The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 12:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
PRIVILEGE
Mr WILKIE (Clark) (12:01): I wish to raise a matter of privilege under standing order 51. The matter concerns an interlocutory judgement made on 1 June 2021 by Justice Yates of the Federal Court of Australia in the case of ClubsNSW versus Stolz. In essence, the judgement granted leave to ClubsNSW to obtain all items of correspondence between Mr Stolz and my office, including emails, text messages and documents. The background is that Mr Stolz contacted my office as a whistleblower informing me of widespread noncompliance by member clubs of ClubsNSW with anti-money laundering laws. I subsequently ventilated the matter in the House on 13 February 2020, including reference to a ClubsNSW board memorandum explicitly detailing this noncompliance. ClubsNSW is now suing Mr Stolz for breaching confidentiality obligations including in relation to his communication and provision of documents to me. In other words, the interlocutory judgement by Justice Yates means that ClubsNSW can use the correspondence between my office and Mr Stolz in their suit against Mr Stolz, correspondence that contains other sensitive and confidential information including the names of other actual and potential whistleblowers.
Mr Stolz did initially seek to raise privilege in these proceedings, but it is my understanding that, during a directions hearing, Justice Yates indicated it was improper for someone other than parliament to assert privilege. Whether that is the correct interpretation of the law is another matter but it means, for present purposes, that if we don't act no-one will, and parliamentary privilege will be eroded.
It is also my understanding that entirely irrelevant to the House is whether or not Mr Stolz shared information with other people and whether or not ClubsNSW pursues that matter, because the substantive issue before us here is the unbroken chain between Mr Stolz's approach to me as an MP and me doing my job and standing up in the House revealing his concerns. I submit that in the circumstances there's a prima facie case that section 16 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act precludes ClubsNSW from using the correspondence between my office and Mr Stolz. Indeed, that much is evidenced by section 16(3) of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987, which provides 'it is not lawful for evidence to be tendered or received … concerning proceedings in Parliament'. Moreover, proceedings in parliament are defined broadly in section 16(2), to include 'all words spoken and acts done in the course of, or for purposes of or incidental to, the transacting of the business of a House or of a committee'.
It is obviously important that the House protects itself against all acts or omissions which obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions, which is why I ask you to consider giving precedence to a motion to refer to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests whether the parliament should intervene in this case to protect privilege. I thank you for your consideration of this matter, Mr Speaker.
The SPEAKER (12:04): I thank the member for Clark and I will consider the matter in the normal way.
MOTIONS
Pensions and Benefits
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong) (12:05): I move:
That the House:
(1) notes:
(a) the Morrison Government recently settled the Robodebt class action in the Federal Court of Australia for $1.9 billion;
(b) the Court judgement declared Robodebt was:
(i) a "shameful chapter" and a "massive failure of public administration";
(ii) the cause of "heart-wrenching" financial hardship, anxiety and distress, including suicidal ideation and in some cases suicide;
(iii) a "huge waste of public money"; and
(iv) unlawful and inaccurate, something that "should have been obvious" to the Government; and
(2) calls on the Morrison Government to:
(a) explain to the House why nobody has been held accountable for Robodebt, the biggest compliance failure on record by an Australian Government;
(b) promptly provide all information requested by the Senate but withheld on the basis of a public interest immunity claim while the Robodebt class action was underway; and
(c) immediately establish a Robodebt Royal Commission.
The robodebt case is a sorry saga in the history of public administration in this country. On Friday there was a judgement handed down by the Federal Court where they found that this was a 'shameful chapter'. Indeed, I'm going to quote directly from the decision. Justice Bernard Murphy said in his summary:
In the course of the proceeding the Commonwealth admitted that it did not have a proper legal basis to raise, demand or recover asserted debts which were based on income averaging from ATO data.
Australians listening to parliament will be surprised to know that it cost $1.763 billion—
Mr COULTON (Parkes—Minister for Regional Health, Regional Communications and Local Government) (12:07): I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the member for Maribyrnong be no further heard.
The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?
The House divided. [12:11]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs) (12:14): I second the motion. Robodebt was illegal, incompetent and immoral. The Prime Minister is responsible—
The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs will resume his seat. The minister has the call.
Mr COULTON (Parkes—Minister for Regional Health, Regional Communications and Local Government) (12:14): I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The minister has moved that the member for Isaacs be no further heard.
The House divided. [12:16]
(The Speaker Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (12:14): The question now is that the motion moved by the member for Maribyrnong be disagreed to—sorry, this will be a deferred division. Just to explain, the first two divisions we had because the standing orders allow a minister to move for a division, but as a non-government member this will be deferred until after the MPI, in accordance with standing order 33. I won't read it all out; I think I've explained it. The member for Lalor has the call.
Member for Bowman
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (12:19): I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Lalor from moving the following motion immediately—That the House:
(1) notes:
(a) the Member for Bowman remains Chair of the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training despite pledging to resign from all parliamentary positions in March;
(b) the continued presence of the Member for Bowman as Chair diminishes the important work of this Committee;
(c) that Opposition Members of the committee wrote to the Prime Minister nearly three weeks ago asking him to act, and he has not even responded; and
(d) the Prime Minister's silence tells you everything about his respect for the views of women; and
(2) therefore, calls on the Acting Prime Minister to discharge the Member for Bowman from the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training immediately.
This man was accused of stalking a teacher while hiding in the bushes, and he shouldn't be chair of the education—
Mr COULTON (Parkes—Minister for Regional Health, Regional Communications and Local Government) (12:20): I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the member for Lalor be no further heard.
The House divided [12:24]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (12:30): Is the motion seconded?
Ms KEARNEY (Cooper) (12:30): Seconded. If the Prime Minister cared about the safety of women and the integrity of this House, he would remove—
Mr COULTON (Parkes—Minister for Regional Health, Regional Communications and Local Government) (12:30): I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the member be no further heard.
The House divided. [12:32]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (12:33): The question now is that the motion moved by the member for Lalor be disagreed to. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until after the discussion on the matter of public importance.
Debate adjourned.
BILLS
Special Recreational Vessels Amendment Bill 2021
Assent
Message from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the bill.
Fuel Security (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2021
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (12:35): The Labor Party will be supporting the Fuel Security Bill 2021, and I've indicated to the government that we will facilitate appropriate passage through both houses of parliament to ensure that it can start on time. The reason it needs to start on time is that the government have failed on the matter of fuel security. They've been all announcement and no delivery when it comes to fuel security. They promised, with great fanfare, to protect 1,000 new jobs and secure fuel supply, but they've overseen 950 job losses, and fuel supply has been threatened, not enhanced. On this government's watch, half of Australia's fuel refineries have closed.
A secure fuel supply is vital for a number of reasons. Most Australians would understand why. We live in uncertain times. This is important for our economy and it's important for our national security. It's important for production. It's important for our economy that our production lines aren't threatened by a lack of fuel security. We've seen over the last 18 months just how insecure some supply lines are. We talked about this before the last election. The member for Maribyrnong talked about fuel security. He was mocked by members opposite for even raising the matter of fuel security in Australia. But these clouds have been brewing for a number of years, and we've seen announcement after announcement, and broken promise after broken promise, from this government.
A Senate inquiry in 2015, some six years ago, recommended that the government undertake a comprehensive review of Australia's fuel security. It took the government three years, until 2018, to even announce they would do this review, with a due date of late 2019. Fuel security and the job security of thousands of refinery workers, like everything else with this government, get a call-up only when there's a bad front page afoot. The interim report on liquid fuel security was delivered to the government over two years ago, in April 2019, and the government still hasn't released the final report, which was due in late 2019. This is a government that has delayed and neglected the basics we need to keep this country running. The government chose not to act then, not even to deliver the final report. Thanks to its failure to act then, we've been left almost completely reliant on global supply chains for one of our most critical economic inputs.
The interim report identified a number of things that could have been acted on over two years ago. It identified serious noncompliance with international energy obligations for domestic fuel stocks. Our requirement is to have 90 days of fuel stocks domestically available, to help protect against global and domestic oil shocks. We weren't compliant then and we're not compliant now. In not one year of the last eight long years of this government have we been compliant, leaving us open to fuel shocks and leaving our national security vulnerable. We're currently at 58 days, still a huge 32 days short of the 90-day requirement.
This is very significant for the Australian economy and for our national security. On average, the Australian household spends the same amount of money on fuel as it does on electricity and gas combined, so it's critical that we have secure supplies, to prevent against price shocks. You can just begin to imagine how much the price of fuel would rise in an uncertain international geopolitical environment where our international supply was threatened. As I've said, it's also critical to our national security. We need fuel stocks for industry, defence and aviation in an increasingly volatile world.
We have a government that likes to talk big about national security—and the Prime Minister was out there last week misleading Australians about the role of this House and the role of the opposition on national security. Apparently this was going to be 'national security week'—when they were going to put through all this national security legislation—and 'a big test to Labor'. It has now been postponed until further notice because the government doesn't have its ducks in line; it doesn't even have one of the pieces of legislation out of the security committee of the parliament, the PJCIS. The Prime Minister was out there misleading Australians about national security last week, but his government is asleep at the wheel when it comes to national security and fuel supply.
In among the government's view on fuel security is their view on electric vehicles. The penetration of electric vehicles in the Australian market will very much change Australia's fuel market. I hope that happens sooner rather than later. The rest of the world is leaving Australia behind when it comes to electric vehicles. We lead the world in rooftop solar, which is being driven by Australian households. But because of this government's complete lack of framework and understanding and knowledge of electric vehicles we are being left behind when it comes to electric vehicles, with just 0.7 per cent of vehicle sales last year being electric vehicles. It was 60 per cent in Norway, and four or five per cent is quite common around the world, but it is less than one per cent in Australia—because this government doesn't get it.
More and more, we see states catching up, Labor and Liberal, with incentives for people to buy electric vehicles. But without a national framework we will continue to fall behind. Recently, the Leader of the Opposition and I announced our policy when it comes to the cost of electric vehicles: abolishing the tariff on electric vehicles below the luxury car tax threshold; and providing an FBT concession for employers who provide their employees with electric vehicles. These are necessary steps to incentivise the take-up of electric vehicles. Electric vehicles are good for the environment, coupled with the transition to a more renewable economy and renewable electricity generation. With the right policy framework, electric vehicles are potentially good for jobs in Australia.
But we are being left behind—and not because of the views of the Australian people. It is not that the Australian people don't want electric vehicles; a majority of Australians say they would consider one for their next car. But in Australia no electric vehicles under $40,000 are available and just five under $60,000 are available. That's not the case around the world. The government says electric vehicles are more expensive. It is partly, at least, because they are making them so. There are eight models in the United Kingdom cheaper than the cheapest model available in Australia. The inaction and scaremongering by those opposite—never forget the Prime Minister saying electric vehicles will ruin the weekend and won't tow your boat. He always goes for the scare campaign, not the policy solution. And he recently denied ever criticising electric vehicles. In one of his 'triumphs of honesty', he said he would never criticise the technology of electric vehicles—which was patently untrue.
Labor will cut the cost of electric vehicles with our electric car discount. We will abolish the tariff and we will provide a fringe benefit tax concession for affordable electric vehicles. The fact that this government still has no electric vehicle strategy in 2021 is an embarrassment—an embarrassment which costs Australians money, because electric vehicles are cheaper to run, and exacerbates the inaction under this government when it comes to climate change.
Even with a greater take-up of electric vehicles, we are still going to need a fuel supply for the foreseeable future—for industry—and it will take a long time for the flow of electric vehicles to replace the stock of internal combustion vehicles in Australia. So we are going to need fuel supply and fuel security for some time. And that is why we support this legislation. It is necessary legislation which is now long overdue. I will give you a reminder of the time line. A Senate inquiry reported in 2015, a full five years before COVID. They can't blame COVID for their lack of action, they can't say they've been distracted by the pandemic, because this hasn't been going for one year or two years, it has been going for multiple years. It took the government three years, until 2018, to announce that they would even do this review. We finally got an interim report four years after it was recommended by a Senate inquiry in 2019 and we still hear crickets when it comes to action.
Then we saw, of course, the photo op from the minister and the government last September that delivered nothing in terms of fuel security and nothing in terms of job security for fuel sector workers. Since then we've seen two refineries shut on this government's watch. Only two remain, and it is vital that those two remain in Australia. It's vital that the refineries in Geelong and Brisbane remain operating in Australia, because we need fuel security. It's vital for the workers in those establishments that they remain, of course. Let me briefly welcome the preselection on behalf of the Australian Labor Party of one of those workers in the Brisbane refinery for the seat of Petrie. We look forward to him joining us in due course in this chamber.
This government has been asleep at the wheel when it comes to fuel security. They are finally catching up. This legislation is good legislation in terms of design. It is appropriate that we have payments not when the refineries are making large profits but only when they are making a loss, to ensure their continued operation. We have no quibbles with the design of the legislation, but this legislation could go a lot further. We could be talking about improving our fuel security by increasing reliance on electric vehicles and therefore reducing our fuel needs. That is something we could be doing. If less fuel is needed for the domestic car fleet then fuel security is stronger in those regions where we will continue to need fuel production and supply, such as defence.
After eight years of consistently not doing enough for our onshore fuel, after mocking the Labor Party at the last election both for the member for Maribyrnong's fuel security policy and for our electric vehicle policy, they finally come to the party with this legislation. This legislation is supported by this side of the House, but I do move the second reading amendment which has been circulated in my name:
That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House criticises the Government for its failures on fuel security, including the closures of half of Australia’s refineries since October".
I commend both the second reading amendment and the bill to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Gillespie ): Is the amendment seconded?
Ms Rowland: I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
Mr SIMMONDS (Ryan) (12:47): I rise today to speak in support of the substantive Fuel Security Bill 2021 and speak about its importance to securing our long-term fuel security. It is a very important bill, as the previous Labor speaker, the member for McMahon, has pointed out, and we are pleased that the Labor Party is supporting it today.
I did note from the previous member's speech that Labor is having a bob each way, as they always do, and that the member spent more time trying to defend his failed electric vehicle policy from the last election than he did supporting the legislation. It just goes to show that the member opposite in particular and all those Labor members opposite still don't understand why they lost the last election and still want to prosecute this idea that somehow the voters got it wrong. The voters didn't get it wrong. Could it just be that, rather than sitting around in their homes, waiting for the member for McMahon to tell them that they had to take up an electric vehicle by a certain date, they might just like to make the choice of which vehicle they drive for themselves? I think the member for McMahon probably needs to jettison his failed policy, move on and support this particular legislation wholeheartedly, which he had the opportunity to do.
With that, I want to acknowledge the work done by Minister Taylor in putting together this particular piece of legislation. I know that he's passionate about keeping power prices down and providing certainty in energy markets. He's also a keen advocate for renewable technologies. He understands, as the government does, that for us to be able to back jobs, keep prices low and invest more in new energy sources we need a technology approach, not a taxes approach—the very opposite of what the member for McMahon and Labor propose. I thank the minister very much for the work that he's done in this space. The past 18 months have shown us why this bill is so important. The unexpected can happen. Our global supply chains can come to a halt for reasons beyond our control, and we have to have plans in place to secure the resources that we need, in this case our fuel reserves.
While many of us were forced to work from home during the pandemic, many were out on our roads delivering the essential services that we needed. If anything, the COVID-19 pandemic has allowed us to truly appreciate those essential workers—the truck drivers that delivered to Woolies and Coles and made sure that people had the food stocks that they needed, the farmers that made sure that our shelves were stocked, and the many fuel-dependent industries that kept on trucking so that we could keep going through the COVID-19 pandemic. It is with them in mind that we approach this bill. We know that fuel is crucial for the security of those truckers, farmers and tradies and the everyday commuters, and it must be secured in order to protect Australian jobs. Australia has shown that we can be self-sufficient in tough times, but to continue to do so we must have the legislative framework in place that locks in our sovereign capacity.
The measures in this bill will secure our fuel stocks, protect motorists from future high prices and recognise the fuel security services provided by our Australian refineries and the importance of having Australian based refineries. The bill addresses this in two important ways. Firstly, there is the fuel security services payment. As a proud Brisbane local, I'm pleased that this agreement also includes the Ampol refinery in Brisbane, which supports hundreds of local jobs. Backing both the Ampol refinery in Brisbane and the Geelong facility means securing our domestic refining capability into the future. These facilities will receive a variable payment to ensure they can continue operation, but, importantly, only when they need it. These facilities will not be paid when making a profit, only when the payment is needed to secure their ongoing capacity. When the Prime Minister visited the Ampol refinery recently, in my wonderful state of Queensland, he spoke on our commitment to fuel quality. We're working with refineries to bring forward our fuel quality improvements, from 2027 to 2024, by co-investing with them to ensure they can make the necessary infrastructure upgrades for low-sulphur fuel production. In the Geelong facility, in Victoria, that investment in the upgrade will see another 1,750 jobs for the local economy.
The second measure in this bill, which I think is just as important if not more important, legislates a minimum stockholding obligation. That is the baseline level of fuel that will be required to be held at all times. Commencing from 1 July next year, Australia will have a reserve level of fuel for our domestic needs at all times, futureproofing us against the unexpected global shocks that we now have a greater appreciation for, having been through the COVID-19 pandemic. This will apply across all major fuel types and enable the minister to set targets for fuel types at appropriate levels for Australia's sovereign needs. It is important we protect our fuel stocks. If we don't, those hardest hit will be Australian families and the essential workers that we rely on. I want to quote Dan Walton, the national secretary of the Australian Workers Union. It's not often that I quote the Australian Workers Union, but you know you're onto a good thing when even some of the most strident critics of the government can see the virtue in what you're doing. His quote was pretty simple:
We are extremely satisfied … The security of the production payment provision, along with the investment to make cleaner fuel, will underpin longevity for both refineries. Today's announcement will save thousands of jobs, both directly at the refineries and indirectly through jobs supported in the community.
It's not often I agree with the AWU, but I have to say that on this occasion they are spot on. That is what the outcome of this piece of legislation will be. We've also seen endorsements from across a range of stakeholders, including the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries, the Australian Trucking Association, Volkswagen and many more.
I spoke earlier about the minister's commitment to a range of different energies, including renewable energies, and it is important that we speak to those in the debate today. As part of the announcement, we have reaffirmed our commitment to work with both of these major refineries on their plans to consider future fuel technologies. We want these refineries to play a role in the rollout of fuels like electric vehicle charging and hydrogen infrastructure.
The Morrison government has already committed over $1.2 billion to increase the uptake of low- and zero-emission vehicle technologies, including $74 million through its future fuels package. Research on hydrogen fuels and hydrogen technology is being done in my own electorate of Ryan, in the suburb of Pullenvale, with local residents leading the way in Australia for that research. We understand that the future is renewables but we will not devastate industries or burden taxpayers—as those opposite will—without a transition plan. That's the path that we are on, a path that backs jobs and families and protects our environment, with a technology-not-taxes approach. It's a path that also ensures that we have the sovereign capability that Australia needs, that Australia's essential industries are protected with the fuel security that they need. That's what this bill will do. I commend the bill to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Gillespie ): The original question was that the bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for McMahon 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 amendment be disagreed to. I call the member for Lalor.
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (12:56): I was fascinated to listen to the member for Ryan demonstrate to us, in this House, his complete lack of understanding of this government's failure in fuel security and what it has meant for the west of Melbourne. I find it astonishing that we're here today to support a piece of legislation that is, absolutely, long overdue. It is incumbent upon us to remind this House, through this second reading amendment, of the incredibly poor history this government has in this space and that those outcomes and what they mean, in reality, to Australians, including those I represent in the seat of Lalor—the absolute loss of jobs in the west of Melbourne as a direct result of the inaction of this government—are beyond consideration. It is an absolute indictment on this government that they have sat on this necessary move for such a long time.
Let's look at the history of this, because it was not unforeseen. The clouds have been brewing for many years under this government. We have had eight years of this government and a Senate inquiry in 2015—let's just check that. It's 2021, nearly the end of the financial year. A Senate inquiry in 2015—six years ago—recommended that the government undertake a comprehensive review of Australia's fuel security problem. But this year I stood outside the Mobil refinery in Altona, with the member for Gellibrand and the member for Corio, to decry the fact that this government's inaction has caused that facility to stop refining and has cost 350 direct jobs. Lots of those people have lived for a long time in the electorate of Lalor. This was not unforeseen, yet here we are. Despite this government's inaction, we got too little too late. It has meant not just the closure of Mobil in Altona but also the closure in Kwinana.
