald's or in Woolworths, doing very, very difficult, very emotionally draining work caring for our older Australians? These people were ignored in Scott Morrison's budget. These people will not get a wage increase from the Prime Minister's budget. These people are being left behind.
We know that most of these workers are women. This was meant to be the budget for women. It was meant to be the budget when the Morrison government realised that a little bit over half of the population of Australia is female so we might want to do some things for them. Well, let's look at where women are in Australia at the moment. Let's look at what's happened to Australian women during the COVID recession and the situation that I think many women in my community will once again be in as we head into another lockdown. At the peak of the recession, more women than men lost jobs. At the peak of the recession, women spent three hours longer each day on household chores and caring responsibilities than men did. Two out of three women who experienced domestic violence during the pandemic said it started or got worse during the pandemic. And now we know that women are returning to work but returning to jobs where they have less security and fewer hours than men. Yet this was meant to be the budget for women. This was meant to be where the Morrison government got it.
Let's look at what we've found out in the past week about how they 'get' women, shall we? In the last week we've found out that there was a sham investigation into whether the Prime Minister's office was backgrounding against Brittany Higgins—a sham investigation conducted by the Prime Minister's own chief of staff. What disrespect to the bravery of Ms Higgins! Is that going to lead to any sort of change in behaviour in this Prime Minister's office? Of course not. We found out in the past week that, two years after the alleged rape that Ms Higgins has so bravely talked about—an alleged rape in this place of work—there have been no changes to security processes or procedures in this place, yet this government wants us to think that it takes women's safety and security seriously.
Of course, the member for Bowman, Andrew Laming, is still Chair of the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training in this place. He's drawing an extra $20,000 on his salary despite his completely inappropriate behaviour towards women in his electorate. How are Australian women meant to take this government seriously? You can't just put the word 'women' in a title and think, 'That's alright; that'll be fine.' You have to follow through. You have to have standards. You have to set behaviour standards, and you have to set them in this place, because the women in this place should be safe, just as the women around Australia should be safe. They need the Morrison government to take their concerns seriously. They need the Morrison government to realise that they will not be bought off with the title 'women' in a budget and they will not be bought off with sham investigations. They want genuine change.
Women in Australia should come out of this pandemic stronger than they were before. There should be a focus on women's work. There should be increases in pay for women who are doing the frontline work that is getting us through this pandemic: our aged-care workers, our childcare workers. These people should be paid appropriately. We would then know that our vulnerable Australians in aged care are being cared for as they should be. But this government, once again, is all announcement and no responsibility, no follow-through.
In the time remaining I would like to raise one further area where the Morrison government has stepped away from any sense of responsibility—that is, Australia's place in the world. Since the government came to office, in 2013, they've slashed Australia's official development assistance by more than $11.8 billion, hurting some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world, particularly those in our region. In particular it's hurting women, because we know that throughout this pandemic, around the world, it is women who are being hit hardest.
I was pleased to be at a briefing last night with the Global Partnership for Education, and with Julia Gillard, who heads that up, to talk about the effect the pandemic has had on women's and girls' education, in particular girls' education in developing countries. We know that when there's a disruption like this in countries where the education system isn't as well-resourced as ours, women and girls get pulled out of school, and they don't go back. They have to start work. These are young girls of maybe 11 or 14. They have to start work or they get married off. They don't get to go back and get an education. We heard last night from Julia Gillard but also from the country manager from Save the Children's Papua New Guinea program, and she was talking about the fact that in Papua New Guinea there are currently no female politicians. She was saying how her hope is that she can get more young girls in Papua New Guinea educated, so that one day they too might be elected to their parliament to help build a better future for women in Papua New Guinea. But those women and girls won't get there without an investment in their education, and, unfortunately, with our aid budget going backwards, this government will not be contributing to helping those women and girls get the education they deserve.
This is an investment in their future, but it is obviously an investment also in all of our futures. As this pandemic has shown us, these things are global. We are linked to the rest of the world. Despite the Prime Minister thinking that a 'fortress Australia' mentality will get us through this crisis, these crises affect us all across the world. They hit developing countries harder, and there are a lot of these countries in our region. It is in our interests, both as good neighbours and as people who care about the rest of the world and who do want to see women and girls get a decent education, to support these people. And it is in our national interests, as people who live in a neighbourhood where we want people to be safe, where we want decent health systems, where we want decent education, for us to take up that mantle. So it's so disappointing to see that there was no significant investment in overseas development assistance in this budget and that the Australian aid budget has been cut by 31 per cent since this government took office. Australian aid is now at the least generous it has been at any point in the history of our providing it. We rank 21 of 29 in the OECD for aid, and we're the 10th richest country in the world. I think Australia's better than this. I think Australia is better than this government—this government that's about announcements, this government that's about spin, this government that never takes responsibility, this government that has dropped the ball when it comes to vaccines and when it comes to quarantine, this government that's putting us at risk.
Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (12:36): I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2021-2022 and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022. For all the rhetoric, which we've heard a lot of from this government, this is a budget full of lost opportunities and one which, yet again—it's not for the first time—leaves the people of my electorate worse off.
When you look behind the rhetoric, there really is no substantive policy framework to be found. In my electorate, unfortunately, we don't even get the cameras, the fanfare and the announcements that eventually end up without any delivery. We don't get any of that, which some of my other colleagues have spoken about. We actually get nothing. So, if there's one overwhelming thread in the Morrison government's budget, it's that it actually fails to offer anything substantive to the Australian people and fails to account for how it will meet their real aspirations and their long-term aspirations that reach into the future prosperity of their children and their grandchildren. It goes to the government's lack of accountability when it comes to using public money to feed private coffers, which is why we need policies that reflect the practical realities on the ground and actually serve to deliver for everyday Australians—policies that go beyond rhetoric and afford people real opportunities.
That's the fundamental point of difference between us on this side of the House and those on the opposite side. Labor offers the Australian people the opportunity of a fresh start after eight long years of economic mismanagement by the Morrison government, and that's because Labor seizes on opportunities and, in particular, Australia's job opportunities. An Albanese Labor government will invest $100 million to support 10,000 new energy apprenticeships in a renewable energy industry that is poised to be part of our economic prosperity into the future. We will encourage apprentices to train in the new energy jobs of the future, and we need to start to speak about and articulate exactly where those energy jobs are and what they will be. We will deliver to apprentices who choose to train in the new energy industries up to $10,000—$2,000 on commencement and $2,000 a year for up to four years afterwards, including on successful completion. Why would these details behind Labor's policy framework be particularly important? It's because it speaks to the needs of the many people in my electorate who find obstacle after obstacle thrown in their way, especially the young people who are at a disadvantage when seeking out their first-year apprenticeships or traineeships. One of the main things that leaves people disheartened is that it's hard to get picked up as a second- or third-year apprentice when you couldn't get a look in for your first year to begin with. Then there are those who lose their job going into the final year of their apprenticeship and are left scrambling for an offer from someone to allow them to complete their qualification so that they can go on and establish themselves and work for a living in the area they have been trained in.
The reality speaks for itself. We have 140,000 fewer Australian apprentices today than we had when the coalition came to office. It's no wonder when, on top of all of this, billions are ripped out of TAFE and vocational training, which actually offer pathways and opportunities for people in my electorate. At a time of high unemployment and skills shortage, we're apparently supposed to entrust our economic recovery to a government that presides over 140,000 fewer apprenticeships today than eight years ago—a government that compounds the problem by ripping away the pathways that could actually address this crisis. How does the Morrison government propose to address this skills crisis, since it has presided over eight years of cuts to TAFE? They have been eight damaging years that have attacked the people in my community on two fronts: by reducing the availability of relevant pathways for new skills for young people, and by destroying opportunities for experienced workers looking to reskill or even upskill in emerging industries.
Compare and contrast the Morrison government's cuts to TAFE with the Victorian Labor state government's recent budget announcement of $60 million in funding for redevelopment of the Kangan Institute's Broadmeadows campus, which is in my electorate. Labor governments demonstrate that we value and deliver on the fact that Australian jobs must be good, secure jobs, driven in part by clear employment pathways that are all about delivering on fairness and opportunity, because a national recovery must be precisely that: truly national and all encompassing, focusing on jobs—good, secure well-paid jobs. These are the sorts of opportunities that make a real impact on the lives of many in my electorate who, for far too long, have had to contend with a two-track economy that I sometimes refer to as the three Ps: postcode, policy and prosperity. It is often the reality of these policies that their impact—whether you have it pretty good or pretty hard—can be discriminatory, depending on where you live. I know we live in strange times, but some things are just so far removed from reality that they're hard to even comprehend. By that I mean this: how can this government claim to speak for true believers when it has spent eight years trashing the very thing that is most dear to them: job fairness and security—a fair day's pay for a fair day's work?
The party of those opposite, the party of Work Choices, is an antiworker party. On this side of the House, job fairness and job security are not just empty slogans; they are at the heart of Labor's policy and our commitment to standing up for the interests of working people. That is why I'm very proud that an Albanese Labor government will legislate to criminalise wage theft. The figures reflected in a report by PricewaterhouseCoopers show that the scope and scale of wage theft in Australia is rampant across the board. The figure for the underpayment of Australian workers entitlements is $1.35 million every year, and I'm particularly concerned about its impact on migrants, who are disproportionately affected. Rather than ignoring this problem and playing political games, the Morrison government needs to pass legislation establishing criminal penalties for employers who are deliberately involved in wage theft. A government that claims to govern for all Australians, a government that wants to claim it speaks for the true believers, cannot preside over and enable systematic wage theft.