When this sorry affair began, this time last year, we had four refineries operating in this country and we're now down to two. We have seen the closures of major refineries. Despite that Senate inquiry, it took the government three years, until 2018, to even announce they would do the review, with a due date of late 2019. Fuel security and the job security of thousands of refinery workers, like anything else with this government, gets a call-up only when there's a bad front page. The interim report on liquid fuel security was delivered to the government over two years ago, in April 2019. The government still hasn't released the final report. It was due in 2019. This is a government that has delayed and neglected the basics we need to keep the country running.
Even when there was action taken, the government were in such a desperate state that their failure to act meant that we were not meeting our requirements to have 90 days of domestic fuel stocks. We have got to the point now where we have 58 days. We're still 32 days short of the 90 days required. It's about fuel stocks and our being able to keep this country moving, but it's also about industry and local jobs in my electorate. This government's inaction means that Qenos, operating in Altona, have closed parts of their operation in Victoria, which has cost 150 jobs.
I can't stress this enough. I grew up in the electorate that I serve. I went to school with kids whose dads—it was generally dads at that time—worked at Mobil or at Qenos. They worked in refining and petrochemicals. They were good jobs. They built homes. They fed families. They kept a roof over people's heads. There are some people in my electorate who are the third generation of young people working in the petrochemical industry in the western suburbs of Melbourne. We know today that those people's children will not have those good operator jobs or be engineers in these industries, because of the eight long years and the failures of this government, and those opposite have absolutely ignored that. I had to sit here and listen to the member for Ryan talk about the fabulous jobs in oil refining in Brisbane. He is completely oblivious to the fact that we've just lost hundreds of jobs in Melbourne. We've lost them: engineers, operators, tradesmen and electricians. They are all out of work because of the failure of this government to do its job. It is an absolute shame that we have to stand here today and do this.
We support this legislation and, as the member for McMahon said, we support the notion that the refining industry needed support, but it needed it prior to now. It needed it before Kwinana and Altona closed. We are now left with two refineries in this country. What this government's failure to act on energy means for manufacturing in Victoria is extraordinary. We've got petrochemical industries operating there which, down the chain, so many industries are reliant on, including agriculture, water and road building. Those opposite have left the country at risk. Once those jobs in Melbourne are gone and once the jobs down the pipeline in Melbourne are gone it will mean that we are importing more products into this country when we should be manufacturing products for ourselves. And let's not get started on what the pandemic taught us.
The pandemic taught us very loud and clear that we are in at the end of the global supply chain, so the risks, we're now aware, are much deeper than we might have thought eight years ago. But now we're putting at risk not just our capacity to refine and to create skilled jobs but our capacity to keep other industries going onshore in this country, particularly in Melbourne's west, which has taken hit after hit since this government was elected. There were Toyota and Mobil, and now Qenos is closing parts of its operation in Altona. It's a shameful history. The member for Hume, who supposedly gets this, fails to act. Understanding is one thing, Member for Hume; action is another, and you have been too late to this party. You are too late for Melbourne's west, too late for the families in my electorate who were relying on those jobs, too late for the young people in my electorate who might have aspired to those jobs, too late for the apprentices they might have trained and too late for the supply chains further on to be able to continue to buy Australian products into their manufacturing, which also is further at risk.
I want to go to great pains here because, like the member for Gellibrand, I have met with many of our petrochems locally over the years as a representative here, and there's an important time coming right now. There may be those who think that this fuel security debate has nothing to do with an Australia with a renewables future, but it really isn't that simple. Part of a cleaner economy and a greener world will come when we're at the position where we can undo the chemistry that goes into plastics creation. The experts in this area tell me the world is on the brink of finding that chemical answer. If our petrochem industry isn't here when that happens, we'll have missed another opportunity to be part of the global solution. We'll be shipping plastics offshore again for somebody else to recycle, rather than building that capacity in this country and being part of the solution.
The clock is still ticking for this government in terms of energy security and ensuring that manufacturing can continue in this country. Despite the unedifying position we find ourselves in, where late last year the Prime Minister and the member for Hume were hailing their 'terrific fix' for our fuel security and for refining in this country, we found two refineries closed—all those skills, all those workers, all our capacity—and the creation of a reliance on other countries to provide us with what in manufacturing terms are staples. The government went out and had a photo opp—the Prime Minister, the member for Hume—to say, 'We've fixed it.' Yet we find ourselves here today looking at the legislation that we should have been looking at during the past eight years. Today it is too late for those workers I represent in the electorate of Lalor, it's too late for the families, it's too late for those industries and it's too late for us to rebuild our refining capacity, and it puts us at risk every day.
So, although Labor supports this legislation, we do have to make the point that it was too little, too late and that this legislation should have been here a long time ago. There should be absolutely no surprises for the members of the government, so it is a shock to me to listen to the member for Ryan speak today on this legislation, because it smacks of the absolute lack of understanding of those opposite on the importance of secure, permanent jobs. We are postpandemic, in a situation where recovery is potentially very patchy, and I don't think people opposite understand that either—that for all the good news in some suburbs, there is bad news in others. The 500 jobs lost in the west of Melbourne won't be replaced with permanent, secure, well-paid jobs that would build a home, feed a family, educate a family. That won't be happening.
The loss is felt very deeply in my community, because it's loss upon loss upon loss, and eight long years of a government that has no plans for jobs for Melbourne's west, no plan for secure jobs anywhere, and no plan for manufacturing in this country—absolutely no plan. As the member for McMahon said, we can look to renewable energies, which are linked to the notion of electric vehicles. And we remember the last election campaign, where the Prime Minister decried—and those opposite ran a campaign deriding—the notion that electric vehicles would be coming to Australia and suggested that electric vehicles are somehow an inferior product that won't tow your boat and that will wipe out weekends. This is what's important for those opposite to understand, and for people in the community to understand—because I know that even in my community there are those who say, 'Well, if the refining stops, that's good; we'll all go to electric cars.' That transition will take time. It will take a long time. In most cases, it will probably be those on the least income who will be last to afford the electric vehicle; therefore, those people need price security around the petrol that they're putting in their cars now.
So it isn't an either/or comparison and we are a long way from not requiring petrochemicals. We are a long way in so many areas from being able to create things using clean energy that this is not an either/or scenario and it is important people understand that we still need these industries. I certainly don't want to see the plastics industry only operating out of Sydney, the refining only operating out of Brisbane and Geelong. Because one of the other side effects of Mobil closing in Altona is that there were pipelines there into the petrochemical sites in Altona that will now be relying on truck transport from Geelong. So, for every good thing, there's a bad thing. I reiterate that Labor supports this legislation but we decry the fact that it has taken so long and that this government delivers too little, too late.
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (13:11): I rise today to speak on the Fuel Security Bill 2021. This incredible commitment by the Morrison government not only locks in Australia's sovereign refining capability and our long-term fuel security; it backs local jobs for local families in my electorate of Bonner. The Morrison government is taking strong action to support the Australian economy and is ensuring our critical services can keep running. The bill includes two key measures of the Morrison government's fuel security package—the fuel security service payment and the minimum stockholding obligation.
Fuel is crucial across the economy and, through these two key measures, this bill will champion our fuel-dependent industries—our truckies, our tradies, our farmers, our commuters, our miners and of course everyone who travels within Australia. This bill will help secure our sovereign fuel stocks and back local jobs and this bill will protect families and businesses from higher fuel prices, ensuring that Aussie families can keep more of what they earn.
Australia continues to lead the world in our comeback from the COVID-19 pandemic and we aren't slowing down. Our Prime Minister has made a commitment to maintaining a self-sufficient refining capability in Australia, a commitment that has been applauded by the fuel industry and by peak industry bodies. Locking in Australia's fuel security will deliver benefits for all Australians. Traditional fuels will continue to be the dominant fuel source for transport beyond 2030. We cannot be complacent about fuel security because of this.
The Fuel Security Bill supports the Ampol refinery in Lytton in my electorate of Bonner and Victoria's Viva Energy refinery in Geelong. This bill will lock in these refineries until 2027 and safeguard levels of key transport fuels through the minimum stockholding obligation measure. This is critical for our farmers, our emergency services, our truckies and our industries who rely on diesel to keep Australia moving. Without the passage of this bill, it is likely Australia's remaining refineries would close within the next five years. Between these two refineries, this would mean losing 1,250 direct jobs and that's 1,250 families. It would mean forfeiting 1,750 new construction jobs. The fallout would have a devastating impact on jobs in all fuel-dependent industries. The ramifications would be catastrophic for our local economy. That's why I was extremely pleased to welcome the Prime Minister and the Minister for Energy and Remissions Reduction, Angus Taylor, to Bonner for the announcement of this bill recently.
As part of the fuel security services payment measure, the refineries will be paid a variable production payment. What this means is, if there was a time either of these refineries was not making profit, they would be supported. It means our taxpayers are only supporting the sector when it is needed. On a local level, this support equates to 550 direct jobs in Bonner—550 highly skilled workers who can keep their jobs—and over 500 indirect jobs as well. The flow-on effect of this certainty in the local community cannot be underestimated. This is a government that is backing jobs.
When I joined the Prime Minister and Minister Taylor on a tour of the refinery, we walked past a worker who was holding up a handwritten sign which read, 'Thank you for supporting our refinery.' I was beyond humbled to read this, because this is exactly why we do what we do. These are real people—people with families and loved ones and people with passion for their work. These are people with incredible skills, which we absolutely must harness to ensure our sovereign capability. Ensuring our sovereign capability is essential. It means that we can prepare for any crisis and protect our families and businesses from higher prices at the bowser. This is where the minimum stockholding obligation measure of the bill comes into play. The Australian fuel market operates on a near just-in-time basis and is heavily reliant on global supply chains operating under normal conditions. Yes, this helps keep operational costs low, but it means the market is less prepared for disruptions. Implementation of the minimum stockholding obligation will provide certainty to fuel consumers that there is a baseline level of liquid fuel available in Australia at any point in time.
I say again: locking in Australia's fuel security will deliver benefits for all Australians. Fuel is what keeps us and the economy going. That is why the Morrison government is backing our refineries, and that's why the passage of this bill is essential.
Mr KEOGH (Burt) (13:16): Back in 2011, Australia had a liquefied fuel reserve well over the 90-day International Energy Agency requirements, but, over the last 10 years, Australia's seven fuel refineries have dwindled down to just two. Three years ago, with Australia's reliance on imported fuels increasing and about 45 tankers on their way to Australia every day, the Turnbull government announced that it would start meeting its IEA obligations through stockholding agreements with foreign entities—for example, that fuel being available offshore. Concern was felt by many in this parliament that this approach was leaving Australia vulnerable to supply chain shocks. COVID-19 has demonstrated that such supply chain disruptions are not just a theoretical possibility.
Unfortunately, the solution offered up by the Morrison government was to acquire fuel reserves stored in the United States. In September last year, the Prime Minister and his energy minister, Angus Taylor, announced that they would design a system for a production payment that would recognise fuel security benefits, improve our sovereign onshore refinery capability and secure the viability of that industry. Of course, this followed because, after the United States solution, Australians were concerned that that would be entirely ineffective. To quote him directly, the Prime Minister said:
Fuel security underpins our entire economy. Not only does it keep Australia moving, the industry supports thousands of people across the country and this plan is also about helping keep them in work.
Like all sectors of the economy, the COVID-19 pandemic is having an impact on Australia's fuel industry. The events of 2020 have reminded us that we cannot be complacent. We need a sovereign fuel supply to shield us from potential shocks in the future.
I couldn't agree more, but the government's proposal was already being criticised as too little too late. With an announcement by BP Kwinana, Australia's largest refinery, that it was due to close shortly thereafter, it was quite literally too little too late. It was all photo-op, no follow-up—in fact, it didn't even get there in the first place.
This isn't a new issue. Menzies identified the importance of sovereign fuel supply all the way back in 1949. He said:
In truth, petrol is vital to Australian production and transport. Having regard to our vast area, distances and needs, it is more important here than in most other countries of the world.
The recent announcement from this government in relation to the legislation before us today, the Fuel Security Bill 2021, means that Australia will be able to retain the capacity to produce its own fuel, which is absolutely critical for our national security. We've only got two refineries left. It's not even close to being satisfactory. The closure of refineries has had a huge impact on local economies, our national economy, national security and our way of life. The funding in this legislation seeks to maintain our remaining two refineries until at least 2027. While welcome, it will not combat the issue completely.
In May this year, following an announcement for additional support for fuel refineries, the Australian Workers Union released a statement:
It's extremely disappointing to see so many refineries close in the past decade—including BP Kwinana, and ExxonMobil in Altona, in just the past 9 months.
They went on to clarify that, yes, indeed, if the government had acted sooner, these closures could have been avoided. Dan Walton, the national secretary of the AWU, said:
Importantly for the national interest, the ongoing viability of our refineries mean the skills of highly specialised technicians will be preserved—skills that will be needed—
moving forward in our energy mix. He went on:
Being able to make our own fuel is a critical sovereign capability. Without it, our national and economic security are completely at the mercy of trade routes that are threatened by potential international conflict or—
as is now all too familiar to us all—
pandemics.
We've already seen supply chain disruptions through COVID-19 and vaccine nationalism. There is no doubt that, if push comes to shove, other nations will restrict fuel exports to us if they need that fuel. But it's not just about supply, it's not just about jobs, it's not just about the economy, but it's about our national security, our sovereign integrity and our ability to look after ourselves.
Retired Air Vice-Marshal John Blackburn AO has been very vocal on this matter, criticising Australia's approach to ensuring national liquid fuel security. I tend to agree with him. It seems the member for Canning, now the Assistant Minister for Defence, agrees too. In 2018, when he was the Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, the member for Canning told The Australian that 50 per cent of our imported diesel and 60 per cent of our jet fuel comes through the South China Sea. He said, 'That leaves Australia very vulnerable to coercion through a disruption of our liquid fuel supply'. That same year, the member for Canning said, 'You can have the best military in the world but it's futile if you can't fuel it'. The member for Canning and I disagree on many things, but we completely agree on this.
The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed significant vulnerabilities in global supply chains. Importing more than 90 per cent of our fuel stocks means we are absolutely at the mercy of overseas supply interruptions. Our oil refineries, of which we have only two left, both in the eastern states, are very much being kept on life support. We need to think about what happens next. What happens after the 2027 guarantee? The warning signs have been there for years, but it seems we are either complacent or in denial or both. We need to approach this not just from an economic perspective but also from a scientific, a business continuity and, perhaps most vitally, a military defence approach. We cannot forget that fuel access and supply is a fundamental defence industry input to defence capability.
In recent years, this government has admitted imports are cheaper than maintaining the refining industry. But can you really put a price on our sovereign integrity? Many of the fundamental assumptions about our nation's security need to be revisited, and, with that, the assumptions that we have made regarding our supply chains and, in particular, fuel supply. The security of critical supply chains is something that can't simply be left to the market or big business. The government needs to take a leading role to ensure our nation's ongoing security. We need to ensure that we have a defence strategy and a plan to have adequate fuel security to ensure that, whatever the next crisis we encounter is, we are ready for it.
The closure of all bar two fuel refineries will leave the nation more vulnerable to a global crisis. We must safeguard our nation's liquid fuel security. The announcement earlier this year that will ensure two refineries can stay open in Australia is welcome, but, really, it only just scratches the surface. Basically, everything that moves in this country is fuelled on diesel or avgas. The WA resources industry—the one that keeps our entire nation's economy going—would literally stop without these fuels. Yet now, without the BP Kwinana Refinery, there are only five days of avgas storage in Western Australia and about three weeks of diesel. Reliant on imports, many of which traverse northern Asia, we are now without an option for refining our own from more abundant crude imports from around the globe. Remember, you cannot truck these fuels across the Nullarbor. We can have the best weapons, missiles, tanks and technology, but, if we've got no fuel to run these things, we're just providing really expensive target practice to our enemies.
Australian Strategic Policy Institute's executive director, Peter Jennings, said recently that Australia is closer to being utterly dependent on imported fuel. Surely, if we have learnt anything in the last year, it's that overdependence on just one-time supply is a massive strategic risk. In September last year the Prime Minister and his energy minister announced a fuel security package as part of the 2020 budget. Just six weeks later, BP announced its Kwinana refinery would close. In December it was announced that support payments would be brought forward to January of this year, but that still wasn't enough, with ExxonMobil announcing its Altona refinery would close in February.
Let me spell this out very clearly for the government: since this government announced their plan for fuel security in Australia, two refineries—that is, half of the remaining refineries that were left—closed. That's hardly instilling any confidence, is it? In fact, it's not even distilling any confidence. Even with the recently announced support measures, a result of this legislation we are due to pass here, Australia will remain non-compliant with our international energy obligation to hold 90 days of oil reserves. In fact, we only have about 65. We're not even getting close, meaning we will depend disproportionately on imports.
We also still don't have a strategic fleet. We are reliant on foreign owned and operated tankers to move fuel to our country. That's an absolute risk to our sovereign integrity. Our nation's fuel security should be at the forefront of our Defence, defence industry and national security conversations. We don't have another option. It's not like our Defence vehicles are running on hydrogen or are electric. Imagine what the government would say about that. If Labor's electric vehicle policy was going to kill the weekend back in 2019, then a hydro defence vehicle policy in 2021 surely would go the same way as the Hindenburg, according to this government. We need to be serious about this. We need to be backing our Aussie refineries, just as we need to be backing local jobs in our Australian defence industry and in our fuel networks. We need to be backing our national economic security and our national security. We need to be getting more Australian businesses in our defence industry to deliver essential capability that our defence forces rely on, including fuel.
In fact, fuel is an essential capability itself yet, under this government's own policies, half of the refineries in Australia have closed. What a great policy that is! This Liberal government in that context continues to bang the drums of war, but their rhetoric doesn't meet their action in supporting our defence industry, our defence forces or our sovereign fuel reserves. We need to make sure we have no capability gaps. Just as submarines not being in the water in a timely fashion will see a capability gap develop, so too will little more than a week or so of fuel supply in the nation at any given time. There's no point in having great new submarines if we don't have fuel to run them on.
We can't afford to put our nation, our personnel or our people at risk. It's not good enough for this government to be bargain hunting on fuel. COVID has proven that our friends around the world are going to look after themselves before us in a crisis situation, and we should hardly be surprised by this. We need to back ourselves and invest in our fuel supplies and our refineries and the jobs, the technology and the intellectual property that comes with that. If this industry dies out, our nation will be going nowhere on an empty tank.
Mr RICK WILSON (O'Connor) (13:29): Given that there is a very short period available to me, I'll just make some introductory remarks. Hopefully I'll have the opportunity to continue later on this afternoon. I rise today to support the government's Fuel Security Bill 2021. One of the key components of the bill will be a fuel security services payment, which will incentivise the existing refineries to continue production until at least mid-2027. This fuel security services payment is, in effect, a subsidy of up to 1.2c per litre, under a collar system.
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
Eden-Monaro Electorate: Eden Canoes Initiative
Ms McBAIN (Eden-Monaro) (13:30): I rise today to discuss a wonderful initiative by Eden Marine High School, the same school I attended and graduated from. Local Aboriginal students have been building traditional canoes as part of a pilot program supported by Campbell Page, Katungul Aboriginal Corporation and Twofold Aboriginal Corporation, along with the help of local Anglicare chaplain Michael Palmer. Over two weeks, six Indigenous students enthusiastically constructed traditional stitch-and-glue canoes from scratch. They celebrated their achievement by joining Aboriginal community members paddling local waterways, learning about historical middens and fish traps. The project has provided a great opportunity for students to stay connected to Yuin nation culture and tradition. Mataya, one of the students, said: 'It's been nice to have a break from the school environment but still be learning.' The project has also been successful in gaining $242,000 from the Bushfire Community Recovery and Resilience Fund. The organisers will work with a business consultant to develop a social enterprise so they can run the project sustainably into the future, expanding the project to encompass over 100 students. The project has been fun, spiritual and cultural, and I look forward to its continued success. I give a shout-out to Eden high school student Euan Osten for undertaking work experience in my office and preparing this statement for me to read to the House today. Eden high, represent!