This undercutting of everyday workers who make the systems we rely on function seems to prevail across every sector that the Morrison government presides over. One has to look no further than our aged-care system as a case in point. It is a system where aged-care workers are being paid at the bottom of their award and where it's more lucrative to be working at McDonald's than it is to be caring for older Australians. Rather than adopting the recommendations of the royal commission to address this, the government simply takes note, like some sort of bystander simply walking past, detached from the reality and experiences of most Australians. These are some of our most important workers. They are working within a system that is, quite frankly, a mark of shame on our national character. What's occurring right across our aged-care system is a national disgrace. The horror stories and the gross neglect that the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety found really ought to make this government hang its head in shame. When you look into the details of the government's response to the royal commission, it really goes to show that they either are incompetent, insofar as they don't understand the real issues behind the gross neglect, or don't even wish to begin to address the real issues. My fear is that the Morrison government's response is very much a mixture of both incompetence and a lack of caring.
The royal commission recommended that strict accountability measures be put in place for providers, including public reporting that includes:
i. details of the provider's expenditure to meet the basic needs of residents, especially their nutritional needs, and will include spending on raw food, pre-processed food, bought-in food, kitchen staff … and the average number of residents
That was the royal commission's recommendation in relation to appropriate feeding of our aged-care residents. What was the government's response to this? It was simply:
The supplement will be payable once the residential aged care provider has given an undertaking that they will report to Government on expenditure on food on a quarterly basis.
That's a blank cheque to providers, with absolutely no accountability. It is not tied to the number of residents, to the care of older Australians or to a resident's nutritional needs in an aged-care system where somewhere between 22 per cent and 50 per cent of aged-care residents are malnourished. Instead it's a $3.2 billion gift to providers. We've seen how providers relish funds from the government in relation to their own spending, and we saw that in Victoria last year. There are no strings attached. There is nothing to ensure that public funding doesn't go to management bonuses and isn't redirected to benefit the bottom line of the provider. It really goes to where I began. Rather than addressing the needs of a significant part of our population, the Morrison government's policy responses instead are driven by one thing and one thing only: the use of public money to fill private coffers. That is one of the fundamental problems in aged care.
Stemming from this, one area which is of particular concern to many people in my electorate is the government's failure to adopt the royal commission's recommendation to meet older Australians' preference to age in place. This goes right to the heart of the issue of home-care packages. For migrant communities in my electorate, home care as an option quite often takes precedence over residential care. Often families are not inclined to have elderly parents sent to nursing homes. They do that only when it's absolutely necessary. How could you even begin to instil confidence in a system where specialised multilingual services in aged care are not up to scratch and where culturally appropriate residential care is seriously lacking? In a system that is defined by gross neglect, it's no wonder that people have no faith in its integrity.
The royal commission recognises this and calls on the government to deliver a home-care system that is demand driven rather than rationed. It's very clear that the government must immediately increase the home-care packages available and keep the waiting lists clear by the end of the year and onwards. It's the only way we're going to address the demand for home care amongst our elderly as we move forward. The Morrison government simply ignores this critical area. The waiting lists will, unfortunately, remain; care will be rationed; and clearly the neglect will continue.
There's a lot to be said about the neglect in this government's budget in aged care as well as in other areas, but I want to close on this: a budget which does not place people at the heart of policy considerations is a failed budget. It's clear that the people in my electorate are not a factor in the Morrison government's budget. It fails them, and it fails to deliver on the opportunities that should be open to all Australians, regardless of where they live, regardless of what their postcode is. Frankly, it's a budget of abandonment for the people I represent in the federal seat of Calwell.
Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (12:48): Australia is now on track to head to $1 trillion of debt, and it is incumbent on those of us on this side of the House to look at the quality of that spending. You can't look at the quality of the spending by the Morrison government without looking at the question of scandals. We have seen a government replete with rorts, scandals and handouts to mates. The sheer volume of the scandals can sometimes overwhelm. Each scandal crowds out the previous one. So I want to take the House through a succession of scandals by the Morrison government and talk about the misuse of public money involved in that. I do so in the context of a budget which has devoted some $9 billion to 20 slush funds in which ministers have discretion over spending as they have over past spends. We have seen the annual spend by Commonwealth departments on contractors and consultants to do work formerly carried out by public servants more than double over the past five years and now total more than $5 billion a year.
In 2017 Home Affairs awarded $423 million in contracts to a little-known company called Paladin to provide asylum seeker security and site services on Manus Island. At that time, Paladin's registered address was a beach shack on Kangaroo Island and it had just $50,000 in capital. While Paladin received around $1,400 per asylum seeker per day, it paid its security guards $450 a month. The company made $1.3 million in profits every week, and documents released to the Senate in September 2019 revealed that Paladin breached its key performance indicators thousands of times.
In April 2018 we had an announcement from then Prime Minister Turnbull that the government would give $444 million to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, an organisation with six full-time staff, annual revenue of about $10 million and no track record of managing half a billion dollars in Commonwealth funds. Managing Director Anna Marsden said the charity had never asked for the money. The first time they knew about it was when the offer was made. When the Australian National Audit Office examined the awarding of the grant, it found both planning and oversight to be inadequate. The department said that was because the Great Barrier Reef Foundation would leverage new contributions, and the foundation itself said it aimed to attract some $357 million from other sources, but by July 2020 it had raised only $22 million of in-kind donations. How much cash did it raise? None at all.
We had in 2017 the example of Eastern Australia Agriculture, a company co-founded by Minister Angus Taylor. Eastern Australia Agriculture was paid for overland flows. The overland flows are hard to price, because floodwaters only occur irregularly, but a recent purchase had been $800 per megalitre. Other valuations had been between $1,100 and $2,300 per megalitre. The eventual price paid to Eastern Australia Agriculture by the Commonwealth was $2,745 per megalitre. If you take the mid range of what the department had priced such rights at, they paid Eastern Australia Agriculture nearly double the mid-range price. Indeed, Eastern Australia Agriculture had self-valued its entire water holdings at $79.5 million in 2016. Just the next year the Commonwealth paid them more money for less than half of their overland flow water. Indeed, it wasn't the better half; it was the worse half: the less reliable half of their overland flow water.
Eastern Australia Agriculture booked a $52 million profit on the transaction and sent it off to their parent company, headquartered in the Cayman Islands. You can't make this stuff up. At a time when Australia should be cracking down on tax havens, we had a company founded by a minister, located in a tax haven, receiving excessive payments from the federal government itself.
The Australian Federal Police were called in to investigate the Leppington Triangle land purchase, in which the department approved the purchase of 12 hectares of land near the proposed Western Sydney airport and paid $30 million for land that had been valued at $3 million just a year earlier. The overpayment in that case didn't lead to any convictions of incompetence or wrongdoing, and the Australian Federal Police have yet to bring to account those who paid 10 times the value of the land.
As Karen Middleton noted in the Saturday Paper:
In the federal election period between March 1 and May 23—
of 2019—
almost $2 billion in grants across 20 programs were effectively rubberstamped through regulations.
One of these was the so-called sports rorts affair, in which colour-coded spreadsheets were used to hand out funds, which were skewed towards coalition seats in a deeply partisan manner. There was the Urban Congestion Fund: $3 billion spent; 83 per cent went to coalition seats or target seats for the coalition—marginal Labor seats. There was the $3 billion spent via the Community Development Grants Program, of which coalition seats received more than 75 per cent. There was the $150 million Female Facilities and Water Safety Stream Program, which ended up being spent on building swimming pools in just 11 seats that were held by the Liberal Party and the National Party. There were no guidelines, no tenders, no application processes, and yet, according to the ABC, there were 41 spending promises made from that fund before the 2019 election.
There was the $22 million Communities Environment Program, in which one marginal Liberal seat holder announced $40,000 of funding before the program was even opened. There was the $55 million Safer Communities Fund, better known as the 'safer seats fund', administered by Minister Peter Dutton. There were Minister Paul Fletcher's multiple election campaign grants. A $60 million Mutual Understanding, Support, Tolerance, Engagement and Respect initiative distributed grants on a closed, noncompetitive basis that required an invitation to apply for it. There's the Building Better Regions Fund, recently analysed by journalist Rosie Lewis from the Australian, who found that 27 per cent of the funds went to the electorates of the four ministers who were overseeing it. There are the Regional Growth Fund, the Drought Communities Program, the Regional Jobs and Investment Packages—all of which disproportionately went to coalition seats.
We've had a $5 million grant awarded to CT Group, formerly Crosby Textor, to conduct research relating to a small-business campaign, for which the public never got to see any of the results. There was the contract in 2020 to Resolve Strategic, worth more than $1 million, awarded by Treasury, for market research informing the government's so-called comeback campaign. This is fundamentally Liberal Party research being paid for by taxpayers.
And then we have the incident of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer billing taxpayers almost $5,000 to take the Prime Minister's private jet from Canberra to Sydney for Lachlan Murdoch's 2018 Christmas party. Special purpose aircraft must only be used where the primary reason is parliamentary business, and there was not even an attempt to justify it. I've drawn, in much of this, on research done by Nick Feik, published in the Monthly, in which he says:
When was the last time we heard a Coalition minister cite principles of responsibility, or reveal salient facts and documents voluntarily, or pledge to support an organisation or individual that had revealed something that embarrassed the government?
Crikey has recently noted the 27 falsehoods that they can identify to the Prime Minister, some of which go precisely to the issues I've been talking about today. I won't use the word that Crikey has used to describe it, but there are, thankfully, a range of synonyms. There was the fabrication in question time on 7 December 2020, where the Prime Minister said:
I thank the member for his question and wonder why he'd want to bring personalities into this, given that Mr Rudd has done the same thing—
in other words, leaving the country during the pandemic. He was forced to apologise for that the same day.
Then there was the falsification by the Prime Minister on 29 September 2020, claiming that if went go down to Port Botany or Kurnell and looked out you could see ships which were carrying medical supplies being delayed. The number of ships was considerably lower than the Prime Minister had claimed and none of them contained medical supplies.
There was the departure from the truth in which the Prime Minister said on 7 September 2020, 'The agreement puts Australia at the top of the queue.' However, the Australian government is not even in the top 100 countries for the vaccine rollout.