Wide Bay Electorate: Bruce Highway Tiaro Bypass
Mr LLEW O'BRIEN (Wide Bay—Deputy Speaker) (13:31): Turning a dangerous stretch of the Bruce Highway into a safe four-lane Tiaro bypass is one of the projects where we must put aside political differences, and I call on the state and federal governments to work together as a team. Thanks to the overwhelming community support, the federal government has increased its funding of the Tiaro bypass to $268.8 million, a boost of $183 million, to save lives. It's Queensland budget day today. It's been a week since ministerial offices in Canberra called ministerial offices in Brisbane and informed them that we were injecting four-fifths of the cost of the four lanes of the Tiaro bypass. Sadly, Brisbane's only correspondence back has been a tweet, and it did not indicate they were looking forward to working together to make this road safer. An investment in the Bruce Highway at Tiaro is also an investment in Townsville, Cairns, Mackay and Brisbane, as we all need a safe national highway. I thank the Deputy Prime Minister, Michael McCormack, and the Treasurer Josh Frydenberg, who heard our calls and provided further funds. I hope the Queensland government follows their lead today. It's time to end the excuses and fast-track this safety upgrade.
El-Kadomi, Mr Neil, OAM
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (13:33): Parramatta is mourning the passing of Neil El-Kadomi OAM. Quite frankly, it's hard to imagine Parramatta without him. He has made a very real difference. He has left an extraordinary legacy of friends and family, and he will be missed. He was one of the founders of the Parramatta Mosque, and he was its president for many years. I remember working with Neil as he fought so hard to get the approval for that mosque in Parramatta. He established one of the first local community language schools and taught Arabic and Islamic studies to generations of local Australian children, a legacy well and truly worthy of our respect.
He came to Australia as a Palestinian refugee in 1969, and he's always been there for refugees and migrants in our community. He served in many, many community organisations and he made a big contribution to interfaith dialogue in Parramatta. Wherever there was an interfaith service, Neil was there—at the Anglican Church, at the Buddhist temple, at the Baps temple in Harris Park. Wherever there was an interfaith service, Neil was there, representing his community. I'm grateful that I had the opportunity to spend time with him one last time, when he hosted me for Friday prayers the week before his passing. Neil leaves behind his wife, Ameera, seven children and 19 grandchildren. His loss will be deeply felt in our community, where he has given so much to so many.
Immigration Detention
Mr JOYCE (New England) (13:34): Tharnicaa and Kopika Murugappan will obviously go down in Australian history. They are an extension of an issue that has been with us for a while, and that is the identification of where your state is, where you are a resident of. And it goes through two processes: jus soli, which is 'of the soil', and jus sanguinis, which is 'of the blood'. We in Australia work with the 'of the blood' proposition, but this causes problems. And it's probably why the Dred Scott legislation in the United Stated, which was brought in in 1857, was repealed by the 14th amendment in 1867. The reason was that they believed Dred Scott was basically not a person and, therefore, could be moved around the United States. We have to make sure that these two girls are not just seen as chattels that can be moved around. They have rights that are present by reason of, I believe, jus soli—that is, they were born in Australia, they were born here; there is no other nation on earth that they were born in. A belief in the extension of the rights of the individual has been a consistent theme of mine since I've been in this place. I believe the rights of a person, both before and after they are born, are indissoluble and inviolate, and I will continue to fight to make sure these people are treated justly.
Mascot Junior Rugby League Football Club
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (13:36): In the great game of rugby league it's not often that you see the scoreboard hit 110, but that rare feat has been achieved by the Mascot Junior Rugby League Football Club, which celebrated its 110th anniversary at a dinner on Sunday night. The Mascot Jets, the oldest continuing junior league club in New South Wales, was formed in 1910. That of course makes them 111 years old, but they had to postpone the celebrations due to COVID. And there has been plenty to celebrate over the years: the 'two blues' took out their first club premiership in 1921 and have kept up that winning record, claiming 43 of the last 50 club championships in the South Sydney district junior regular competition. And Mascot has a proud history of creating rugby league legends, including George Piggins, Ian Roberts, Maddie Studdon and Cameron Murray. At the dinner on Sunday night they announced the 'golden years' team from 1970 to 2020. In total, 145 Mascot junior players have gone on to play first grade and 15 of those have gone on to represent Australia at the highest levels. I would like to give a special shout-out to the club president, Frank Cookson, who has been involved with rugby league for 55 years, and to Bill Kennedy OAM for 60 years of service. Bill's wife, Maureen, was presented with his elder Australian medal on Sunday night. I want to congratulate and thank all the officials, coaches and players of the mighty Mascot Jets. Congratulations on 110 years.
COVID-19: Travel Restrictions
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (13:37): Congratulations to both our Prime Minister and Prime Minister Lee of Singapore for advancing the bubble between our two countries. We already have a successful pilot with New Zealand. It is time to do more than just one pilot: we need to be doing multiple pilots with island economies that have high-quality health systems and have COVID under control. There is no reason this shouldn't be done in parallel rather than one nation at a time. There were six million Australians travelling between our two countries in 2019. It is very important that we get this started again. We need a common pass—a digital health pass or IATA equivalent—so that health records can be verified and we can satisfy the requirements of countries that people are entering, whether it is visiting friends and relatives, skill visas, international students, or partnerships and prospective spouse visas. People have not seen each other for years and we need to get this started in a safe way. Pre-departure quarantine is vital. Alcolizer, a Perth based firm that is based also in my electorate, is doing incredible work in advancing both serology and antigen detection, and ensuring high specificity so we can be confident that a negative test result is a true negative. The technology is with us way better than it was last year. While we could have had these discussions about a bubble 12 months ago, it is important at this point to have multiple discussions about opening up these paths so Australia can do business with Asia again.
COVID-19
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (13:39): I rise today to outline this government's failure—failure to build the for-purpose quarantine facilities that have been needed for at least 12 months; failure to secure enough vaccine or run an effective rollout, including, sadly, aged-care residents and workers in the disability sector; and failure on robodebt. But the worst of the robodebt was their failure to learn, when they persisted time and time again with using a system that was flawed.
But worst has been their failure to learn about Medicare and the changes to the MBS that we heard about recently. In 2018 there were 70 changes, and we know they caused havoc; they caused chaos and they cost patients and doctors. Did the government learn? No, they didn't. Now we're going to roll out 900 changes. They expect a different outcome because they're incapable of learning. What are they doing again? Short time lines. What are they doing again? Misinformation or a lack of information. Who's going to pay? Patients and doctors. Ultimately, this could mean higher gap fees for patients all around the country.
I'll tell you who has learnt. We've learnt, over here. We've learnt that those sitting on this side created Medicare, and we will always act to protect Medicare. This government fails at every turn. They need to start learning.
Rathie, Ms Katrina
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (13:40): I want to pay tribute today to an outstanding lawyer who's been a positive influence on my life and on the lives of many lawyers and clerks. Katrina Rathie is a great businesswoman, a great lawyer and a pioneer. She recently retired from practice at King & Wood Mallesons after 35 years, including seven years as partner in charge of the Sydney office. Commencing practice in 1985, Katrina moved to New York in 1988, passed the bar and practised in the US until 1991. Returning to Sydney, she became a partner and established the firm's intellectual property practice, which now employs over 350 people.
Katrina developed a reputation for providing outstanding legal advice backed up by sound commercial judgement. She's been at the cutting edge of many leading cases, including representing the New South Wales government in connection with the Sydney Olympics, and was the architect of the world's first ambush marketing laws.
Katrina is recognised as a leader of the legal profession. Her many accolades include New South Wales Woman Lawyer of the Year, IP Partner of the Year and being inducted into the IP Hall of Fame. Katrina has also been recognised for her outstanding contributions to leadership in the law and the advancement of women and cultural diversity. She serves on a variety of boards, including the Starlight Foundation, New South Wales Rugby Union, the Waratahs rugby and Cranbrook School. She also serves on the advisory board of Media Diversity Australia, the Law Advisory Council of UNSW and the culture strategy committee of the University of Sydney.
I want to take this opportunity to send Katrina, Bruce and her whole family every good wish for the future. Congratulations on your outstanding professional achievements and your great mentoring of so many young people.
Petition: COVID-19
Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (13:42): Today I rise on behalf of more than 70,000 Australian citizens and permanent residents, some of whom are in the House now, calling on this government to show greater compassion on travel exemptions. They have all signed a petition requesting that parents be added to the category of 'immediate family' for travel exemptions. In March last year the government locked our borders down in an emergency measure, but it has been 14 months since, and they have failed to show any flexibility or even advise on a time line or road map as to when those borders are likely to open.
Australia is a multicultural country where many of our fellow citizens and permanent residents have migrated from overseas. From my own community in Warringah, 30 per cent are migrants with close family living overseas. These are skilled migrants boosting our economy and filling skills shortages. They now face an indefinite scenario of being separated from their parents and not being able to access any assistance from them—young mums and dads especially. They need their parents for assistance. They're struggling to return to work. The children are suffering emotionally and financially.
This government needs to show leadership and urgently communicate a long-term plan. Otherwise, Australia is facing a skills drain due to this policy. The petition has been reviewed by the petitions committee and found to be in order. I commend this petition to the House.
The petition read as follows—
Australia is a multicultural country where many of it's citizens and permanent residents (PR) migrated from overseas. Therefore, thousands of Australian's and PR have parents living abroad. Currently parents are unable to to travel to Australia to be reunited with family because they are not classed as 'immediate family'. Parents are essential and connection with family is equally as important to migrants as it is to families living in Australia. Australians and PR have not seen their parents for a significant amount of time due to the travel ban and a strict exemption criteria which prevents people from obtaining exemptions unless they have a 'compelling reason'. Covid-19 has impacted many Australians, however, being apart from parents for an extended period of time without an indication of when they will be reunited puts unrealistic expectations on those desperate to see family. This has had a profound impact, mental health has significantly declined, children have not met grandparents, people have had to give up work due to limited support and families are having to re-evaluate their lives in Australia and have had to leave despite being here for many years. Citizens and PR have jobs and responsibilities with they cannot leave for 3 months or more.
We therefore ask the House to add parents as an exemption category. If exemptions cannot be obtained for parents coming to Australia please consider allowing exemption for people with family overseas to travel. Reunification with family should be a compelling and compassionate reason.
from 70,540 citizens (Petition No. EN2535)
Petition received.
Men's Health Week
Chisholm Electorate: Men's Sheds
Ms LIU (Chisholm) (13:43): This week is significant. This week is Men's Health Week. It's a time for us to remember the difficulties men go through in life. It's a haunting reminder of the fragility of health and life when you hear that men take their own lives at four times the rate of women in Australia. That's five men a day on average. We know that men are less likely to seek medical advice, which is why we need to be asking the men in our lives if they are okay. We need to reach out and ensure they're receiving help if they are suffering.
While I am here, I would like to give a quick shout-out to some of the Men's Sheds in Chisholm, who do terrific work in supporting our men. They include the Chadstone Indoor Aviation group and their president, John Julian; the Waverley Woodworkers and their president, Ray French; and of course the Monash Men's Shed and their president, Greg Male. I sleep easier every night knowing the hard work they do day in, day out to address men's health issues. Let's celebrate this week and the organisations fighting to keep our men and boys alive and healthy.
COVID-19: Vaccination
Mr BURNS (Macnamara) (13:45): Last Thursday night, restrictions were eased in Melbourne. It has been a tough couple of weeks for Victorian families, workers and businesses, and I want to thank each and every single Victorian for the sacrifices they have made. But we need to put these lockdowns behind us. The way we do that is by getting Australians vaccinated. This vaccine rollout is months behind schedule. It has seen all sorts of targets being completely abandoned. It has been plagued by delays, confusion and supply issues. Victorians are desperate to get vaccinated, but today the Victorian government was forced to pause the rollout of the Pfizer vaccine because they don't have enough supply of the Pfizer vaccine.
In an interview on the ABC with Ralph Epstein, Dr Norman Swan said the Morrison government had a meeting with Pfizer in July last year. Pfizer came to that meeting saying, 'How many vaccines do you need in Australia?' Instead of saying 'Give us as many as you have got,' the Australian government sent in a low-level bureaucrat and basically insulted Pfizer out of the room. Then the government had the audacity to say there were supply issues in the rollout of the vaccine. The reason why there are supply issues is because they told Pfizer to get out of the room. That is what happened. Now Victorians are waiting, there is no more Pfizer vaccines for Victorians, and this government buggered up the vaccine rollout.
Reid Electorate: CO.AS.IT
Dr MARTIN (Reid) (13:47): Reid is home to a very proud Italian community, with over 16,860 people living in Reid with Italian heritage. On Wednesday 9 July I visited CO.AS.IT, a well-established Italian association that provides assistance to the Australian-Italian community in New South Wales. I visited with the honourable Senator Dr Francesco Giacobbe and met with CO.AS.IT president Loranzo Fazzini, CO.AS.IT general manager Thomas Camporeale, and members of the CO.AS.IT management team.
CO.AS.IT has always been a strong advocate for the CALD community and recognised as a prominent community organisation in multicultural New South Wales. They offer a range of services, including language services, which are so important in the Italian community. Keeping the language and the culture alive is very important to the people that I represent. They also offer community services, including mental health services, aged-care services and health campaigns. One health campaign in particular, the 10,000 roses project, has had a significant impact on raising the awareness of breast screening in the Italian community in New South Wales. They also run the Italian bilingual school, which is a success story, so I just wanted to highlight how wonderful CO.AS.IT are and congratulate them on the wonderful work they do.
COVID-19: Vaccination
Mr HILL (Bruce) (13:48): The Prime Minister promised Australians we were at the front of the queue for vaccines, but today Victorians wanting to get their first Pfizer jab are being turned away because there are no vaccines; they have run out. This is the federal government's mess, and the Prime Minister refuses to take responsibility for it. Instead, he folds his arms and stamps his foot and says, 'It is not a race.' Well, it is a race. It is a race to slow further outbreaks, it is a race to beat mutations, it is a race to save lives and livelihoods and it is a race that Australia is losing.
The Prime Minister needs to stop turning his back on problems he doesn't like. The whole of Australia is vulnerable and exposed, because what happened in Victoria just weeks ago could be happening in Sydney or Adelaide or Brisbane right now undetected. Without enough people vaccinated, Australia will see more outbreaks and more lockdowns. Every lockdown, every ramp-up of restrictions is the Prime Minister's fault. The resulting economic damage, especially to families and small businesses, is on him. The Prime Minister promised 22 million vaccines would be done by now but, today, only 2.7 per cent of Australians have been fully vaccinated. Zimbabwe is doing better. The rest of the world has a choice in vaccines but not Australia. We could have had as much Pfizer as we wanted but the Prime Minister said no. The Prime Minister was one of the first people in Australia to get a vaccine. For him it was a race, but for everyone else it is a long, far queue.
Critical Minerals
Mr CONNELLY (Stirling) (13:50): As the name suggests, critical minerals, including rare earths, are essential to economic wellbeing, with widespread use in mobile phones, widescreen televisions, wind turbines, electric cars and defence equipment and weaponry. For example, there are over 400 kilograms of rare earths used in every Joint Strike Fighter.
China accounts for over 90 per cent of rare earth supply, and this results in critical supply chain risk as well as a heavily distorted market. For all these reasons, the Morrison government is committed to supporting our critical resources sector. Australia is already a world leader in resource exports, and we're well placed to lead the way as a secure, reliable and ethical supplier of critical minerals as well. Already, we have some of the world's largest resources of things like tantalum, zirconium and titanium.
Today I welcomed the news that Arafura Resources, through Export Finance Australia, has been granted a conditional letter of support for a 15-year, $200 million facility. This Australian government support is already helping to advance Arafura's funding sources for their Nolans Neodymium-Praseodymium Project near Alice Springs. The project has the potential to supply five to ten per cent of the world's market at the very time when demand for critical minerals is forecast to boom in the years ahead.
Macquarie Electorate: North Richmond Bridge
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (13:51): The devil is in the detail of the Morrison government's offer of additional funding to duplicate North Richmond Bridge. In 2010, I stood on that bridge with opposition leader Anthony Albanese, and we committed the first money to investigate options. I'm glad I kickstarted the process and kept it going all these years. But the route that has been announced leaves many people disappointed and shocked. You will never please everyone, but community consultation on this has been an absolute joke, and it stopped last July.
Who were the winners? Not the people on Southee Road or Inalls Lane, not homes on the Richmond Lowlands, not the community around Norfolk Place in North Richmond, not people wanting to cross the Hawkesbury river in a flood—because this bridge only has a one in five flood resilience—and not people losing their homes. While the infrastructure minister and Sky's Paul Murray might think that anyone offered money for their home should just quietly agree and sign on the dotted line, no-one should be doing that without independent legal advice. I will not be bullied into submission by the minister or Paul Murray for supporting my community as they fight for a better plan and a better deal. We need to make sure we don't get landed with another Windsor Bridge, which has been a dud. They need to do it once and do it right.
Medicare
Mrs McINTOSH (Lindsay) (13:53): The Morrison government has increased funding for Medicare by $6 billion in this year's federal budget. In fact, we've increased funding to Medicare from $19 billion under Labor to $30 billion this coming financial year, and we are increasing it by $1 billion each year after that. This record investment in Medicare is up 58 per cent compared to when Labor were last in government.
Telehealth has been a great investment by the Morrison government during the pandemic. In my seat of Lindsay, there have been nearly 370,000 telehealth consultations through Medicare since the start of the pandemic. These services are now being extended. As a local cardiologist, Dr Choon Lee, says: telehealth is bulk-billed and it's very convenient in that sense. In many practices in Lindsay, doctors and specialists are using these types of services to help people in my community get the health care they need—bulk-billed and convenient.
As part of the budget, our government is investing more than $114 million to extend telehealth until the end of this year. GP bulk-billing rates have reached an all-time high. In my local community, there have been over 2.1 million free or subsidised medicines under the PBS. This is our commitment to Medicare and bulk-billing, and it is a rock-solid commitment. These figures show that we're supporting the health and wellbeing of Australians—more now than ever before, and particularly in my community of Lindsay. (Time expired)
Prime Minister
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (13:54): Credibility, like integrity, is something that you build over time through actions, not words. That's a problem for this Prime Minister, particularly when it comes to fringe conspiracy theories and extremist ideologies. This is a prime minister who always seems to be conspiracy adjacent, a PM who always seems to want weirdos in the room with him.
Last night's Four Corners episode told Australians about a member of the Prime Minister's inner circle who believes the world is run by a cabal of paedophiles, a very creepy individual who has bragged about his influence over this Prime Minister while posting photos house-sitting at Kirribilli, all while his family has become so concerned about his bizarre extremist views that they have reported him repeatedly to the national security hotline.
The Prime Minister took great offence at this journalistic accountability, but his protests lack credibility after his refusal to condemn the attacks on the US Capitol building earlier this year, when he opportunistically took the side of the QAnon shaman against the defenders of democracy around the world. His protests lack credibility after years of playing footsy with the crank conspiracy ravings of his party room, principally from the members for Hughes and Dawson and from Senators Canavan and Rennick. The PM has done nothing to shut down conspiracies being run by coalition MPs on COVID-19, on climate change, even on Dan Andrews's back. This isn't just a Canberra-bubble issue. This Prime Minister's crank-curious tendencies have real world consequences for the Australian public. They are undermining the COVID-19 vaccine rollout, and he needs to do better (Time expired)
Fairfax Electorate: Queen's Birthday Awards
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (13:56): It may not surprise you to learn that in my electorate of Fairfax there are many men and women who are far better human beings than I. I rise today to pay credit to a few who have been acknowledged through this year's Queen's Birthday honours. In particular, Pastor Dale Dowler received a Medal of the Order of Australia for his services to the community. Dale and his wife, Donna, created the Shack, which provides service to our community's most vulnerable. To him it is not a profession but a vocation of life that he lives every single day. Then there's Rod Forrester, who also received a Medal of the Order of Australia. Rod has created a legacy you might expect from 100 people, not just one. He is a giant. Indeed, his intellect is matched by such a deep humility, and that's what sets him apart. Then there is Detective Senior Sergeant Daren Edwards, who was awarded an Australian Police Medal after 35 years of distinguished service. Our community is safer because Daren is in charge. Finally, Marie Mahon was awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia for her service to dance as a teacher and a person who has really led in the field. Each and every one of these people contribute to society not because they want a gong but because they give of themselves. I say congratulations to them.
Prime Minister
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (13:57): QAnon is a dangerous conspiracy-driven cult which has no role in the public life of Australians. Let us be clear what this is not about. Who the Prime Minister is friends with is entirely a matter for him. He is not accountable for the political views of his friends. But when this Prime Minister gets input from a conspiracy theorist for an important speech in this chamber he is accountable to this House and the Australian people. He is accountable to this House and the Australian people for who is employed at taxpayers' expense at his direction. He is accountable to this House and the Australian people for who is invited to an important part of our national estate—that is, Kirribilli House. He is accountable.