In relation to the sports rorts affair, the Prime Minister said on 13 May 2020, 'The only authority sought from the Prime Minister's office and from me was in relation to announcements.' But this was clearly a myth, a flight of fancy, a figment of the imagination, because the Australian National Audit Office had shown that the Prime Minister's office dictated the removal and addition of sports grants to the Minister for Sport's office for the political benefit of the government. The Prime Minister uttered another half-truth, a falsity, on 29 January 2020, saying, 'It is important to note that the Auditor-General did not find there were any ineligible projects that were funded under the scheme.' In fact, officials from the Australian National Audit Office had told the Senate inquiry that 43 per cent of the projects funded under the program were ineligible when agreements were signed.
There was the statement by the Prime Minister on 20 January 2020—'Our per capita emissions will fall by half over the next 10 years.' This was clearly a tall story, a whopper, a pork pie, because the government's own December 2019 emissions forecast showed a fall of 19 per cent, not 50 per cent, over the next year. We had the Prime Minister in an interview with David Speers on 12 January 2020, saying, 'Emissions today are 50 million tonnes less on average each year under our government than under the previous government.' This was clearly some form of dissimulation, a terminological inexactitude, a form of fiction. It is in fact the case that, according to the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory data, emissions were down five million tonnes, not 50 million tonnes. Of course, little of that has anything to do with the Prime Minister's policies.
The Prime Minister said on 4 January 2020, via Twitter, 'The video message the Liberal Party ran during the summer bushfires simply communicates the government's policy decisions and the actions the government is undertaking to the public.' This is some form of mendacity, deceit and duplicity when in fact the ad was on behalf of the Liberal Party and authorised by the Liberal Party and the homepage solicited donations to the Liberal Party—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Llew O'Brien ): That last comment needs to be withdrawn.
Dr LEIGH: I withdraw. There's the statement by the Prime Minister on 3 January 2020, saying: 'We took the advice to the fire commissioners, and the fire commissioners' advice was the same as that which is being provided. So we've acted on that advice.' In fact, there had been a request for funding by the National Aerial Fire Centre which was refused by the government. That's another form of perjury, misleading the Australian people. It's a sham and a ruse. The Prime Minister needs to be straight with the Australian people and end the rorts.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (13:04): The Morrison government is responsible for our aged-care system. It is clearly a Commonwealth responsibility. In fact, because of his actions as minister and Treasurer, Prime Minister Morrison has a personal responsibility for the billions cut from our aged-care system. Prime Minister Morrison and his cronies are responsible for the terrible neglect identified by the royal commission. The nation has been shocked and horrified at the neglect uncovered during the royal commission hearings—horrific neglect including residents of aged care with maggots in wounds, and two-thirds of residents being malnourished or at risk of being malnourished. For eight long years the coalition government have failed to listen to our valuable Australians who are in aged care. They've failed to listen to the families of aged-care residents. They've failed to listen to the workers who give so much in aged care. In fact, they've treated them almost with contempt. The coalition have failed to listen to 22 expert reports. The time for kicking the can down the road is over now. Prime Minister Morrison can't say, 'Look, I don't hold a Zimmer frame, mate.'
Sadly, now that the royal commission into aged care has handed down its final report, the Morrison government's response shows that they haven't listened to the royal commissioners either. The facts were horrific, but the coalition's response is woeful. They have no plan for reform that will improve aged care in the long term. They've fobbed off, delayed or outright rejected key recommendations. For example, they have not committed to improving wages for our overstretched, undervalued aged-care workers. Aged-care workers caring four our most vulnerable citizens are being paid less than someone working at McDonald's. The royal commission recommended immediately increasing the basic daily fee by $10 per resident per day to improve nutritional and care outcomes. The government's response? They decided to throw $3.2 billion to providers without any of the reporting requirements laid out by the royal commission. There's no way to ensure that this money will actually go to food and care; it will probably end up as bonuses for management. We need more meals, Prime Minister, not more Maseratis. They've failed to clear the home-care package waitlist. There are 100,000 Australians who need extra support to safely stay in their own homes, but the Morrison government has told them, 'Manana, manana.' The coalition has ignored the royal commission's recommendation to require a nurse to be on duty 24/7 in every residential care facility. They just ignored that recommendation altogether. It was a key recommendation that is core to improving care for older Australians in our aged-care facilities. Prime Minister Morrison also shirked the main increase to mandatory care minutes in residential aged care. Staffing levels are central to the many of the quality care problems in residential aged care. We know we're going to need an additional 700,000 workers in aged care by 2050 to cope with our ageing population. There is no way that is achievable when these jobs are disrespected and undervalued by this government. After eight long years of neglect, the Morrison government's response to the recommendations of the royal commission is utterly shameful. The Treasurer and the Prime Minister should hang their heads in shame.
When I'm home in Moreton, every morning I walk through the beautiful Toohey Forest. Toohey Forest is typical of the open eucalypt forest that once covered Greater Brisbane. As well as being a favourite walking and riding spot for locals, it is home to over 400 species of native wildlife and plants. Professor Darryl Jones from Griffith University—the campus adjoins Toohey Forest—says Toohey Forest is an ecological island in suburbia. It is estimated that about 30 koalas call Toohey Forest home. We're very fortunate to have a colony of koalas just 10 kilometres from the Brisbane CBD. For locals like me, the koalas are almost in our backyards.