Last night Four Corners presented credible and, indeed, compelling evidence that this Prime Minister has been getting input from a conspiracy theorist for statements in this House. Ministers and the Prime Minister cannot just smear Four Corners. They have to answer the serious allegations that have been made. They cannot just smirk and shrug their way through what is a very serious matter. QAnon incites violence. QAnon undermines confidence in the institutions of this country, including this House. QAnon has a lot to answer for. QAnon was part of the raid on the Capitol building, which this Prime Minister refused to condemn. This Prime Minister is always weak to condemn conspiracy theories. He is always happy to send a message and get their support. He cannot shrug and smirk his way out of it. (Time expired)
Flynn Electorate: Agricultural Shows
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn—Deputy Nationals Whip) (13:59): In 1822 the first show was held in Hobart. It is the most continuous event in post-colonial history. Queensland has 127 shows, 25 of which are in Flynn. The point I want to make is that the sideshow alley fraternity are very concerned about what's happening with public liability. There is no insurance company willing to take on the operators, so you can imagine what's going to happen at our rural shows, which are so popular in our communities: there will be no insurance.
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
Victoria: Floods
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development and Leader of the Nationals) (14:00): I wish to update the House on the storms that have wreaked havoc on regional Victoria over the past week. The storms have turned roads into rivers, paddocks into lakes and plunged entire communities into darkness, and, sadly, so very tragically, two lives have been lost. A man in his 60s lost his life in floodwaters in Woodside, eastern Victoria, on Thursday. On Friday, a woman, just in her 20s, was lost at Glenfyne in the state's south-west. She was driving to work. She never arrived. We extend to the families, the loved ones and friends our deepest sympathies.
The storms and resulting flooding have up-ended so many communities, so many lives, during a time when many might be asking, 'How much more do we have to face?' To all affected today, know that we face what is ahead together, as Australians always do. The damage has particularly hit the electorates of Gippsland, Monash and your electorate of Casey, Mr Speaker. I recognise the efforts made by members—and members on the other side; I see the member for Ballarat—to assist residents of these communities and others where they have been affected, all of those electorates, all of those communities, all of those regions. In total, 37 local government areas have been affected. I acknowledge the work of the various members of parliament, electorate officers supporting their local communities and, indeed, I acknowledge the first responders. As the situation remains serious, as the state braces for further bad weather later this week, we are with them all the way.
I wish to update the House on the situation on the ground today. As at 9.30 this morning, 17,506 Victorian households were still without power. There are 129 Telstra network sites and 16 Optus sites that remain down, and 11 communities have faced isolation: Athlone, Binginwarri, Boolarra, Kurrajong, Devon North, Poowong, Poowong North, Strzelecki, Willung South, Kallista and Sherbrooke. We understand that these communities are still unable to contact triple 0 emergency services. I can also report that Energy Australia's Yallourn Power Station has been evacuated due to a crack in the mine wall and the high-water levels of the Morwell River.
With such extensive damage to networks, a time line for full power restoration is currently unknown. The Victorian SES has received more than 9,000 requests for assistance since the beginning of these storms last week. Most of those relate to downed trees, building damage, flood and rescue. The SES has been doing tremendous work, as they always do, answering these calls.
The Maroondah Highway remains closed between Narbethong and Healesville. The mountain highway is also closed. I can also report that the response efforts around Victoria have scaled up and are progressing well. Recovery efforts are underway. The focus now is on clearing and stabilising roads and bridges to make them safe. Offers of assistance have been made and the Australian government stands ready to assist, if need be. Emergencies services and Victorians are also bracing for what may well be ahead. A moderate flood warning remains in place for the Latrobe River. High levels of the river remain steady across impacted areas and are receding, thankfully, but there is a possibility of 20 to 30 millimetres of rainfall over impacted areas during the week. Southern Rural Water has advised that Lake Glenmaggie is expected to spill in coming days; inflows to that system are continuing to reduce, thankfully.
The Australian government is providing support as needed. I can report that categories A and B of the joint federal and state Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements have been activated. This is for all of the 37 local government areas in central and eastern Victoria impacted by these floods and storms. Available assistance measures include personal hardship and distress, personal and financial counselling, counterdisaster operations, removal of debris from residential properties as well as the restoration of damaged essential public assets. We will respond to further requests for assistance as necessary at this difficult time.
I again wish to acknowledge the extraordinary efforts and the remarkable endeavours of our volunteers and emergency services. They undertake their roles in very, very difficult and dangerous circumstances. They do it completely without fanfare. I also want to pay tribute to Victorians, who have responded within their own communities with bravery, with selflessness and with an overwhelming sense of community. There's the farmer in South Gippsland who began milking his neighbour's cows to help out. There's the cafe proprietaries at Yarra who have been offering free hot meals and device recharging for those without power. There's the man who saved a bus driver being swept away in Taralga. He said: 'I was pretty physically buggered. Oh well. It's what you do, isn't it?' Such an Australian thing to say; such bravery.
The Gippsland Ranges Roller Derby club had their premises and equipment totally destroyed by floods but have been strengthened by the community rallying around them. One of them said, 'There were lots more tears today, but we got through this.' The resilience of Australians in crisis can only be summed up by one word: humbly. For Victorians who are dealing with dual crises, it is even more so. The situation is far from over, with the next low pressure expected later in the week. Emergency services are working to ensure people remain safe.
With any flood, as we saw earlier this year across New South Wales, we know that the disaster is not over when the rain stops or the water recedes. There will be many difficult days, weeks and months ahead as communities take the first steps to rebuild and recover. That path out will be unimaginably difficult for the loved ones of the two Australians whose lives have been lost. The thoughts of all Australians are with them today, as are, I know, the thoughts of the Prime Minister. I will endeavour to keep the House updated as the situation in Victoria continues to evolve. Thank you.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:06): I join with the Acting Prime Minister in expressing the solidarity of this House with the people of Victoria who are going through this difficult time. Floods have transformed parts of Victoria into a brown inland sea. Other parts of the state have been battered by winds of up to 125 kilometres an hour. Homes and businesses have been flooded or destroyed by trees brought down by wild winds. The Victorian SES experienced its busiest 24-hour period in its history. There have been stories of heroism, near misses and lucky escapes. There have been stories of families who just happened to be in the right part of the house when a tree crashed through the roof. As Kalorama resident Braeden Tairi told the Herald Sun:
Had we been sitting on the couch we'd all be dead.
He said:
It's by God's grace alone that we're here to talk about it.
Tragically, two people have lost their lives. Nina Barake, aged 20. She was driving to work when things went wrong. Remembered by friends as 'incredible' and 'one of a kind', she'd barely started the adventure of adulthood and now she has gone. The other victim was Brian Gilliland, a father of four and an auto electrician in his 60s, remembered by his friends as being down to earth and gentle. A great bloke. Our hearts with their families and friends as they try to come to terms with what has happened.
What has been reassuring but in no way surprising is that the spirit we saw on display in the bushfires and during COVID has been on full display, with communities pulling together, friends helping friends, strangers helping strangers, and SES workers putting themselves on the line, risking their lives for their fellow Victorians. Two SES volunteers have been hospitalised during recovery works, with one suffering a broken shoulder blade and another a broken wrist.
We know that over 17,000 properties are still without power. It is something of a cruel irony that some are still without drinking water. Acting Premier James Merlino has said that financial assistance will be available to all eligible Victorians who have suffered the impact of floods and storm damage. I note the Acting Prime Minister's support in the form of federal assistance as well—that is entirely appropriate.
It is unfortunate that more rain is expected. The usual advice applies: never drive into flood water no matter how shallow it looks and no matter how confident you think you are about your driving skills. This can be dangerous and is simply not worth the risk. We say to the people at the heart of this tragedy, stay safe. The rest of Australia stands with you at this difficult time.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development and Leader of the Nationals) (14:09): I inform the House that the Prime Minister will be absent from question time today and for the remainder of the week, as he is in the United Kingdom for the G7-plus summit. I will answer questions on his behalf. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister for Defence Personnel will also be absent from question time today, and the Minister for Defence will answer questions on his behalf.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Immigration Detention
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:10): My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. The government has kept four-year-old Tharnicaa in detention most of her young life. The Biloela community, I know, has made it clear that they want Tharnicaa's family to come home. Why won't the government let this family go home to Bilo?
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development and Leader of the Nationals) (14:10): These matters in relation to immigration are never easy. They are difficult. They are complicated. The minister for immigration has made a statement this morning to ensure that the support and that the health outcomes for the family will be there in Perth for them. Indeed, we will continue to support the family. But I note that the opposition leader asked the question. It was not asked by others, and it well could have been. It was not asked by the member for McMahon—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Member for Newcastle! No, none of you are going to warm up with interjections. You're not. If you've forgotten what happened the last time we sat, it shows you really haven't learnt anything. I just say to the Acting Prime Minister that the question from the Leader of the Opposition was very specific and it didn't ask about alternatives. But I'll listen to him. I just caution him in that regard.
Mr McCORMACK: Today the immigration minister exercised his power under section 197AB of the Migration Act to make a residence determination to allow the Sri Lankan family currently held in detention to reside in the Perth community. In making this determination, he balanced the government's ongoing commitment to strong border protection processes—and there is a process that is being worked through, and I appreciate there is still a legal process which is being worked through with this family. But we are providing the humanitarian support. We are providing the necessary health support. We are providing the necessary economic support. It is a bit rich, and I will not be lectured by Labor, who, on their watch, put 8,500 children in detention—8,500 in detention—as part of nearly 50,000 people who arrived on boats, on 800 boats. I will not take lectures. I was here when, sadly, people who tried that risky voyage were dashed up against the rocks and did not survive. We do not know how many people lost their lives attempting to make that risky voyage. Labor put more beds in detention centres than they ever did into hospitals in the medical system.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Acting Prime Minister has now strayed from the question. He needs to bring himself back to the question or wind up his answer. The Acting Prime Minister has the call.
Mr McCORMACK: In making this determination, the minister for immigration has balanced all of these things. These are, as I say, very difficult and emotional circumstances, and I do appreciate that. The family will now reside in suburban Perth, through a community detention placement, close to schools, close to support services, whilst the youngest child receives medical treatment from the nearby Perth Children's Hospital and as the family pursues ongoing legal matters.
COVID-19: Regional Australia
Dr WEBSTER (Mallee) (14:13): My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. Will the Acting Prime Minister inform the House how the Morrison-McCormack government's economic recovery plan is helping to build resilience in regional Australia?
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development and Leader of the Nationals) (14:14): I thank the member for Mallee for her question and acknowledge that regional Australia has been the absolute bedrock of the Australian economy for decades. Our economy once rode on a sheep's back but it now rides very much on the back of a thriving resources sector and a much broader agricultural sector. Those sectors are all based in regional Australia.
Since the global pandemic outbreak at the start of 2020 our government has provided $311 billion of support—to health care, to families and to businesses, many of them small businesses that would not have otherwise survived but for the assistance that we provided, and also to farmers, to factories and to so many people who found themselves on the welfare queues, through no fault of their own, for the very first time. But thankfully there are more people in employment now than there were prior to the pandemic. The unemployment rate is lower now than it was when this government came to power in 2013. That is $311 billion of support through JobKeeper, through JobSeeker, through HomeBuilder, through COVID health care and through aviation rescue packages, which have ensured that many of those regional and especially remote communities received frontline medical personnel, face masks, respiratory devices and all the things they would not otherwise have received but for the Regional Airline Network Support, Domestic Aviation Network Support.
This government has been at the forefront of keeping our people safe, keeping the wheels of industry moving and getting things done—getting the job done whilst making sure of a full economic recovery from COVID-19. There's still a long, long way to go, and we all acknowledge that. We have seen the economy rebound strongly out of recession and grow to be larger than it was pre-COVID. As I said, there are more people in a job today than there were pre-COVID, and that is because of the policies we have put in place, because of the measures we have put in place through the budgets and through what we've done to support the economy. And this government has delivered major infrastructure projects right across Australia: 449 major land transport infrastructure projects have been completed since this government came back into office in 2013. Our $110 billion 10-year pipeline of investment is supporting 100,000 workers. As I went around regional Australia and metropolitan Australia last week I saw the benefits of that: hi-vis workers, excavators, pushing around dirt, and asphalt being delivered for the first time and being laid on roads that had never, ever seen that bitumen exercise. That is what we're getting on with.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr McCORMACK: They can mock and they can knock and they can laugh, but this is happening under the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program, right across the nation.
COVID-19: Vaccination
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:17): My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. The government first announced that it was 'looking at manufacturing facilities' for mRNA vaccines in August—10 months ago. Why has the government, a year and a half into this pandemic, failed to deliver on its announcement?
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development and Leader of the Nationals) (14:17): I'll get the minister for industry to add to my remarks, but I will say that we are getting onboard with making sure we've got sovereign manufacturing of vaccines. And I tell you what, I would much sooner live in Australia than live anywhere else—in this nation. CSL are getting on with the job in Melbourne, and I know how much the now home affairs minister did when she was in this portfolio area. We are getting on with the job of making sure the vaccines are not only manufactured here but delivered, right across the nation. I'll ask the minister for industry to add to my remarks.
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Industry, Science and Technology) (14:18): I thank the member for his question. It was I think 30 years ago that the cutting-edge researchers at the University of Wisconsin first experimented on mRNA technology in mice, and it took 30 years for the first mRNA technology and vaccines to be put in the arms of human beings in the context of COVID-19. The single first vaccine that have been used on human beings and that used mRNA technology was used in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic—very, very recently. This is absolutely cutting-edge technology.
The proposition contained in the question from the Leader of the Opposition—that somehow it would be reasonable to put to the Australian people that it would be possible that right now Australia would be manufacturing mRNA vaccines—is just not a reasonable proposition. The idea that—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order?
Mr Albanese: Far be it from me to interrupt the minister attacking his predecessor, but the question went to—
The SPEAKER: When you rise on a point of order, you need to state what the point of order is. We all know what the rules are. Points of order are not a chance to debate the matter. I give enormous tolerance to the leaders of both parties, but you simply need to just—
Mr Albanese: I appreciate that.
The SPEAKER: I want you to appreciate it more.
Mr Albanese: That's just not possible!
The SPEAKER: You have the call. Come to the point of order. It might help if you state what it is.
Mr Albanese: The point of order is on relevance. The question went to the government's own announcement, 10 months ago, that it was looking at manufacturing facilities.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Minister for Industry, Science and Technology has the call.
Mr PORTER: Of course, Australia has got this sort of capability and capacity. Choosing the right path to realise that capability and capacity is the job of a responsible government. To ensure that Australians get the best, most sustainable deal, the deal that provides for a 10-year end-to-end capability that can not merely produce a domestic market that's scalable from zero vaccines to 25 million plus in a short period of time for a cutting-edge technology but is also able to provide scalable production for export markets and a breadth of goods using this cutting-edge technology—including therapeutics, potentially, for cancer treatments, for which mRNA had its genesis, and for cardiovascular disease—means you have to have a thorough, thoughtful process. That process means having submissions for fully costed proposals for end-to-end onshore population-scale mRNA capability. It means ensuring the proposals show demonstrated— (Time expired)
Taxation
Mr HAMILTON (Groom) (14:22): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer remind the House of how the Morrison-McCormack government's steadfast commitment to reducing taxes is creating more jobs for Australians and strengthening our ongoing economic recovery? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative policies?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Treasurer) (14:22): I thank the member for Groom for his question and I acknowledge his extensive experience as an engineer, before coming to this place, working on significant infrastructure projects—transport, water and telecommunications infrastructure. He stands for lower taxes. More than 60,000 members in the member for Groom's electorate are getting a tax cut because of policies supported by those on this side of the House, and more than 15,000 businesses in the member for Groom's electorate are going to be able to access the immediate expensing.
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for McMahon will leave under standing order 94(a).
The member for McMahon then left the chamber.
Mr FRYDENBERG: Today, Treasury have confirmed what we on this side of the House already know: lower taxes create more jobs. Indeed, the more than $50 billion of tax relief, which we announced in last year's budget and this year's budget, will help create around 120,000 jobs. It will drive the unemployment rate up to one percentage point lower, as we seek to drive the unemployment rate below five per cent. It will extend the low- and middle-income tax offset for last year and this year and extend the immediate expensing and loss carry-back measures. These policies are working. Why? Because unemployment is lower, growth is higher and investment over the last two quarters, for machinery and equipment, is at its highest level in 18 years. We saw Standard & Poor's last week reaffirm Australia's AAA credit rating. We are one of only nine countries in the world to have a AAA credit rating from the three leading credit-rating agencies.
I'm asked if there are any alternative approaches. We know that those opposite stand for higher taxes. There were $387 billion of higher taxes at the last election. Do you remember the member for McMahon? 'If you don't like our policies, don't vote for them.' Well, guess what? The Australian people didn't vote for them. Now we have the stage 3 tax cut battle over the other side. The member for Corio says, 'We're not going to get in the way of anyone and their tax cut,' and then the member for Rankin, who we know likes to tax a lot, said that he's talking down our stage 3 tax cuts. This is a stage 3 cage fight between the member for Corio and the member for Rankin. We on this side of the House stand for lower taxes. Those on the other side of the House stand for higher taxes on your superannuation, higher taxes on your housing, higher taxes on your income, higher taxes on your small business, higher taxes on your investment. If you want lower taxes, support the coalition, because that's what we've promised, and that's what we have delivered.
COVID-19: Vaccination
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (14:25): My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. Can the Acting Prime Minister confirm advice from the industry department to Senate estimates that it may be up to four years before mRNA manufacturing begins in Australia?
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development and Leader of the Nationals) (14:25): I'll ask the industry minister to answer that question.
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Industry, Science and Technology) (14:26): I thank the member for the question. With the approach to market that was put out by the government very recently with an eight-week turnaround for individual consortia to return, obviously timing was an important part of that. The McKinsey report to government which preceded that gave us very good information about a reasonable time frame for any of those consortia to put to the government as to what might be a reasonable time frame for them to propose that time in which manufacture could actually occur. In some reports, media have said, based on information that they've received, that a reasonable time frame would be three to six months. Based on all the information that we've received, we think that that is not a reasonable time frame, that it would be significantly longer than that. Information we've received suggests that a reasonable time frame would be more likely to be 12 to 18 months; four years would be an absolute outside time frame. The view that I've taken on all the information that's been provided is that that is also a very unlikely time frame on the outside, just as three to six months is a very unlikely time frame on the inside. A more likely time frame is 12 to 18 months. We have said to those people who might be submitting as consortia that, if you can reasonably submit that you may be able to do that inside the 12- to 18-month time frame, we would be very interested in looking at the proposition that you would put. But, again, the purpose of having an orthodox, orderly, informed process, informed by a very detailed report done by McKinsey, is that when consortia come to us with propositions about—
An honourable member interjecting—
Mr PORTER: You would race to failure, is what you would do. You would race to failure without proper information, you would race to failure without proper knowledge and you would race to failure, as you have done in the past, without proper preparation. But that's not something that this government intends to do. We have gone into this in an informed way, informed about what we might reasonably expect as a proper time frame, what we might reasonably expect as a proper ask in terms of any assistance that might be provided by government with respect to infrastructure spending on either a greenfields or a brownfields site or with respect to procurement support and what might be a reasonable time frame. All of that information has been provided to us in a very detailed way so that we can consider all of the proposals that are put to us both in the approach to market and in the direct conversations that we are having with proponents. (Time expired)
International Travel
Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (14:28): My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will you commit to broadening the definition of immediate family for travel exemptions to include parents and also prospective marriage visa holders? If this definition remains unchanged and the government does not provide a clear road map, we face the risk of a skills drain. I presented a petition to the House today. Some of the signatories are in the House, and they're awaiting your response. They're desperate for their parents' help, and they need some answers.
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson—Minister for Home Affairs) (14:29): I thank the member for her question. I take on board the very serious issue that she has raised, and there are a couple of parts to it. The first part clearly deals with the definition and whether or not that should be widened. Allow me to come back to that in my answer. The second deals with skills shortages here in Australia. This government takes very seriously both of those issues.
In relation to the skills shortages issue, I understand that the minister responsible is looking very closely at what we can do to address a significant skills shortage in a number of areas here in Australia, and I am very much prepared to work with the minister to make sure that we can do all that we can to ensure that Australia has the skilled workforce that it needs not only now but for the months and the years ahead.