We can't be complacent about these iconic Australian animals. Most koala populations are heading towards extinction. The National Koala Conservation and Management Strategy ended in 2014, and the coalition government still hasn't delivered another one. They haven't even delivered a recovery plan for the koala, which was initially due by 2015. After the horrific bushfires last year, the Australian Conservation Foundation says, a recovery plan is now even more urgent. I don't want to see a future where our children or our grandchildren are reading about koalas in history books like we today do for the Tasmanian tiger. Sadly, Australia is heading down that path right now.
Australia's environment is in decline. National icons like the koala have died in record numbers. Environment department funding has been gutted by 40 per cent. Successive ministers in the coalition government have run the department into the ground, and the Morrison government has little idea what has happened to our threatened species. It's a disgrace—a national disgrace. The decisions we take now will impact Australia's national icons and less charismatic species and, vitally, our biosecurity for generations to come. Under the coalition, 170 out of 171 outstanding threatened species recovery plans are overdue, and the Morrison government has no plan to get these done. Labor's shadow minister for the environment and water, my next-door neighbour, has called on the government, in parliament, to make a threatened species recovery plan and to make a new national koala conservation strategy. We need the Morrison government to do more to protect this important national icon, especially after thousands of koalas perished during the bushfires in 2019 and last year. We need the Morrison government to act now. Time is running out for our threatened species like the koala.
My heart is breaking for Victorians who today are going into their fourth lockdown due to COVID-19. I know that this is very, very hard personally for families. I thank all Victorians for doing this for all of us. Until we are all vaccinated this is the only way we can hope to contain this dreadful virus. I had my AstraZeneca vaccine a couple of weeks ago because I became eligible to get it. I encourage everyone who is eligible to get vaccinated now to do so as soon as they can.
Our rollout of vaccinations has been incredibly slow. It hasn't only been slow, it's been completely botched from the start. The AMA has called for a strong community information campaign in the face of recent research that reinforces anecdotal evidence that vaccine hesitancy rates in Australia are increasing. In the United States Dolly Parton and others came on board to encourage people to get vaccinated. That was a great US advertising campaign. In the United Kingdom Elton John was in their campaign. In New Zealand they had a 'strong pathway to freedom' campaign. What did Australia have? Nothing—effectively no advertising at all about getting vaccinated. The Prime Minister says it's not a race, but it is a race, a race against the next wave of COVID-19, should that happen. Our vaccination rollout is proceeding at a glacial pace. We only clicked over to one million doses in the middle of April, and prior to that the Prime Minister had said we would have four million doses by the end of March.
I have never been one to envy the US health system but let's look at them. The United States is putting four million doses into people's arms every single day. The United States has delivered 175 million doses and the Morrison government has delivered one million doses. Half of adult Americans are vaccinated. The rollout needs to happen much quicker than it currently is. Around the world we're seeing virus mutations or virus variants start spreading in countries that were previously doing as well as Australia—countries that obviously aren't an island state. Obviously we get the benefit of being an island state.
Before this latest outbreak in Melbourne there were 17 other outbreaks from hotel quarantine in the last six months. Just to be clear, the current outbreak developed from an outbreak in a quarantine hotel in South Australia and the person travelled to Victoria. It doesn't matter where it occurred, but we know that hotels are not built for quarantine. The Prime Minister has been warned for many, many months that hotels are built for tourism not medical quarantine. Quarantine is squarely the responsibility of the federal government, the Constitution says so. There is no shirking that. Why won't the Prime Minister act on recommendations he's received for months now to build purpose-built quarantine facilities that will take the pressure off our CBDs and keep Australians safe—maybe also put some dollars back into the regions? These outbreaks are costing Australians enormously. The Prime Minister had two jobs: to get Australians vaccinated and to facilitate safe quarantine for those arriving in Australia. He's failed at both of those jobs.
Recently I met with a group of residents from Eight Mile Plains, a suburb in my electorate. Most of the people I met with lived in London Street, Eight Mile Plains, and many of them were long-term residents—some have been there for over 40 years. London Street is not far from Brisbane Technology Park, which is local business hub in Moreton. The technology park is a great place for work—some great innovation occurs there. However, it's not the best place for parking. Most people have had to pay to park on site so most of the workers who used to park there for free decided to park on local streets like London Street because, understandably, they don't want to pay for parking. This, of course, upset the local residents because their small suburban streets became clogged by cars that parked all day long. So the LNP Brisbane City Council introduced parking restrictions that prevent people parking on streets like London Street between 7 am and 10 am, which you might think is a good thing, but, sadly, it also means that the residents now can't park outside the homes that some of them have lived in for 40 years. The residents have then been told, 'You are not eligible for a parking permit.' The story of the residents of London Street, Eight Mile Plains is a common story. We see the issue of paid parking and its impact on suburban parking time and time again. There are numerous business hubs, like Brisbane Technology Park, all over the city of Brisbane, but little attention is paid to the impact that an increase in the number of commuters will have on the surrounding local residential infrastructure. Paid parking came in under the LNP city council's watch, and it has had a significant impact on areas like Brisbane Technology Park. It's time the Brisbane City Council and Lord Mayor Schrinner reviewed the parking scheme for the residents of London Street, Eight Mile Plains, so that a more practical, workable solution can be reached. The current scheme is unworkable.
Working families in Moreton are struggling with the cost of child care. The most recent data shows that local childcare fees went up by 8.4 per cent in just 12 months. I know wages didn't go up by the same amount. Across the country, childcare fees have skyrocketed by 35.9 per cent since the Liberals were elected. Australians pay some of the highest childcare costs in the world. The Morrison government's childcare system has failed to keep childcare costs down. Many local parents have raised this with me in the streets and at street stalls. There is a reasons that business groups, economists and other experts are all calling for urgent reform when it comes to child care. KPMG has estimated that childcare reform could generate between 160,000 and 210,000 additional working days a week. That's the equivalent of 30,000 to 40,000 full-time jobs just from fixing up child care. Reforming child care could generate GDP growth of between $4 billion and $11 billion per annum. This is low-hanging fruit. Making child care cheaper has a triple dividend: it's good for parents, it's good for children and it's good for the economy. Reducing the cost of child care allows more parents to work more hours, and then our economy benefits.
The design of the current childcare system means that many second income earners, usually women, are financially disincentivised from working a fourth or a fifth day in the week, when they're making those juggling decisions. In some cases, families lose money if the second income earner works more than three days. Even though the work is available, they would end up losing money. Labor's plan will cut childcare fees and put more money into the pockets of working families straightaway. Under our plan, 97 per cent of families will save money. What will we do? Labor will scrap the $10,560 childcare subsidy cap which often sees women losing money for that extra day's work; we'll lift the maximum childcare subsidy rate to 90 per cent; and we'll increase childcare subsidy rates and taper them for every family earning less than $530,000. Labor's cheaper childcare policy will be great for local families. More importantly, it will be helping the Australian economic recovery. This will be a boost in productivity and a boost for all families. We need the Labor Party to be elected so that we can roll out a cheaper, more affordable childcare system.
Dr FREELANDER (Macarthur) (13:18): I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022 and the related bills before the House. I came to this place with a number of goals and objectives. One simple goal, however, that has guided me since I was first elected, is to be a voice for Macarthur and for my constituents. Being elected to the House of Representatives has been the greatest honour of my life, and the fact that my community placed their trust in me to be their voice and their advocate on the federal stage was incredibly humbling. I have been determined from day one to repay that trust, to be a voice for Macarthur and to advocate for my region's needs.
We've had some pretty good wins despite being in opposition. We've been able to get some good things done, including a number of very important social projects. I have always approached this job in a spirit of bipartisanship and through engaging with the private sector, working with the public sector and trying to bring people together. The wins that we've had—like securing funding to finally upgrade the Wedderburn bridge, which used to flood all the time, and working with the state government to fund the Shepherd centre of excellence for deaf children and their families—have been great. But my list of wants for Macarthur is very extensive, and the work has to go on.
I originally stood for public office to provide my community with a voice that would be heard across the country. I think their needs have been ignored for too long, and that includes being ignored by governments of all persuasions. On all levels, government has turned a blind eye to the needs of south-west Sydney for far too long, content with exploiting its local residents and businesses but providing little by way of investment in return. We've had massive development in Macarthur but without the infrastructure that people so desperately need. Throughout my time in office, I've observed that the coalition are content with upholding this status quo, and it's not good enough.
I'll spend a little bit of my time today again highlighting some of the needs of Macarthur residents. I have spoken before about the government's inability to consider the needs of young people, the contempt with which they've treated youth through their policies and their inaction, and their difficulties in understanding the problems that young people are facing in this incredibly complicated age. One of the other burdens the government has given us is huge debt that younger generations will be paying for a long, long time.
The budget has really not provided the support that my constituents need. In particular, in spite of the government promising infrastructure and talking big about providing support for the regions, in outer metropolitan south-west Sydney we are getting none of the infrastructure funding that we desperately need. There are major projects that are occurring in the area, such as Western Sydney airport, which is lacking in public transport from the south-west and lacking in the infrastructure that would enable my constituents to go to the airport precinct either for travel or for jobs.
There's waste on a massive scale in other areas. For example, the New South Wales state government gave Hornsby Shire Council over $70 million for a park. There's been misappropriation of taxpayers' money and a whole range of rorts, including sports rorts, council rorts and all sorts of rorts, but there is no accountability. The government's ability to provide desperately needed infrastructure such as the NBN has been compromised by their lack of commitment to providing a service in my electorate. The poorly maintained copper network is part of the reason why so many areas in Macarthur are not getting good NBN speeds.