In terms of the question that you asked in relation to broadening the scope and the definition, all I'm able to say at this point in time is that there are a number of investigations that are taking place at this point in time. I would be more than happy to meet with you directly to pursue this further. Thank you very much for your question.
Medicare
Mrs McINTOSH (Lindsay) (14:30): My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Will the minister please outline to the House how the Morrison government is supporting access to new medicines and treatments under Medicare?
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Aged Care) (14:30): I want to thank the member for Lindsay. One of the very first things which she did after becoming a member of this place was to hold a mental health forum in her electorate, which I was privileged to join. That focus on mental health is included very squarely and fairly in this budget. In particular, we have increased our total Medicare expenditure—via the work of the Treasurer, the Prime Minister and the ERC—by $6 billion over the course of the forward estimates. From inheriting a spend of about $19 billion, Medicare will grow to $30 billion, $31 billion, $32 billion and $33 billion a year over the course of the forward estimates. This budget specifically includes $711 million for new Medicare items, including $288 million particularly for mental health. A focus on severe depression, through TMS treatment being made available for the first time under Medicare in Australia, will give many Australians with severe depression access to a treatment which will be fundamental, which has been considered and approved as being safe and effective. That's an enormous step forward. At the same time, we see critical new procedures, such as aortic procedures for infants, which were not previously listed. As the science evolves, the schedule is updated and these new items are brought forward—wonderful, potentially life-saving procedures which are being included for the first time.
At the same time, we've also been able to invest very significantly in new medicines. We know, of course, that in 2011 there was a pause to the listing of new medicines. That's not something that's ever happened under us. We are committed to the listing of every medicine which the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee recommends. In this budget, we have done that again. There is $43 billion for new medicines under the PBS and existing medicines as we go forward. There have been over 2,600 medicines listed to date, and, in particular, I am delighted that we've been able to list Emgality for chronic migraine. This is a medicine which will make a difference to thousands of Australians every year, saving thousands of dollars for those Australians. We see an increase of $6 billion for Medicare, including the extension of telehealth, which has now reached 60 million telehealth items. We also see the expansion of new treatments for mental health and then the provision of new medicines for migraines. All of these things are making a fundamental difference. And bulk-billing has soared to record levels of 88.7 per cent.
Medicare
Mr BUTLER (Hindmarsh—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (14:33): My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. Can the Acting Prime Minister guarantee that no patient costs will rise as a result of the government's changes to the Medicare Benefits Schedule on 1 July?
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development and Leader of the Nationals) (14:34): I will ask the Minister for Health and Aged Care to add to my remarks, but we are medi-friends; over there, they're medi-frauds. Indeed, you just heard the minister for health talking about the bulk-billing rates—that certainly is prevalent in regional Australia—and the number of telehealth consultations: 60 million telehealth consultations. We are getting on with providing the assistance, the support and the boost in funding to Medicare, as you would expect, and, indeed, to the overall health system. We will always support health, we will always put record funding into health, whereas those opposite just run a Twitter campaign and a social media campaign to drag it down. I'll ask the Minister for Health to add to my remarks.
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Aged Care) (14:35): I'm very pleased to provide information for the member opposite. Medicare investment in new items is going up by $711 million in this budget. What that means is that we are seeing an increase. There should be no case for any increase for any patients anywhere in Australia in terms of their out-of-pocket costs. What we've actually seen in terms of out-of-pockets is an increase of 6.7 per cent in the bulk-billing rate, which means we've gone from 82 per cent of patients paying nothing to visit the GP under Labor to 88.7 per cent under us—
Mr Conroy interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Shortland will leave under standing order 94(a).
The member for Shortland then left the chamber.
The SPEAKER: The minister will continue.
Mr HUNT: That is a 6.7 per cent increase in the number of patients who are able to visit the doctor without having to pay. What that means is that we see an increase in the number of bulk-billed procedures, an increase in the level of bulk-billing. Critically, what we see as part of this is that there are multiple increases right across the Medicare schedule—new and amended items, increased items, all of these things that are occurring. What we have done is follow the advice of the doctors and the medical expert panels.
There is one important difference here between the two sides. When the member for Hindmarsh was the minister in this space, what we saw was a $580 million cut to mental health under Medicare. They slashed it—
The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat for a second. It was a very specific question. He has been relevant to it up till now, but he wasn't asked about any alternative policies and there is not an opportunity for commentary in that regard in answer to this question. The minister has the call.
Mr HUNT: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat. The member for Macarthur on a point of order?
Dr Freelander: My point of order is on relevance. The minister is not in any way answering the question.
The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. It is unfortunate timing on the point of order, because I've just ruled that the minister had been relevant up until that point. Unless the member for Macarthur found something particularly offensive about the three words the minister got out before he jumped—I led with my chin, then!—I call the minister.
Mr HUNT: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. We have seen an increase of $711 million in new Medicare items and an increase of $6 billion in Medicare expenditure over the forward estimates. As the Acting Prime Minister said, we are medi-friends and ultimately they are medi-frauds.
Trade
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (14:38): My question is to the Minister for Trade. Will the minister update the House on the benefits of securing a free trade agreement with the United Kingdom for Australian industry and jobs?
Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (14:38): I thank the member for Dawson for his question and the way he represents canegrowers in his electorate. I know they have spoken to him on many occasions, but since 1974 they haven't been able to get the access for sugar into the UK market they would have liked. I thank the member for his representation on behalf of those canegrowers in this place.
Fifty years ago the then trade minister, Doug Anthony, flew to the UK to attempt to maintain some of the special economic relationship Australia enjoyed with the UK. Britain had turned its attention to the European Common Market, and Australia felt that a special bond was being broken. Half a century on, Australia stands ready again to be a willing partner with the UK. We want to help the UK achieve their aim of Global Britain, like we want them to make sure they work with us to promote trade liberalisation, to be advocates for free trade right across the globe.
The UK is Australia's fifth-largest trading partner, with two-way goods and service valued at $36.6 billion, and the UK is Australia's second-largest investment partner. To give you a sense as to what happened 50 years ago and where we stand now, Australia's beef exports are limited to a post-Brexit UK import quota of just 3,761 tonnes at the moment. Australia's sheepmeat exports are limited to an annual UK quota of just 13,335 tonnes or 4.3 per cent of UK consumption. Our dairy producers are limited to an import quota that amounts to just 44 grams of cheese per person each year, when the average Briton consumes 125 grams of cheese per week.
British consumers are missing out on choosing high-quality, well-priced Australian products. What's more, they are missing out on eating the best lamb chops, the best steak in the world and washing it down with the best glass of Australian wine that you can imagine. Since we came to office we have finalised eight FTAs and we want to add to that list. Our share of trade covered by FTAs has grown from 26 per cent to 70 per cent, and we want to grow that to 75 per cent. We will have more to say on this in the coming hours, when the Prime Minister of Britain stands up with the Prime Minister of Australia.
Medicare
Ms COKER (Corangamite) (14:41): My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. According to the Sunday Herald Sun, patients could be forced to pay a $1,200 gap fee for a common hip surgery thanks to this government's changes to the MBS. Can the Acting Prime Minister explain why life-changing surgery will become so much more expensive for Australians in just two weeks time?
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development and Leader of the Nationals) (14:41): It's just not true. It is simply not true. I will ask the Minister for Health to address this, but this is what Labor tried in the 2016 election. This is the stunt they pulled. They tried to say to Australians, they tried to strike fear indeed into the hearts of older Australians, that the rug was going to be pulled from under Medicare, from under vulnerable patients, and it is just not true. I would go as far as to say it is a Labor lie. I'll get the Minister for Health to—
The SPEAKER: The Acting Prime Minister needs to withdraw that.
Mr McCORMACK: I withdraw. I will ask the Minister for Health to add to my remarks.
The SPEAKER: The Minister for Health.
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Aged Care) (14:42): The member is respectfully incorrect and the reason why is very simple: because the item to which she referred has never been available under Medicare.
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my right.
Mr HUNT: The fact of the matter is that hip arthroscopy for FAI has never been allowed or available under Medicare. There were some who wanted it to be available, but it was not done. What we also know is that the Medical Services Advisory Committee has been concerned that some doctors were inappropriately claiming for items to which they were not entitled. It is a very important principle that we shouldn't have improper claiming. There has been no change to the access to hip arthroscopy because hip arthroscopy for FAI has not been an available item under Medicare. There are some who wanted it. There are some, sadly, that the Medical Services Advisory Committee of Australia, the independent medical umpire, has identified as having been inappropriately co-claiming. It would be a very small minority, I'm certain, but the fact they have pointed that out and highlighted it has meant that this will mean these doctors will not continue to proceed with what was inappropriately done, inappropriately claimed. We know that there is strong precedence for this. I see the member for Ballarat. The member for Ballarat, in an article in The Guardian on, I think, 16 April 2015, boasted of saving a billion dollars from Medicare by making changes to Medicare items. In this case, we have not taken anything away. It has not existed previously. There continues to be clear medical advice from the Medical Services Advisory Committee that that should not change and that there should be no change to current practice.
National Security
Mr ZIMMERMAN (North Sydney) (14:45): My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison and McCormack government is keeping Australians safe by taking positive action to combat organised crime gangs and improve security at our airports and seaports? Is the minister aware of any policy standing in the way of keeping Australians safe?
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson—Minister for Home Affairs) (14:45): I thank the member for his question. He knows, as I'm sure everyone in this place knows, that serious crime is a major threat to our way of life. It costs Australia more than $47 billion a year, and, sadly, the impacts are much greater in terms of the human suffering in our families and in our communities. Last week there was a serious blow delivered to organised crime and criminal gangs in this country through Operation Ironside. The Australian Federal Police, working hand in glove with the FBI, were pivotal in bringing down a series of international criminal networks, including criminal gangs here in Australia. The results have been absolutely outstanding. So far there have been 268 offenders charged, with 627 offences. Nearly four tonnes of drugs have been seized, and just over $51 million in cash has been confiscated.
All Australians should be so proud of the work of the AFP, the Australian Federal Police. They are a smart, dedicated, committed workforce, and they have worked tirelessly to make our community so much safer. They said that critical to this operation was the legislation that was passed in 2018. Our government is absolutely committed to ensuring that our law enforcement agencies and our national security agencies have the legislative backing that they need, which is why today we have brought on in the Senate our transport security legislation.
The Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill will disrupt criminal activity at the wharfs and at the airports. Most Australians would be very shocked to know that there are more than 220 people working in the most secure areas of our airports and wharfs who are on either the National Criminal Target List or the national gangs list. We want to close the loophole to ensure tighter security checks and eligibility for those in trusted positions in our airports and on our wharves. I ask those opposite to pass the legislation that is needed now, the legislation that we have tried to pass through three successive parliaments. We ask those opposite to pass this legislation to support the work that the coalition is doing to make our wharves and our airports more secure. There is no more time that we can wait. This legislation needs to be passed now. I ask those opposite to take a strong interest in national security and to pass the legislation. (Time expired)
COVID-19: Quarantine
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:48): My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. I refer to comments by the New South Wales Premier Gladys Berejiklian in relation to quarantine, when she said, 'In the future, you can't have a hotel built for tourism as a quarantine facility.' When will the Morrison government do its job and create a safe, national quarantine system?
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development and Leader of the Nationals) (14:48): Our ability to keep Australians safe is the envy of the world. The quarantine system, which came about as a result of national cabinet, using hotels for quarantining, has worked largely successfully. It has. We have indeed placed health as the No. 1 priority as we work through COVID-19. We've also made sure we had the economic outcomes. We've put the money into the budget, in successive budgets, to build into a better place out of COVID-19.
So we've made sure that we're strengthening the economy, but we're doing it at the same time that we're placing at the heart of everything we do the welfare and the health of Australians. Indeed, the federal government stands ready to take any detailed submissions from state governments to build quarantine facilities, but there will be criteria around such facilities. They will have to be close to an international airport where there are international routes. They will need to be close to a tertiary hospital such that there are extremely good medical facilities and medical experts there to help with any outbreaks. We are making sure that, if it comes to quarantining, we've got an MOU with the Victorian government on quarantining. But, when you look at the statistics worldwide, you see the latest figures in the United States—615,000 deaths—and that is tragic. They have a very good health system in the United States. In the UK 127,000 people have lost their lives.
The SPEAKER: I say to the Acting Prime Minister he's drifting off what was a very specific question. He's been relevant up until this point, but there's not an opportunity to compare and contrast in the regard that he is internationally.
Mr McCORMACK: Thank you. I know I would prefer to live in Australia than anywhere else, and that is because of the health outcomes that we have put in place, the funding that we have put in place for vaccinations, the funding that we have put in—
The SPEAKER: I'm sorry; the question was very specific, relating to a quote from the New South Wales Premier. He's certainly been very relevant to it up until this point. He needs to return to that or wind up his answer.
Mr McCORMACK: And we have made sure that the Howard Springs facility in the Northern Territory has an additional $500 million to make sure that there are additional beds and additional facilities in that quarantine facility. As I said, we've got a memorandum of understanding with the Victorian government and we stand ready, whether it's New South Wales or any other state and territory. If they want to work with us and partner with us to build more quarantine facilities, providing it through the right criteria that have been established and through the national cabinet process, we are happy to work with them.
COVID-19: Quarantine
Mr DICK (Oxley) (14:51): My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. There have been 22 COVID outbreaks from hotel quarantine since the start of the pandemic. Why has the government rejected a proposal for a purpose-built quarantine facility in regional Queensland which would provide local jobs and keep Australians safer from coronavirus?
The SPEAKER: Before I call the Acting Prime Minister: I should have alternated and gone to the member—
An opposition member interjecting—
The SPEAKER: No, hang on. I've got a better seat than you. If we want to play that game, it will play both ways. So what I'm going to do is we'll go to the question that's been asked and then we'll make it up on the other side. The Acting Prime Minister has the call.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development and Leader of the Nationals) (14:52): Apropos of my previous answer, we are happy to work with any state, any territory to build a proper quarantining facility so long as we've got those criteria answered as well as local community support. But we're not going to subject regional areas to any potential outbreaks, because regional areas have been the safest place in all of the world during this COVID-19 pandemic, and I wouldn't want to live anywhere else other than regional Australia right now, because it has proven to be leading the economic recovery out of COVID-19 and the safest health-wise in all of the world.
But we are happy to work with the Queensland government—
Ms Catherine King interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Ballarat will leave under standing order 94(a). Members on my right will cease interjecting.
The member for Ballarat then left the chamber.
Mr McCORMACK: We are happy to work with the Queensland government should they decide to bring a detailed proposal that meets the criteria. We are happy to talk with them.
Defence
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (14:53): My question is to the Minister for Defence. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison-McCormack government is working with regional partners to keep Australia safe?
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Defence and Leader of the House) (14:53): I thank the honourable member for his question. There's nobody in this place who does more work than he does with PNG and with the north of our country across the Torres Strait to keep his community safe and to keep those on those near islands safe as well. Whatever the threat, whether it's COVID or providing support to those communities, the work that the member for Leichhardt does is quite remarkable.
As all Australians will know, the Morrison government is absolutely committed as our first priority to keeping Australians safe both now and into the decades ahead. But, as we know, the Indo-Pacific region is at the moment a far more complex and far less predictable space than at any time since the Second World War. It's expected that by 2035 at least half of the world's most advanced combat aircraft will be operating in the region, and we know that more than half of the world's 470 in-service submarines are already operating in the Indo-Pacific waters.
The government is stepping up our engagement with our Pacific partners and working even more closely with our allies. As the Prime Minister has demonstrated through his leadership in Cornwall over recent days, he is engaging, and rightly so, with President Biden, with Prime Minister Johnson and with others at the G7 to get a sharper focus on what is taking place in the Indo-Pacific. And the foreign minister and I met with our Japanese counterparts and also with our German counterparts in the two-plus-two dialogue over the last few days—again, a very sharp focus on what is happening in our region. I know that the French, the Germans, NATO and others are having a particular look, in a different way perhaps than they did even 12 or 18 months ago, at what is happening in the Indo-Pacific region, and we're very grateful for their engagement. We'll continue to work very closely with them.
This follows on from a record investment that we've made into the capacity of the Australian Defence Force, a $270 billion investment over the course of this decade, to provide them with the equipment they need to make sure they can keep our country safe. We shouldn't take for granted what we have, and we know that with our partners—in particular, with the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan and India in the Quad—and the work we do with our ASEAN partners and the work the Prime Minister has done with the G7-plus gives us the best opportunity to make sure that we stand up for our sovereignty, to make sure that we reject any attempt at interference in our country or our near neighbours. And we'll make sure that we do whatever it takes to keep Australians safe.
Cybersafety
Dr MARTIN (Reid) (14:56): My question is to the Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts. Will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison-McCormack government's Online Safety Bill will deliver on our commitment to keep Australians safe online?
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts) (14:57): I thank the member for Reid, who, as an extremely well-qualified and experienced academic and clinical psychologist, has a very good understanding about the importance of online safety and the way online abuse can be very damaging to mental health. This is an area where our government has had a very clear focus since coming to government in 2013. In 2015 we created what was then called the Children's eSafety Commissioner, and that was a world first—a scheme to remove cyberbullying material directed at children. In 2017 we expanded the remit and renamed it the eSafety Commissioner and introduced a scheme to assist victims of the unauthorised sharing of intimate images—again, enormously damaging to its victims, overwhelmingly women. In 2019 we gave the eSafety Commissioner additional powers to deal with abhorrent violent material following the appalling live streaming of the murder of more than 50 people in the dreadful Christchurch mosque attack.
We are continuing this. We took to the 2019 election a commitment that we would introduce a new online safety bill to build on and strengthen those existing safeguards. That legislation is now before the other place, and it includes a new adult cyberabuse take-down scheme. It includes stronger measures to deal with the cyberbullying of children. There's a set of basic online safety expectations where we are saying, on behalf of the Australian people, to online platforms, 'This is what we expect of you.' There is a reduction in the take-down period from 48 hours to 24 hours. There will be mandatory transparency reporting on how platforms are addressing online harms.
Australians spend an enormous amount of time online, but they have the same right to be protected by the rule of law when they're in the digital town square as when they're in the physical town square. That's why we established the eSafety Commissioner. That's why we're giving the eSafety Commissioner stronger powers through this new Online Safety Bill now before the other place and why we're also backing the eSafety Commissioner with record funding of over $120 million over the next four years, including nearly $40 million to deliver on the new protections that are set out in the new Online Safety Bill.
The internet is a wonderful resource educationally, socially and economically. But it also contains dangers, and we are determined to make sure that Australians have practical tools that they can have recourse to. That's what the eSafety Commissioner has been effectively doing over her years of operation. Under this new legislation, we are building on and expanding her powers to keep Australians safe online. (Time expired)
COVID-19: Quarantine
Ms WELLS (Lilley) (15:00): My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. Can the Acting Prime Minister confirm evidence from Senate estimates that the Department of Health has not even been asked to provide advice about a fit-for-purpose quarantine facility in Toowoomba?
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development and Leader of the Nationals) (15:00): As I said, Member for Lilley, we are happy to take a detailed submission on any quarantine facility, but it needs to be a detailed submission. They need to address Commonwealth key assessment criteria for such a quarantining facility—a quarantining facility, I have to say, that would complement what we are doing as far as the hotel quarantining system goes, which has been critical to managing the potential spread of COVID-19. That system has been 99.9 per cent successful in preventing the spread of COVID-19 into the community.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr McCORMACK: You can yell all you like, but that is the truth—99.9 per cent. Other countries, elsewhere, would love to have that statistic over their quarantining, over their ability to reduce and minimise COVID-19.
Now, on 4 June, the Commonwealth's key assessment criteria for investment in purpose-built quarantining facilities were released, and the Commonwealth is using these criteria to assess any proposals, be they from Queensland—your state, Member for Lilley—or any other states, for purpose-built quarantine facilities provided by state and territory governments seeking federal support, seeking the support of the Commonwealth. Key considerations include—and these are important—that a proposal should represent value for money. I know, when Labor was in power, there was a lot of infrastructure built that wasn't value for money. But, when we do something—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr McCORMACK: when we do it, there is value for money.
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order?
Mr Burke: It's on direct relevance. The Acting Prime Minister can't talk about the Leppington Triangle in this answer if he wants to talk about value for money.
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Acting Prime Minister has the call, but he needs to be relevant to the question.
Mr McCORMACK: Touchy, touchy! They are that it should provide quarantining capacity and work alongside hotel quarantine, meet the health requirements and be for a national facility for use by all Australians. Further criteria include proximity to an international airport taking regularly scheduled international commercial passenger flights, and closeness—within approximately an hour's vehicle transport, because this is important—to a tertiary hospital, otherwise known as a principal referral hospital. States and territories need to identify the most appropriate potential sites for quarantine capacity, reflecting their experience in the practicalities of an effective quarantine system, which needs to bring together health care, logistics and law enforcement aspects to minimise risks. And that's what we all want. We want to minimise risks. We want to continue what we are doing, and that is keeping the case rates low, keeping the death toll where it is now—910. We do not want any more deaths and we mourn those Australians who have lost their lives and for their families who are left behind.
But I thank, again, on behalf of the government, on behalf of a grateful nation, all of those Australians who have done the right thing during COVID-19, who have worn masks when asked to do so by premiers in far-off capitals, when they were a long, long way from any COVID cases. I thank Australians for what they have done to keep their communities safe.
Agriculture Industry
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn—Deputy Nationals Whip) (15:04): My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management. Will the minister please outline how the Morrison-McCormack government's Ag2030 plan is supporting the agriculture industry and provides the framework for industry to reach record-high levels of agricultural production?
Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa—Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management and Deputy Leader of the National Party) (15:04): I thank the member for Flynn for his question and acknowledge that the region that he represents is an agricultural powerhouse in Queensland that is contributing to the stellar recovery of agriculture, one that ABARES has now finalised will be $66.3 billion for this financial year, up from the $60 billion that was estimated at the start of this financial year. That is because this government, not only in this budget but in the budget before, has put cold hard cash behind agriculture to ensure that it continues to grow. That's why, as part of putting that cold hard cash, we announced our Ag2030 plan of seven pillars.
The first pillar is around trade. ABARES has finalised that this year there will be record exports of $47 billion and is estimating now for next year a growth to $50 billion. That's because we have put more agricultural councils on the ground, in embassies and in high commissions, getting market access commodity by commodity, and also because we are digitising our platforms, making sure it's easier for our exporters to send their products around the world, streamlining the application process, ensuring that our product is competitive and there is speed to market.
We're supporting and making sure we're protecting brand Australia, particularly through biosecurity, through a further $400 million we announced in this year's budget on top of the $888 million committed in the October budget. We're ensuring we're looking at not just putting boots and paws on the ground but also new technology, 3D X-ray technology. It is world leading and has been taken up by other countries in the world that will streamline and improve our capacity to scan even more products as they come through our borders to protect our brand Australia.
We're also looking at the stewardship of land, whether that be through measuring soil carbon or biodiversity to ensure that everyone around the world knows about the stewardship of our land and the way our farmers have done it. There is infrastructure, the $3½ billion in extra money put up to build more dams and plumb this nation. We are prepared to work with the states to go and do this. We are going to cut the cheque and let them dig the holes. That's the constitutional ability of our states, and that is what they can do because we are committing $3½ billion.
The next pillar is around the modern manufacturing platforms. We're putting $1.3 billion into making sure that we can go further through the supply chain and looking at and addressing the vulnerabilities in our supply chains. Importantly, it's also around our innovation systems, making that sure our farmers have the technology and science of the 21st century to allow them to continue to produce the best food and fibre in the world.
Finally, it's about our people. We're reducing prices of university courses by 59 per cent in agricultural courses, which have seen an increase in enrolments by 120 per cent. This government is putting environment and Australian agriculture to reach its goal of 100 billion.
Government Advertising
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (15:07): My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. The government has continued to spend taxpayer money on advertising its so-called comeback, even as it has failed to meet its vaccine rollout targets. How much taxpayer money has been spent spruiking the Prime Minister's slogans, compared to public health communications encouraging Australians to get vaccinated?
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development and Leader of the Nationals) (15:07): It's always important for a government, be it our side or be it those opposite when they were in power during those six, sorry, dysfunctional, chaotic years, to ensure that important public information messages get out there. That is why we have a very transparent advertising system, through which we advertise such things as the vaccination rollout and such things as availability, working in conjunction, collaboration and cooperation with states and territories, to ensure just that. We want Australians to get vaccinated. There is no more important task for Australians at the moment than to get that jab and then to get that second vaccination. We are making sure that, with any advertising, it's always transparent and the information is always made public. It's important information that the federal government gets out to advise Australians accordingly what they could and should be doing on behalf of their communities and their nation.
Climate Change
Dr ALLEN (Higgins) (15:09): My question is to the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. Will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison-McCormack government is working with our international partners to accelerate the development of the technologies we need to reduce emissions here and around the world? Is the minister aware of any alternatives to this approach?
Mr TAYLOR (Hume—Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction) (15:09): I thank the member for Higgins for her question. As a scientist, she knows the power of technology to solve hard problems, including how we bring down emissions whilst maintaining affordable, reliable energy and creating jobs and a strong economy. She knows that technology is the key to that. She also knows that it's all about bringing those clean technologies to cost parity with their higher-emitting alternatives. Then they will be adopted not just in Australia but around the world.
We are doing our bit. We've seen the lowest emissions in Australia since 1990, 20 per cent down on our 2005 levels. Our Technology Investment Roadmap is key to continuing to see that extraordinary performance. Over the next decade, we'll see $80 billion of investment in clean technologies and 160,000 new jobs. We're working with international partners to get the most of these technologies. Those initiatives include partnerships that were signed over the weekend with Singapore, with Germany and with Japan, one of our biggest energy customers. It's all part of a $565 million package to work with international partners to develop and deploy those technologies. That initiative alone will create 2,500 Australian projects.
I am asked about alternatives. The alternative is Labor. So opposed are Labor to this technology led approach that they are opposing $192 million of investment in ARENA. They're opposing 1,400 jobs, and that includes $71 million for electric vehicle charging and hydrogen refuelling infrastructure and $52 million for microgrids in regional Australia. They're opposing $20 million for heavy-vehicle clean technologies and efficiencies and $47 million for energy efficiency in heavy industry. Those opposite are voting against EV charging infrastructure. They're voting against more competitive industry and transport in Australia. They are voting against carbon capture technologies that are supported by the IEA and the IPCC as essential to reaching net zero. The member for Hunter put it succinctly and well. He said, 'It's nothing short of genius: heroically voting against carbon reduction initiatives that Labor actually supports.' Nothing short of genius. Members opposite have no plans, no policies and no idea.
Mr McCormack: I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
CONDOLENCES
Pegg, Mr Duncan
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development and Leader of the Nationals) (15:12): on indulgence—Normally we wouldn't do this as a federal parliament, but I think this is a very unusual situation. The Queensland parliament lost one of its state members to cancer last week. I say 'very unusual' because he was just 40 years young. Former senator John 'Wacka' Williams once said to me, 'No-one should complain about getting old, because some don't get the choice,' and indeed Duncan Pegg, sadly, lost his life.
Duncan Pegg was the member for Stretton. He died just seven weeks after he announced he was retiring from politics to focus on his brave battle against cancer. He was just shy of his 41st birthday. Like all of us, he entered public life because he loved his country. He loved his state of Queensland and he loved his community, and they loved him. We've seen that love returned many times over by his community in recent months. The children of Stretton sent countless get-well and thankyou cards. They remembered him turning up to all their concerts and events. They were handmade and heartfelt cards, absolutely beautiful. One year 2 from Runcorn State School wrote: 'Mr Pegg, thank you for taking care of our school. You're the best.'
On 29 April there was a massive community farewell at the Sunnybank Performing Arts and Cultural Centre, following his retirement from parliament. The 300 seats were snapped up in hours, and those on the waiting list saw it streamed on Facebook. Even though there were no seats left, they came anyway, just to honour and respect this wonderful man. I did not know him, but I read about him and I learnt about him. I reached out to the opposition leader last week, and we had a long conversation about Duncan Pegg. Duncan Pegg once said, 'We have the most beautiful communities, who have had to deal with things that others perhaps haven't.' He was a decent and fair man. We could ask for nothing more. He embodied the best of his community and he courageously sought to serve it even though he was fighting cancer. He loved his community, and, as I say, they loved him back. To Duncan's family, we extend our deepest condolences. May he rest in peace.
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (15:14): on indulgence—I thank the Acting Prime Minister for his genuine and kind words about our friend Duncan Pegg and also for mentioning those little cards that the kids from our community wrote to Duncan; they meant a lot to him. It's very nice of you to provide this opportunity, Mr Speaker, to talk about Duncan on behalf of the Labor Party, to which he dedicated his entire adult life. I also want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for giving me the chance to say a few words about him. Duncan is known to many of us on this side of the House—by the Queensland contingent, of course, but by other members as well. He counted as friends the member for Grayndler, the member for Maribyrnong, and former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.
So many people on this side of the House knew Duncan for a really long time. His state electorate of Stretton straddled the borders of my electorate and the electorate of the member for Moreton as well. We spent many a Friday or Saturday night at the Landmark Restaurant doing community events with Duncan, as his Mandarin got progressively better and Graham's and mine got progressively worse over the years. Of course it was our honour to serve the same people with Duncan Pegg. He was our mate and he was like a brother—not that he needed more brothers! His parents, Graham and Lindsey, had five boys in six years—if you can believe it. The first was Duncan—he was the oldest; then there were the triplets, Cameron, Grant and Graham; and then there was Lachlan. Five boys in six years—amazing.
I know how much that truly wonderful family is hurting right now. I know how much they have to arrange. I know how proud they are of Duncan, and how warranted their pride in Duncan is. I want to thank Grant in particular for the time we were able to spend on the phone today talking about Duncan's life and Duncan's passing. The truth is that, in one sense, Duncan's passing has been a long time coming. We've known it was coming for some time now. But when it did come, around three o'clock last Thursday morning, it didn't sting any less because we were expecting it. He was diagnosed with bowel cancer in October 2019. At the same time, they discovered that the cancer had already spread to his liver and his lungs as well. It was a truly devastating prognosis for Duncan. By the time he got that most devastating prognosis in April this year, having spoken to the doctor, he decided in the hospital, more or less on the spot, that he was going to announce almost immediately that he would be retiring from the Queensland parliament.
As the Acting Prime Minister said, around the end of April there was a big community farewell for Duncan. It was my honour, along with about a dozen others, to say a few words there about Duncan's contribution to our community. The member for Moreton and Kevin Rudd and the Premier of Queensland also got that chance—and, most importantly, the heads of our local P&Cs and some of our community groups. But the story that really stuck with me from that remarkable community farewell event was that on the day Duncan found out that his cancer was terminal—that was in the morning—he kept all his appointments in the afternoon. One of the local music teachers in our area, who was known to us, said it didn't occur to her until some months down the track that the day Duncan came to help open a music school for little kids in our area was the day he found out that he wouldn't be surviving the cancer he had been diagnosed with. He didn't say a word that day. And he didn't say much about his illness for most of the subsequent 18 months or so. He didn't want anybody to pity him. He didn't want anybody to suffer unnecessarily what he was going through. That was just part of his selflessness, his kindness and his compassion.
Only occasionally would you get a glimpse of how difficult things were for Duncan. For me, there were three occasions. On election night last year I spoke to him after he got quite a stunning result in Stretton. It was an enviable result in Stretton, Graham. Duncan said, 'It's nice to run up the score in the last time I run.' I said, 'You'd be mad not to run again.' He said, 'I don't think you understand, mate.' That was one time. At Christmas I said to him, 'What are you doing for Christmas?' We talked about what our plans were. He said that he would be spending a big chunk of it being treated. Also, a couple of Fridays ago, a great school in our community, Stretton State College, named their performing arts centre after him, because he was the instrumental figure in getting the centre funded. He went to all the performances and he knew all the kids and what instruments they played. It was really amazing. They put that on as quickly as they could, in the hope that Duncan could attend. He wasn't there. I knew that he would have done almost anything to get there. His four brothers attended instead of him. That was when I realised the time was getting really close.
Duncan would have turned 41 on the 27th of this month. Instead, the funeral will be on the 26th. He was a son of regional Queensland. He was born in Townsville but grew up in Rocky. He came to Brisbane in the late nineties and studied at Griffith University, at the Nathan campus. That's where I met him 23 years ago. I met him around the time he first joined the Labor Party. He joined the party for one reason: he saw, with the rise of Hansonism, the damage that racism could do to our state and to our country. That enlivened him to get involved in politics, so he joined the Australian Labor Party.
In all of that time, all of those 23 years that I knew him, he was always kind, gregarious, humble and generous. He became more of each of those things as the years went on, and more idealistic. Because he's such a nice guy, people forget, and I don't want people to forget, that he was also a warrior: for students, in the first instance, when I met him; for workers, when he was an industrial lawyer, when he worked for Sciaccas and others in the industrial law system; and for multiculturalism. He was a warrior for his schools and for his sporting groups, and he was a warrior against injustice and discrimination.
The first time he tried to win his state seat, in 2012, like many others he was unsuccessful. He got elected in 2015 and increased his margin in 2017, and by the time of his last victory it was a 65 per cent Labor seat. The more our community saw of Duncan, the more they loved him, the more they appreciated him. He was never in a rush, like so many of us are, to get from one thing to the next. He always had time for people. He always remembered people's names. In our area, most importantly, he always remembered how to pronounce people's names, and we know how difficult that can be from time to time. They appreciated that he took the time to learn Mandarin because his electorate had the biggest proportion of people born overseas in all of Queensland. He wanted to make sure, to the extent it was possible, that he could speak to people in their original language. I think they appreciated too that as soon as he got the last prognosis he made sure that he went to the parliament and said he was retiring, because he didn't want his community to go any longer than was necessary with a member who was dedicating their time to fighting cancer rather than fighting for them. I think Duncan was in on the secret that in the final analysis only two things matter: being surrounded by people you love and who love you back, and being engaged in the cause of elevating others.
The last time I spoke with him, we spoke about a few things. We spoke about our friends James Martin and Linus Power. We talked about whether his great friend Usman Khawaja could fight his way back into the test team. Usman and Duncan had become great friends, and I want to acknowledge and thank Usman for that. Ussie's a great guy; I hope he gets back into the side. We talked about the Broncos. We talked about a whole range of things. But the thing I remember most was that he said, 'I have been dealt a difficult hand, at the end, but I've been dealt a magnificent hand for all of the other 40 years before that.' He said that he had a great family, great friends and a great community, and he'd got to do something that he loved doing. He was prepared for the end, and he was at peace with it. We will never, ever forget him and what he meant to us.
The SPEAKER: As a mark of respect, I would ask all present to rise in their places.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
The SPEAKER: I thank the House.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Defence and Leader of the House) (15:26): I move:
That further statements on indulgence in relation to the death of Duncan Pegg be permitted in the Federation Chamber.
I want to acknowledge the initiation of the Acting Prime Minister, in bringing this discussion on, a fine contribution and matched by the contribution of the member for Rankin. That was a fine moment in this parliament's history and reflected on a fine man who left us way too early.
The SPEAKER: Before I call the Leader of the Opposition, as I said, it's a very different set of circumstances and that is why it has occurred at the end of question time. I would like the Leader of the Opposition just to have a brief indulgence on the matter.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (15:27): I thank the Leader of the House for the motion that he has moved which will allow for other contributions on the condolence for Duncan Pegg. I thank the Acting Prime Minister, who reached out and showed a generosity of spirit in doing so. What we have been left with is one of parliament's finest moments in two great contributions worthy of Duncan Pegg by the Acting Prime Minister and by the shadow Treasurer.
Question agreed to.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Defence and Leader of the House) (15:28): 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
The SPEAKER (15:28): I present the following Auditor-General's performance audit reports of 2020-2021: No. 42—Responding to non-compliance with biosecurity requirements: Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment; No. 43—Australian Federal Police’s use of statutory powers: Australian Federal Police.
Documents made parliamentary papers in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 28 March 2018.
PRIVILEGE
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (15:29): Under the provisions of standing order 51, I rise on a matter of privilege arising out of recent conduct by YouTube, a subsidiary of Google, which I believe is in contempt of parliament. I will be as brief as possible in this matter. The conduct I refer to is that, on Monday 7 June, YouTube censored and removed from their platform a video titled 'Craig Kelly speech, Australian House of Representatives, 1 June 2021', which was a speech in the debate on the Private Health Insurance Amendment (Income Thresholds) Bill 2021, a speech made here on the floor of this parliament. Further, this censoring of parliamentary proceedings came with a threat: 'Because it's the first time, this is just a warning. If this happens again, your channel will get a strike and you won't be able to do things like upload, post or live-stream for one week.' I will seek leave to table that document later.
Free speech in this parliament should be absolutely sacrosanct, and I hope all members would support that. The conduct of censoring parliamentary debate and removing a parliamentary speech from a platform, and the above-mentioned threat, is an improper interference with the free performance of my duties as a member of the Australian parliament and has impeded me in the discharge of those duties. Therefore I seek precedence to move a motion to refer this matter to the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests, seeking a declaration that contempt has occurred.
Mr Speaker, in submitting that a prima facie case exists and that an attempt has occurred, I respectfully refer you to House of Representatives Practice, chapter 20:
Generally speaking, any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence.
Mr Speaker, I submit to you that the key words here are 'obstructs or impedes'.
The SPEAKER: The member for Hughes needs to just state where he believes an alleged contempt is. Once he has fully done that, and tabled any supporting material, the process is: I'll consider it and report back to the House. He cannot, as he is now doing, seek to give his definition of what is in the Practice, what I need to look at and all the rest of it. I'll do all of that. He just really needs to state where he thinks the contempt is.
Mr CRAIG KELLY: I thank the House. I will wrap this up in conclusion. In article 9 of the Bill of Rights of 1688, it was declared that the—
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr CRAIG KELLY: They may laugh—
The SPEAKER: Member for Hughes, you're now debating the matter.
Mr CRAIG KELLY: I seek leave to table the related documents.
Leave granted.
The SPEAKER: The documents are tabled. I will consider the matter in the normal way and report back to the House in due course.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Health Care
The SPEAKER (15:32): 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 healthcare.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Mr BUTLER (Hindmarsh—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (15:33): The most reliable truism of modern Australian politics over the last 50 years is this: the Liberal Party have never supported Medicare. They have never supported the concept of comprehensive, universal health insurance. They were at least very clear about that for decades, because, for decades, they tried to kill it. The godfather of the modern Liberal Party, John Howard, the former Prime Minister, was especially clear about this. He used phrase after phrase to reinforce the depth of his opposition not just to Medibank, and then to Medicare, but to the concept of universal health insurance in its broader sense. He described the Hawke government's achievement of introducing Medicare as a 'total disaster'. He said it was a 'nightmare'. He said Medicare was 'one of the great failures of the Hawke government'. Back in 1987, as the Leader of the Opposition, John Howard vowed that he would never stab Medicare in the back; he said he would 'stab it in the stomach'.
After the 1993 election, when the Liberal Party lost another election on the platform of abolishing Medicare, they finally hoisted the white flag against the total abolition of Medicare. But let's be clear: they have never embraced the idea of comprehensive universal health insurance. Instead, what they've done for the last 25 years is what John Howard promised never to do. They've spent 25 years stabbing Medicare in the back because they've not been able to abolish it. In their hearts and actions, their only concession to Medicare is as a safety net, not a system of comprehensive universal health insurance. Yet again, they're playing from the playbook of the Republican Party in the US, reluctantly agreeing to a safety net of government funded insurance for low-income households and pensioners but insisting that the middle class pay their own way. Under the rubric of freedom, they're insisting that the middle class pay not only the Medicare levy and their private health insurance but also, increasingly, gap fees.
This government has spent eight long years hacking away at the system of universal comprehensive health insurance, which is one of the shining jewels of Australian politics from the last five decades and one of the proudest legacies of the Labor Party. Memorably, their first attempt to hack away at it was the GP tax in the 2014 budget. They couldn't pass that, so instead they took it out on the doctors, who were, along with the Labor Party, one of the many groups that opposed the GP tax. They punished them directly, and indirectly punished patients, by freezing MBS rebates for years and years. Their budget papers made no secret of the fact that the four-year freeze on MBS rebates, which was introduced in 2014-15, was a direct result of their inability to pass a GP co-payment through the parliament. Four years later, after four years of freezing the indexation of MBS, the Treasurer, now the Prime Minister, added another two years to freeze the MBS rebates.