The same man who criticised the government for spending money to stimulate growth during the GFC, which Labor managed very well, is the same man now presiding over a government that's amassing $1 trillion of debt while giving nothing to the Macarthur electorate. It continues to throw money at some taxpayers, such as billionaires, while intentionally keeping the wages of everyday Australians stagnant. This Prime Minister and this tired government have no plan to address the flatlining wages of everyday Australians, unless you're fortunate enough to be on the Forbes rich list. This is a great injustice, and it perplexes me that the government continues to get away with it at the expense of ordinary taxpayers.
Time and time again, I reiterate, they find ways to say no to my community. They say no to a desperately needed rail line. I've been pushing very hard to have the heavy rail line extended from Leppington to Western Sydney airport. This would provide not only transport for the new suburbs that are popping up around the airport—such as Willowdale, Gregory Hills, Gledswood Hills and all those other new suburbs that people have not heard of before—but also a freight link and a corridor for infrastructure such as a fuel line, the NBN et cetera. Yet this government always says no to my electorate.
They say no to a desperately needed facility to address the shortfall of specialist services catering for children in schools in my electorate. Some suburbs, in spite of having thousands and thousands of children travelling long distances to school every day, are not being provided with a school in their local neighbourhood. We have some schools in my electorate that have 30 to 40 demountable classrooms—so many demountable classrooms that they no longer have playing fields, because these classrooms are put on their playing fields. We have schools that are so overcrowded that they have more than three times the number of children that they were built for. This means that parents can't drive their children to school, because the roads can't deal with the traffic from the mums and dads dropping their kids off.
There are no funds for local sporting clubs. It's just bizarre to me that this government could fund yacht clubs and golf clubs for millionaires yet can't find the funding to provide lighting for sportsgrounds in some of the poorest suburbs in New South Wales. The government always say no to a wage rise for our workers. Stagnant wage growth is a deliberately designed tactic of this government. However, in the pandemic, billionaires have got richer.
Macarthur residents are struggling to gain access to basic infrastructure and services, even in health care. The government's ignoring their needs. With the changes the government's made to the Area of Need classifications for general practice, many of the newer suburbs in my electorate cannot find GPs willing to work there because of the lack of encouragement and lack of financial support for them. So we have new suburbs with very young families and many children who can't get general practitioners. In fact, a few weeks ago, I was rung by Alicia, a mother who has two autistic children. She was not able to find a GP to see her children, in spite of the fact that the children had epilepsy and required medication reviews.
Macarthur residents are struggling to get local jobs. They have to travel long distances and pay huge tolls on our toll roads. They are being discriminated against because of this. Sometimes their toll payments are up to $150 a week, which is a huge amount for working families. There's been a collapse of our public hospital outpatient system. Many people who have chronic illness—for instance, neurological disorders such as multiple sclerosis or epilepsy—cannot be seen as outpatients at our public hospitals. They have to pay to be seen in specialists rooms, with gap fees of up to $200 or $300, which means they just don't access care, which leads to a much poorer prognosis. Yet this government ignores those inequities in health care.
I think budgets are about choices. The choices that are being made today discriminate against many residents of Macarthur. My community always shoulder their fair share of the massive burden of the government's budget, but they deserve a fair return for what they're doing. They're young working families and they deserve a return on their taxes. As I have said, some of the new suburbs lack schools. Even in those that do have schools, the schools are on such a small footprint that they do not have adequate playing areas. The government needs to make sure that everyone has equitable access to education, and my community is being denied.
Without adequate investment, our ever-growing new suburbs are doomed to remain isolated. Without adequate public transport, our roads are destined to remain congested. With a lack of local jobs, residents will continue to be forced to commute for hours and hours every day to work. That commute takes away from family time. Families need their parents with them as much as possible. It is not fair for Macarthur families. Those opposite can continue to champion their infrastructure spend, but none of it is happening in Macarthur. The refusal to invest in our community will have dire consequences into the future. Those opposite do not seem to have a grasp on the basics of equitable support for communities. People from my community are concerned about the cost of living, how to make ends meet, how to put a roof over their heads, how to put food on the table and having quality time with their family. They deserve better.
Droves and droves of young families are moving to Macarthur each year. It's one of the fastest growing electorates in the country. I see these families all the time—at shopping centres, in my office and at events—and it's clear to me that they all value quality time with their family and quality time in their local area. Macarthur residents don't want to spend hours commuting to work every day and don't want to be stuck on the M5 or along Camden Valley Way; that time would be much better spent with their families.
Macarthur is struggling very much in the area of health care. Money is being spent on a new hospital but no money is being spent on people to staff it. Those who have been able to access health care in the past are now finding longer and longer waiting lists for elective surgery and longer and longer waiting times in our emergency departments. When the already extended outpatient clinics do exist, people have huge difficulty in getting into them, with waiting times sometimes over one year.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): Order! It being 1.30 pm, the debate is interrupted. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the date will be made for the order of the day for the next sitting. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed on a future date. In accordance with the resolution agreed to on 13 May 2021, the Federation Chamber stands adjourned until 12.30 pm on Tuesday 1 June 2021.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 13:30