A government member interjecting—
Mr BUTLER: I hear the interjection from across the table.
A government member interjecting—
Mr BUTLER: You whispered it! It was another play from the Republican playbook. Like they do with so many things—the treatment of women, universal health insurance—they pulled out the equivalence chapter. They said the Labor Party started it. One of the great falsehoods of the last decade is that the Labor Party froze the indexation of the MBS system in the way that those opposite have done. It is quite clear that the realignment of MBS indexation in 2013 to the beginning of the financial year, which is when every other health program is indexed, was not a freezing. It is quite clear from the budget papers in 2013—page 177—that, under a Labor government, the next indexation of the MBS system was to be 1 July 2014. Unfortunately, we didn't bank on those opposite getting hold of the Treasury bench and freezing those indexations for year upon year. Those years of real cuts to Medicare funding have seen gap fees skyrocket.
In question time, the minister said—quite falsely, I think—that 86 per cent of patients are getting bulk-billed. He said there had been a six per cent increase in patients, when he knows that the 86 per cent for bulk-billing is about consults. It's not about patients, and it reflects the fact that older Australians go to the GP far more often. The government doesn't release the number of patients who get bulk-billed against the number of patients who actually pay gap fees, but the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare estimates that one in three patients who go to a GP has to pay a co-payment. Those are working families. That is the middle class of Australia. Those Australians have seen their gap fees, in the face of indexation being frozen by this government, skyrocket. They've skyrocketed by one-third for visits to GPs and by fully one-half for visits to specialists. On average, one in three patients is paying $10 more for every GP visit than they were paying when this government came to power and $30 more for a visit to a specialist. On average, if you are seeing a GP seven times a year—as most patients do—and a specialist once a year, this government has lumped a $100 Medicare tax on you over the last eight years. It's all a product of the Medicare cut through the freeze on indexation for year upon year.
Remarkably, under this minister the average gap to see a GP now, for the standard level-B consult, is actually more than the Medicare rebate. The gap was supposed to be a small contribution by the patient. But, under this government and under this minister, the average gap now is actually more than the government contributes to the cost of going to a GP. You pay your Medicare levy. You pay your private health insurance. And now, under this government, middle-class Australia—working families—are funding the majority of a standard level-B consult. That's the contribution to primary care and Medicare under this government.
The concern we have about the latest MBS changes is that they continue this pattern of behaviour that will increase patient costs. They add surgery to GP consults and specialist consults that have seen gap fees and copayments go up. Now, we're not opposed to a review of the MBS to ensure that items in the MBS reflect contemporary practice. It's a sound idea. But, like so much about this government, it's been utterly bungled in its implementation, just like the 2018 changes to spinal surgery that were an earlier tranche of the MBS review. It was sound in approach, properly updating the MBS items associated with spinal surgery to reflect contemporary surgical practice. But, according to the AMA:
Patients were left out of pocket, spinal surgeries were delayed, and doctors couldn't provide patients with informed financial consent about potential gap fees.
And with the latest tranche—more complex, more broad—we are seeing history repeating.
The minister tried to say there shouldn't be any increase in gap fees as a result of these 900 changes, but the Grattan Institute has said:
This will almost inevitably mean that patients will face increased out-of-pocket costs.
Mr Hunt interjecting—
Mr BUTLER: I hear the minister scoffing at the Grattan Institute's analysis, but the AMA also said that that's guaranteed, that patients will see increased costs.
As I said, a review of the MBS is a sound idea. But increased gap fees as a result of these changes that the AMA says are guaranteed are no accident. Just like low wages, they are a deliberate policy feature of this government. They are a deliberate design feature of their approach to public health care, because they have never, ever accepted the concept of comprehensive and universal health insurance. The minister says, 'Trust us.' The minister says, 'There's no reason that patient costs should rise.' But that has been the story of this government for eight years: patients having to put their hand in their pocket to go to the GP, patients having to put their hand in their pocket to go to a specialist and now patients having to put their hand in their pocket to have life-changing surgery. Well, when the minister says, 'Trust us,' I say to Australians: you should never trust the Liberal Party on Medicare.
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Aged Care) (15:43): I'm actually delighted to take this matter of public importance regarding health care, because it's quite extraordinary that the member opposite has given a speech and not cited a single example—not one example. And there's a reason for that: there's none he can stand by. During question time today they alluded to a hip arthroscopy. This was referring to femoroacetabular impingement. In other words, they tried to cite a particular example which isn't even on Medicare. If I may, the Medical Services Advisory Committee found that the use of therapeutic hip arthroscopy and the management of FAI was poorly supported by evidence and varied greatly in clinical practice; therefore, this procedure has never attracted public funding and has never been listed on the MBS.
That was the one example from those opposite—something that wasn't on the MBS. They've been caught out in a 'Mediscare' again. But this time it's so obvious, it's so early, it's so ill-thought-through that it's simply embarrassing. This is possibly the lamest MPI I have seen in almost 20 years in this place. So, with great respect, I'm sorry to have to say that to the member opposite, who is generally a very nice fellow and whom I quite like. Having said that, to cite something that isn't supported and was picked out for being misused and inappropriately co-claimed—I'd be very keen to understand whether or not they think inappropriate practices is something that they support, as found by the medical experts, not just once but five years ago. But there has been no change in that period of time.
Let me now step back and talk about where we are as a country. This last year has seen the greatest positive transformation of Medicare since Medicare's formation. There was the creation of telehealth, which has seen over 60 million consultations occur. There was a massive investment, all up, of $6 billion in this budget. There was the increase of the total funding for Medicare from $19 billion when Labor was last in power to $30 billion, $31 billion, $32 billion and $33 billion over the forward estimates. That is real increase—already a 58 per cent increase but growing significantly further over the course of the coming budget.
In particular, we've also seen a $711 million investment in new items just in this budget. If they were to stop that, then I would be very surprised. I'm going to run through what some of those things are. That $711 million investment includes, as I mentioned earlier, $288 million for antidepression therapy. For the first time, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, rTMS, has been included on the Medicare scheme. That's a fundamental change in depression treatment. It puts Australia near the forefront of the world in terms of this treatment. It's about mental health. Sadly, that compares—and this is something that I hadn't previously brought up until very recently—with what happened under Labor when they were in government. What we saw in particular in their time and on their watch was a slashing of mental health funding under Medicare. In the 2011-12 federal budget, the then government and the then mental health minister, who is now the shadow minister for health, announced a $580 million cut to mental health services under Medicare. This included a reduction in the number of Medicare sessions available under Better Access from 18 to 10 per year.
Mr Deputy Speaker, you may be aware that in the October budget we doubled the number of Better Access services available from 10 to 20. We were undoing what Labor did. We were undoing the damage that they had done. Let me be clear: they cut the number of mental health sessions from 18 to 10; we doubled them from 10 to 20. At the same time, they also slashed the rebates for the preparation of mental health treatment plans for general practitioners by $580 million. But it is very important that we understand this is not our assessment. This comes from the 2011-12 budget paper, pages 229 and 230:
The Government will revise the number of allied health treatment services available to patients under the Better Access initiative.
… … …
The new arrangements will ensure that the Better Access initiative is more efficient and better targeted by limiting the number of services that patients with mild or moderate mental illness can receive …
I've talked a lot about what they've done in pausing PBS medicines, but perhaps it might be time to talk a whole lot more about what they've done in slashing mental health services. Just to repeat, on page 229 of the 2011 Budget Paper No. 2, it says:
The new arrangements will ensure that the Better Access initiative is more efficient and better targeted by limiting the number of services that patients with mild or moderate mental illness can receive …
That's what they actually did.
In this budget alone, we added $711 million. We put in place $288 million for direct mental health services. Last budget, we doubled the number of mental health services under the Better Access scheme, but we also added another $111 million for creating a new item for patients and carers of young people with mental health conditions to be able to participate in Better Access schemes. Last budget we added to the Better Access scheme. This budget we added to the Better Access scheme under Medicare. When they were in power, they slashed it by $588 million. That is a genuine cause for shame. But it's more than that. They've done it not just once or twice; they've done it on a number of occasions. I made reference before to an article by the member for Ballarat, when she was the shadow minister. I believe it was 16 April 2015 when she wrote very proudly in an article in the Guardian:
As a result of Labor's review process—
this is Labor's Medicare review process—
testing is now refined to better target patients who really do need a Vitamin D test. Combined with another move to split Folate and Vitamin B12 testing, close to $1 billion in savings are being realised over the next five years on just two MBS items—
Medicare Benefits Schedule items. So they took a billion out there and they took $580 million out of Medicare Better Access services for mental health, and we've put in $6 billion in this budget. So, seriously, this is going to be a long week for Labor if they want to run with this through the House, because I look forward to responding time and again with the actual facts.
Then, in terms of what we've been able to do in the course of this budget, the other items which they seem to complain about include an increase in the fee for the revision of a knee replacement, from $2,330 to $2,645; an increase in services for osteotomy of the tibia, from $850 to $956; an increase for coronary artery bypass grafting surgery, of 50 per cent; an increase for complex aortic procedures of $500 to $1,000; and an increase for operations on the spleen, a splenectomy during a distal pancreatectomy, from $1,231 to $1,617. There are many, many examples of those. If they wish to block them, good luck, but they would be denying support to patients. I would also note that the AMA have set out in writing, in a joint release with the government, their support for the actions that we have taken.
Not only can we compare all of this we have done on Medicare in increasing support for mental health, increasing access for new items and creating telehealth; we have increased bulk billing from 82 per cent on Labor's watch for the equivalent period, year to date, to 88.7 per cent. And what is bulk billing? It means that you are able to go to the doctor without having to pay. That's an increase of 6.7 per cent. That's what's happening across the country. And these figures are on the same basis as the figures Labor used when they were in office. That's a 6.7 per cent increase in terms of those who can visit the doctor without having to pay. That's real. That's significant. That's important. That's reducing pressure.
At the same time, we've also slashed in half the price rises that were occurring in private health insurance under Labor. We believe in the public health system. We also believe in the private health system. We believe that's what sets Australia apart and we also believe that is what has allowed Australia to have a partnership which has protected Australians during COVID. I am proud of what this government has done and I condemn what the previous government did. (Time expired)
Ms KEARNEY (Cooper) (15:53): I am a nurse. I maintain my registration proudly, albeit non-practising, because, once a nurse, always a nurse. I'm a proud member of the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation. I was the federal secretary of that great union, which is the largest in the country. It has just over 300,000 members. I worked the vast majority of my nursing life in the public health system, and as a trade unionist I fought hard to save Medicare. I saw firsthand the benefits of the universal health system that we have in Australia—a universal health system with Medicare at its heart. Australians love Medicare and they know the Liberals don't.
Back in the seventies, Liberal members voted over and over against the introduction of Medibank, as it was in the beginning, as introduced by Gough Whitlam. They argued it was a totalitarian measure designed to destroy the people's health and, at the same time, curiously, argued it was socialised medicine. Gough won out in the end. But then Malcolm Fraser, as we heard the shadow minister for health explain, spent eight years as Prime Minister white-anting it to the extent that they attempted to abolish it in 1981. Bob Hawke came to power in 1983, and he virtually had to start all over again with our Medicare. Howard hated it, as we heard before, and Tony Abbott established the disastrously insidious Commission of Audit, which convinced him to introduce a co-payment for Medicare. The people of Australia told him, straight up, what they thought about that. Then Malcolm Turnbull set up a privatisation committee to, pretty much, examine how best to privatise the public health system and Medicare. Again, that went down well with the people of Australia—not!
They have persistently run down the administration of Medicare with cuts to the Public Service, the very people who help our community access it. They kept rebates frozen for years, undermining bulk-billing, and now they have undermined the provision of services with unexplained changes to the MBS. That, without any doubt, will drive up gap fees and out-of-pocket expenses. You can't trust the coalition with Medicare and public health services.
I received an email from a constituent this week. She is 37 years old. She wrote: 'Ged, I am writing to you because I am very concerned about the media reports of changes to Medicare rebates. I don't have some groundbreaking tear-inducing personal story to support my concerns, but I have had a number of minor surgeries in my lifetime, which I've been able to afford through a combination of Medicare, private health insurance and family support.' She continued: 'I'm worried at the 'death by a thousand cuts' approach to universal health care. I have major worries about the slide towards an American inspired private, horrendously expensive and inequitable approach to health care.' She wrote: 'I see this as another way that inequality is becoming entrenched in Australian communities, with the people proposing and supporting such changes coming from economic positions of great advantage and who will never feel the true impact of a high medical bill.' She finished by saying: 'Ged, I hope that you are working hard in Canberra to ensure that younger Australians, such as myself, don't continue to have the rug pulled out from under them as they grow older, pulled out by a generation of people who are undermining Australian values of equity, compassion and universal access to health care.' I couldn't have said it any better myself. She is just one of the vast majority of Australians who care deeply about the universal health system and are troubled by cuts.
Another example of the government running down our health system is the disaster that is aged care. The royal commission found that aged care—the responsibility of the federal government—was suffering from deep neglect. Much has been said in this House and beyond about the complete disregard and bungling of the aged-care system by this government. It is a system neglected. The pandemic gorged open cracks, creating a cavernous disaster when the COVID pandemic raged through our communities. A bungling attitude and incompetence continued with the vaccination rollout—again, the sole responsibility of the federal government.
Politics is a game of tricks to those on the other side. They say: 'Who can we trick with our smirks and our slogans? Who can we ignore with diversions and big photo opportunities? How many health workers can we make believe we care about them with crumbs and small handouts and weaselly worded legislation that takes away rights and services?' They on that side are about tricks. Labor knows that politics is about priorities, and we have Medicare and the public health system at our heart. (Time expired)
Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne) (15:58): I was very pleased to be asked to talk on this MPI. I now understand how John McEnroe felt when he questioned the umpire and said, 'You cannot be serious!' The opposition, in choosing to argue that we are failing in the health portfolio, seriously, must have been blind, deaf and not watching or reading anything for the last six or seven years. We have had the biggest increase in the health budget in the history of this nation.
Look at what we did in the COVID situation. The health outcomes we have delivered in public health, controlling the pandemic in this country, are unbelievable compared to other nations around the world. A few stand out. There is the reform in telehealth, specifically triggered by COVID. That will be a long-lasting reform, although we have extended the special COVID provisions until December 2021. We have organised the private hospital sector's capacity to increase the amount of personal protective equipment. There is the ventilator building project. There is money on vaccine research and subsidies for state governments so they can do all this testing for COVID. There's the mental health support for COVID. Beyond Blue is available 24/7 because of the COVID response. We know that people being isolated raises mental health issues. We've funded extra support mechanisms to get out to remote Australia for Indigenous testing and vaccination. We've initiated electronic prescribing. These are all great reforms that will have long-lasting benefits for Australian health consumers.
The last couple of budgets have covered so many things in health that there is no way I can cover them all, but I'll just cherrypick a few of them: the initiatives in women's health; the extra funding for Jean Hailes to deliver its services online; the initiatives for endometriosis and pelvic pain, and for preventing premature labour, keeping children in the womb longer so that you don't have the risk of premature birth. Look at what we've done with the PBS—the dollars tell you the story—and compare it with what the last Labor health minister did, admitting that they were going to save money by delaying listings. In 2012-13 there was an $8.74 billion spend in the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. By the end of this four-year cycle, it will be up to $11.221 billion. In 2012-13 it took an average of 312 days to list a drug on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. In 2019-20 it's down to 166 days. That's almost a 50 per cent reduction in the time it takes to get an appropriate proven, safe and cost-effective new drug onto the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
In 2012-13 the Medicare spend was $19.47 billion. By the end of this four-year budgetary cycle, that will be up to $33½ billion. We've had the Medicare Benefits Schedule review. We've been reviewing all the subspecialties and getting rid of old, superfluous MBS item numbers and practices that aren't justified and putting in new ones. Mental health issues are a scar on Australian life. There's been an increase in mental health issues for young and old. We have announced more headspace centres. We have initiated the Head to Health centres for people older than the headspace age. We have 10 new headspace centres and five satellite services being upgraded. We've put funding into dealing with eating disorders. We've put funding into advanced biological drugs for cancer and other chronic bone marrow disorders. The list goes on. The one thing you wouldn't choose to criticise the coalition government on is health. No-one is perfect, but the health portfolio—in my time in this parliament—has seen the most incredible period of extra funding. All the things that were always missing seem to have been picked up and supported, and this last budget confirms that.
Ms COKER (Corangamite) (16:03): Scott Morrison has launched the biggest attack on Medicare in decades. It is an attack that will be rammed through without any consultation with the sector or engagement with Australians who love Medicare and rely on it. It's hardly surprising. This kind of behaviour is in the government's DNA. In the case of the current health minister, it was outlined in his maiden speech to parliament back in 2002. Twenty years ago, the health minister stood in this place and foreshadowed his vision for Australia's much-loved public healthcare system. He hoped our system would look more like the US healthcare system, a system that is expensive and fails its most vulnerable. It may have taken the health minister 20 years, but it looks like he's finally one step closer to achieving his vision, a vision that would destroy universal health care, health care that is affordable for everyone—the Medicare system that Labor created, an amazing legacy and one that we will continue to fight for.
Under the cover of the Victorian coronavirus outbreak, the Prime Minister and the health minister have sneakily announced that there will be almost 1,000 changes to the Medicare Benefits Schedule. Imagine that. There is a once-in-a-century pandemic, and the government decides to make cuts to our healthcare system. What an extraordinary ambush of people who are already suffering. These last-minute changes, which come into effect in just under three weeks time, will result in many having their life-changing surgeries cancelled with little notice. Others are anxious they will face huge bills they were not expecting. One in six items on the MBS are being changed.
And it's not just Labor that are raising concerns about these changes and the increases to gap fees and out-of-pocket expenses. The Australian Medical Association has warned the Morrison government about the rushed nature of these changes, the lack of consultation and the fact that they cannot be implemented without a significant disruption to the provision of health care for countless Australians. The Grattan Institute has urged the government to defer the changes to allow adequate time for consultation.
What those opposite are doing to Medicare is symbolic of how they're dealing with the health system in general. Time and time again this government produces significant policy changes with little consultation and attempts to ram the changes through. We have seen it with the NDIS and their plan to introduce independent assessments. It's a pattern of behaviour that is often about slashing funding, and it increases anxiety and uncertainty in the process. You just can't trust the coalition when it comes to health care and aged care.
The people in my electorate of Corangamite know this. They're feeling the burden of this government's failures. Out-of-pocket costs for a GP visit in Corangamite have soared by 34 per cent since the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government came into power eight years ago. Corangamite residents also have to hand over more per visit to a specialist, with costs rising up to 64 per cent. Just last week I spoke to Tony. Tony lives on the Surf Coast in my electorate. He has type 1 diabetes and he's extremely distressed about the state of our healthcare system and the increasing out-of-pocket costs taking place under this government. His condition means he requires regular check-ups and management. Higher out-of-pocket fees mean he's paying more for health care. Tony's confused about how this government can expect working families to make ends meet under the rising costs. In his own words, he has said: 'I'm not sure how the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the health minister expect working families to make ends meet. One of the most concerning things about our situation is we are still some of the lucky ones, and we know how hard it is for people doing it tough out there.'
The fact is that, under the eight years of this tired old government, the cost of seeing a doctor has gone up and the wait times are longer. It's not good enough. Everyone knows that when you attack Medicare you attack people and you attack their health. Medicare is one of Australia's greatest achievements. It was built by Labor, and I will always fight to protect it. In contrast, cutting Medicare and dismantling it is in the Liberals' DNA. You cannot trust the Liberals with Medicare.
Ms LIU (Chisholm) (16:08): The Morrison government has been at the helm of Australia's leadership while going through the most significant health crisis we have seen in modern history. Many countries have taken a big hit throughout this crisis. They have suffered major casualties and seen their healthcare systems fail. It is with pride that I can say that, with the Morrison government steering the ship that is Australia, we have avoided the treacherous waters that many other countries have strayed into.
While we have managed the COVID-19 health crisis with aplomb, health was always a priority for this government prior to the pandemic. The Morrison government has always recognised the importance of ensuring Australians have access to mental health resources and support. Our government is leading the way on mental health reform by investing a record $2.3 billion in the National Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Plan. Based on the principles of prevention, compassion and care, the plan will invest $1.3 billion in high-quality and person-centred treatment, including $820.1 million for a national network of mental health centres for adults, youth and children through the Head to Health and headspace programs. For a long time Australians were so focused on their physical health that they didn't recognise the effect mental health could have on their quality of life. Under the Morrison government this has changed for the better. We care for the mental health of Australians, and we are making significant and meaningful reform to improve the mental health of all Australians.
Our healthcare system is envied across the world. We have an efficient and effective public health system that works for Australians and caters for all. It does not just reduce the cost of seeing a doctor or getting necessary surgery. It also includes the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, a scheme that sees the government heavily subsidise life-saving medication for those in need. Astoundingly, since 2013 the Australian government has approved more than 2,677 new or amended medicine listings on the PBS for an overall investment by the government of $13.2 billion. This represents an average of around 30 listings or amendments per month, or one a day. I say it's an investment because that's exactly what it is. Unlike the Labor Party, the Morrison government sees these new listings as an investment in Australians. The Australian people deserve it and the Morrison government will, as it always has, deliver on its promises to the public.
By comparison, Labor stopped listing medicines in 2011. In the 2011-12 portfolio budget statements, it explained that the listing of some medicines would be deferred until fiscal circumstances permitted. On 25 February 2011 Labor announced the unprecedented deferral of the listing of a number of medicines under the PBS, including medications for the treatment of schizophrenia and the treatment of endometriosis. This tells me that they care little for the mentally ill and the women of this country. Labor could not manage the economy and chose to compromise on the health—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Llew O'Brien ): The member for Macarthur on a point of order?
Dr Freelander: I totally object to that description.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: What's your point of order, Member for Macarthur?
Dr Freelander: On the truth, the relevance of what she's—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's not a point of order. The member is being relevant to the topic. As you well know, the chair doesn't adjudicate the truth of these things.
Ms LIU: Labor could not manage the economy and chose to compromise on the health of the most exposed and most vulnerable. This was a callous and horrific act by the— (Time expired)
Dr FREELANDER (Macarthur) (16:13): First of all, I would like to object very strongly to the description by the member for Chisholm of our side being uncaring to the most disadvantaged. In fact, exactly the opposite is true.
A government member interjecting—
Dr FREELANDER: We did not stop listing medicines. That isn't true, it is a lie and it has no basis in fact.
A government member interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Llew O'Brien ): The member will stop interjecting.
Dr FREELANDER: Some medicines were deferred, but we continued to list medications.
I rise to speak on this matter of public importance on the government's failures on health care, and I thank the member for Hindmarsh for bringing it. I want members to think about two things: universality and equity. People have forgotten, but the Whitlam government introduced Medibank because the commonest cause of bankruptcy in Australia in the 1960s and 1970s was health costs. Medibank was destroyed by the Fraser government, because they didn't care about the health of the most disadvantaged people in Australia. Subsequently, the Hawke Labor government reintroduced Medicare. I started my private practice in the same week that Medicare became available for all Australians. For the first time, it allowed people access to high-quality medical care in an equitable way, so that people in the most disadvantaged areas could access health care. There was a pay-off in that for the doctors: by bulk-billing people, they didn't have to chase bad debts. So they agreed to have a fee, which at that stage was 85 per cent of the scheduled fee, repaid to them through Medicare payments and to forgo the 15 per cent, which was assumed to be a cost of having to collect bad debts et cetera. Subsequently, Medicare has continued to be attacked by the Liberal-National government whenever they are in power. This government is really just par for the course for Liberal governments.
We know there are huge inequities in health care in Australia. For example, life expectancy at birth for the average Australian born in metropolitan Sydney is 82 to 84 years. In rural areas, it's 78 to 80 years, a significant difference in life expectancy. Yet the National Party and the Liberal Party have done very little to try to change this. We know that health care is worse in outer metropolitan areas. Access to general practitioners has become almost impossible for many low-income Australians in outer metropolitan areas. I have approached the Minister for Health and Aged Care on several occasions with supporting letters from general practices in my electorate of Macarthur and in other electorates such as Chifley, Werriwa and Macquarie—the outer metropolitan areas—saying they cannot attract general practitioners because of the changes that this government has made to District of Workforce Shortage qualifications. They can't attract general practitioners. I've had patients and their parents approach me saying they couldn't get access to general practitioners. They were having to use their local hospital as their GP because they couldn't get in to see local doctors. This government and this health minister have done nothing about it. He sent a motherhood letter back to me and to those practices, without any active change.
We know also about this latest Medicare review. It was necessary and has been six years in the making. It was headed by some really good people, like Professor Bruce Robinson and Professor Michael Besser, people of my acquaintance. They are really very smart academics and very smart doctors who've done their best to provide a review. Yet there's been no public discussion about these changes. There has been very little information released even to medical practitioners. As the only medical practitioner in this House with an active Medicare provider number, I've seen very little information about the new changes. There's been no public discussion, and virtually every group that I speak to, from the AMA to the College of Physicians to the College of Surgeons, feels that gap costs are going to be increasing for people to access high-level medical care. This is a disgrace. It's inequitable and it's unfair, at a time when in the last week we have seen published the highest incomes by profession in Australia, where five out of the top six were all medical, with surgeons earning on average $410,000. And I can tell you that, with most surgeons I know, if they're only earning $410,000 they're not really trying. So that has been published, and yet we're going to tell the average Australian that they have to pay more to see their doctor. It is a disgrace. This is the destruction of Medicare by stealth, and there needs to be adequate public discussion of those changes.
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (16:19): I would like to acknowledge the contribution of the member for Macarthur in reminding us of the history and the noteworthy origins of Medicare. And thank you to the opposition for bringing forward this debate today. On this side of the House, we are always happy to talk about health care.
If ever we needed any more signs of our healthcare successes, we should just look overseas. While Australians go about their lives in relative normalcy, around the world hospitals are clogged, morgues are overloaded and families are grieving. Meanwhile, Australia has had no deaths this year and only a few hundred locally acquired cases. While our hearts go out to those in Melbourne right now, I have confidence that these quick circuit-breaker lockdowns will ensure that life will return to normal sooner than if the disease had been allowed to run rampant. While much of the praise for the handling of this pandemic can go to the states, the federal government has been supporting their efforts in providing healthcare packages to ensure Australians have had the support they've needed.
In the 2021-22 budget, the Australian government provided a further $1.7 billion to extend our COVID-19 health response package and a further $1.9 million to provide vaccine purchases and rollouts. These measures bring the total health-related COVID expenditure to over $25 billion. One of the secrets to our successes locally has been the testing numbers. Of the 19 million COVID tests taken locally, eight million were funded by this government at a cost of $650 million. We've also extended the operation of Medicare COVID-19 pathology test items until 31 December 2021, and we're working with states to respond quickly whenever COVID rears its ugly head.
On 13 March 2020 the Australian government and all state and territory governments signed the National Partnership on COVID-19 Response. As part of the partnership, the government will provide a 50 per cent contribution to the costs incurred by state and territory governments, public health and hospital systems in responding to the COVID-19 outbreak. As of 7 June 2021, the government have provided $5.8 billion to states and territories under this partnership. I could talk for more than five minutes about the success of this government's response to COVID, which have kept us amongst the best performing nations as others have succumbed to devastating outbreaks and a tragic loss of life, but I'd also like to speak of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. While we face a pandemic now, one day hopefully soon we will be back to normal, and it is important to know that Australians can rely on this government to give them access to the health care and medicines they need to live and thrive.
Since 2013 the Australian government has approved more than 2,677 new or amended medicine listings on the PBS at an overall investment by the government of $13.2 billion. This represents an average of around 30 listings or amendments per month. That is about one every single day. The PBS gives life-saving medicines to Australians at hugely reduced prices. Many medicines would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per year and be out of the reach of many, but, through the PBS, they will pay $41.30 or $6.60 per script, and 91 per cent of PBS scripts each year, 186 million, are dispensed to concession card holders. Many patients pay no more than $6.60 per script. And 37 million scripts are free of charge because patients have reached their safety net. Equally important, the PBS ensures that the pharmaceutical companies receive fair prices for their medicines, ensuring these drugs are still made available to Australians and future life saving treatments will be available here when they have been proven to work.
We are proud to say that we have a policy to list all positive recommendations on the PBS and we are doing it quicker than ever before. Back in 2012, it took 312 days for an item recommended for listing to actually be listed. Under this government, that is now down to 166 days, ensuring Australians get medicines they need sooner. Many pharmaceutical companies are based in Bennelong and I would love to list all of their recent additions to the PBS that are based locally but, unfortunately, the companies are too innovative and the government far— (Time expired)
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (16:24): The Liberals last week launched the biggest attack on Medicare in decades. While the nation has been focused on the government's vaccine rollout failures and quarantine failures, the Liberals have snuck out almost 1,000 changes to the Medicare Benefits Schedule. The result of these changes is Australians paying more for essential health care and surgeries, with higher out-of-pocket costs. We know these changes are bad news, because the Prime Minister was nowhere to be seen when they were quietly announced. If these changes had been good news you can bet your bottom dollar the Prime Minister would have been there for the photo op, wearing a fake doctor's gown and a fake stethoscope. But there was no photo op, because not even the Prime Minister's private army of media operatives could spin this assault on Medicare into a good-news story.
Labor gave Australia Medicare; the Liberals gave Australia robodebt. Labor builds; the Liberals cut. Over the past eight years of this Liberal government we've seen a radical assault on Australia's treasured institutions, like Medicare. And while today it is Medicare, there's also the ABC, the arts sector, public schools, TAFE and universities—institutions and the essence of our culture, a culture that values fairness and mateship ahead of selfishness and a winner-takes-all attitude. These things are under assault from the Liberals and their radical reimagining of Australia. The Liberals will not be happy until Australia looks like a version of America, with everything privatised: a culture of low wages and servitude.
That is not the vision Labor has for Australia. Labor will protect the institutions, the culture and the way of life that has made Australia the envy of the world. One of those institutions that we will protect—a pillar of our national identity—is universal health care. We know the Liberals have always hated Medicare. They have never supported it. They went to four elections promising to get rid of it. They went quiet on it for 10 years. Then they floated a $5 GP tax. Then they cut $1.7 billion from Medicare and proposed a $7 GP tax, and they sought to privatise Medicare services. Then they cut $1 billion from Medicare. Then they cut bulk-billing in suburban communities. And now they've rushed in these sneaky changes, which cut funding for surgeries and increase out-of-pocket costs.
The fact is that no-one can explain how this enormous change to the Medicare Benefits Schedule, affecting 900 of 5,700 items, will actually work on the ground. And it was publicly announced with just three weeks notice. You'd give more notice when you left a job. Regardless of what you think of the changes, they are absolutely massive. It illustrates the incompetence of this government that they introduced these changes with less than one month's notice. Australians now face the prospect of already scheduled life-changing surgeries no longer being covered by Medicare, requiring them to pay thousands of dollars extra or to cancel their surgeries and go back on the queue for a surgery that is listed.
There has been no opportunity for Australians to discuss these matters with their doctors. No warning has been given that the changes were on the way. The AMA warned the government about rushing this. But, true to form, this arrogant government did not listen. The government has refused to guarantee that patient costs will not rise. Under this government, gap fees for GP visits have already increased by about $10 a visit and for specialist visits $30 a visit. In my electorate, GP clinics are telling healthcare card holders aged between 16 and 65 that they will no longer be bulk-billed and will face a $20-per-visit up-front cost.
That's not the way Medicare is supposed to work. Every year Australians are paying, on average, $90 a year in medical gap fees. Under the Liberals, those fees are going one way—and that's up. In the eight years that the Liberals have been in government, the cost of seeing a doctor in Tasmania has risen by 35 per cent. Cutting and gutting Medicare is in the Liberals' DNA. They've never supported it. For decades now they've been slicing and dicing Medicare, killing it by 1,000 cuts. In regional Australia it's on its deathbed already, a cruel betrayal of regional Australia by a government that purports to represent regional Australia. Labor built Medicare, and only a Labor government will protect it. (Time expired)
Mr HAMILTON (Groom) (16:29): The Morrison government's commitment to health care in this country is rock solid. As part of the 2021-22 budget the Morrison government is investing $125.7 billion over the next four years into Medicare, an increase of over $6 billion from last year's budget. We support health care in this country and we put our money where our mouth is. We've heard Labor's scare tactics claiming to the contrary, and their claims are simply not true. They were not true in the past, and they are not true now. These changes we are making to rebates are based on the best medical advice, best medical practice, reflecting changes in modern medicine and expanding access to procedures and policies which did not previously attract rebates.
Throughout the pandemic this government has taken the exact same approach, we can all agree, to great success in Australia of following the best medical advice. As the Deputy Prime Minister tried to say today, there is no other country in the world you would rather be in than Australia. It is performing very, very well and it's thanks to the great work of the Australian people that we have done so. This government will continue to take the best medical advice. This means that when you present to a hospital, under these changes, you will have greater access to rebates for the procedures you need. We are increasing funding where it is needed and we do so following the best medical advice. This is especially true for residents in my electorate who might need orthopaedic treatment. We've added 162 new items and amended 280 items that needed updating to better reflect contemporary clinical practice; 137 items have been superseded where services have been consolidated; and nine items have been deleted, services considered now to be obsolete. All of this has happened in consultation with the relevant peak bodies following the best medical advice and is being progressively introduced. So this government's credentials on protecting and improving healthcare, protecting and improving Medicare are not in doubt.
But I'd like to see some scrutiny in the provision of health services in my region of Groom. In media reports just last week—in the Chronicle and on the local television—it was revealed the Toowoomba Hospital experienced three code yellows in eight days. This is not an unusual experience, unfortunately; it is, though, quite a dramatic one for our region, for those in need of care. This is the hospital that, earlier today in question time, I heard member for Oxley and other members opposite suggest was ready to bear the weight of a 1,000 person quarantine facility. This same hospital, three times in the last week, was above capacity. A code yellow declaration is a significant emergency when a hospital is above capacity and is unable to meet public demand. In these situations where there's a high level of demand for beds, the great health staff in Toowoomba are asked to focus on clinical priorities and discharge patients as quickly as possible. This is an extremely stressful situation for these hardworking health workers, and they should not be placed in this situation. They should have the tools they need to deliver the job they do.
The member for Toowoomba North, Trevor Watts, has been strongly advocating for a new hospital to meet this demand. He's been doing it for a long time. He is not new to this; he is true to this. He has been sticking to this for a long time because he knows this is what we need. He tells me the situation is so bad that minor surgery is now being sent to Brisbane because our facilities are at breaking point. This is the hospital that those opposite want to put a 1,000 person quarantine facility through. With one in nine people returning with a positive test, this is the hospital they want to put that through. This is not good enough for a regional centre.
The premier needs to make our new hospital the highest priority because the needs of our community are only increasing. I would point to the growth of Highfields, the region that has expanded incredibly over the last decade to 15 years and is now a city in itself bigger than Dalby. What was once just an outpost on the side of Toowoomba is now a significant city all of its own. It relies on Toowoomba Hospital as well. The new hospital is going to cost somewhere around $2 billion. That report, the full plans, business case were presented last year. It is nearly 12 months since they were delivered and presented. Two billion dollars is what we need to upgrade the Toowoomba Hospital. Today in the budget announcement, we got $4.9 million. We need $2 billion; we got 4.9. That's not good enough.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order. The discussion has concluded.
MOTIONS
Pensions and Benefits
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Maribyrnong from moving the following motion immediately—That the House:
(1)notes:
(a)the Morrison Government recently settled the Robodebt class action in the Federal Court of Australia for $1.9 billion;
(b)the Court judgement declared Robodebt was:
(i)a "shameful chapter" and a "massive failure of public administration";
(ii)the cause of "heart-wrenching" financial hardship, anxiety and distress, including suicidal ideation and in some cases suicide;
(iii)a "huge waste of public money"; and
(iv)unlawful and inaccurate, something that "should have been obvious" to the Government; and
(2)calls on the Morrison Government to:
(a)explain to the House why nobody has been held accountable for Robodebt, the biggest compliance failure on record by an Australian Government;
(b)promptly provide all information requested by the Senate but withheld on the basis of a public interest immunity claim while the Robodebt class action was underway; and
(c)immediately establish a Robodebt Royal Commission.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ) (16:34): In accordance with standing order 133, I shall now proceed to put the question on the motion to suspend standing orders moved earlier today by the honourable member for Maribyrnong on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with the standing order. No further debate is allowed.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the motion for the suspension of standing orders be disagreed to.
The House divided. [16:38]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Member for Bowman
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Lalor from moving the following motion immediately—That the House:
(1) notes:
(a) the Member for Bowman remains Chair of the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training despite pledging to resign from all parliamentary positions in March;
(b) the continued presence of the Member for Bowman as Chair diminishes the important work of this Committee;
(c) that Opposition Members of the committee wrote to the Prime Minister nearly three weeks ago asking him to act, and he has not even responded; and
(d) the Prime Minister's silence tells you everything about his respect for the views of women; and
(2) therefore, calls on the Acting Prime Minister to discharge the Member for Bowman from the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training immediately.
The SPEAKER (16:42): In accordance with standing order 133, I shall now proceed to put the question on the motion moved earlier today by the member for Lalor on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with the standing order. No further debate is allowed. The question is that the motion moved by the member for Lalor be disagreed to.
The House divided. [16:43]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Defence and Leader of the House) (16:46): I move:
That business intervening before notice No. 1, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
Mr TAYLOR (Hume—Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction) (16:46): I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the two private Members' business notices in the names of the Member for Melbourne and the Member for McMahon, relating to the disallowance of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Amendment (2020-21 Budget Programs) Regulations 2021, made under the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Act 2011 and presented to the House on 24 May 2021, each successively be called on, moved and seconded, then debated together, with separate questions being put on each at the conclusion of the debate.
Question agreed to.
REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Australian Renewable Energy Agency Amendment (2020-2021 Budget Programs) Regulations 2021
Disallowance
Mr BANDT (Melbourne—Leader of the Australian Greens) (16:47): I move:
That the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Amendment (2020-2021 Budget Programs) Regulations 2021, made under the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Act 2011 and presented to the House on 24 May 2021, be disallowed.
This government is so desperate to deliver public funds to coal and gas corporations that it's prepared to break the law. It's prepared to break the law. The Australian Renewable Energy Agency has as one of its functions and its main function the promotion of renewable energy. The key is in its title. It's the Renewable Energy Agency. Its job is to support the growth of renewable energy in this country. With this regulation, despite what is in the very clear words of the legislation that sets up this very important agency, the government is saying, 'Let's make public money available through ARENA go to coal and gas corporations.'
This isn't something that you have to sift through or pass several public speeches to discern or where you have to follow the money trail back to the corporate donations that they have received from the big coal and gas corporations. It is there in the words of the explanatory memorandum and in the regulation itself. The government, so desperate to prop up coal and gas, now has two programs in mind that it wants to fund with public money. Public money, which could be going to schools, hospitals or renewables, will instead, through this government—if this regulation is not disallowed—be allowed to go to unproven carbon-capture and storage technology and to using dirty, toxic gas to produce hydrogen. The government's fig leaf is that they're calling both of those things 'clean' and 'renewable'.
Let's go through both of those one by one. The first one is the unicorn technology of carbon capture and storage. It basically says that, if you are producing emissions from burning coal or gas, then somehow some technology will exist at some point in the future that might allow you to capture some of those emissions, stick them in a big hole underground and hope for the best—hope there are no dangerous leaks in the future, hope you actually capture all of the emissions, hope it doesn't leak into the atmosphere and blow our carbon budget. By any definition, that is not a renewable technology. That is not renewable. That is predicated on the burning of coal and gas.
The second technology that the government has in mind comes under clean hydrogen. 'Clean hydrogen,' you might say, 'that sounds great! Who wouldn't want to get behind clean hydrogen?' Hydrogen can be produced by splitting water, H2O, and converting it into hydrogen fuel. Then, when you burn it at the other end, it turns back into water. What a terrific idea! It is a terrific idea if you use renewably generated electricity to create that hydrogen. What this government wants to do is use the burning of gas and coal to create hydrogen and then, under the black-is-white approach of this government and this regulation, say that that is somehow clean. Again, you don't have to take our word, the Greens' word, for it. It is there in black and white, in the explanatory memorandum and in the minister's speech, that the government wants to say burning coal and gas in the hope that you might create hydrogen at the end of it is a renewable technology. Coal and gas, when burnt, are not renewable. You get to do it once, and it comes at a massive cost to the planet. It is not renewable.
This regulation—which says, 'We are going to redefine the word "renewable" in a way that no other country in the world has done to include coal and gas'—is not only wrong; it is illegal. It is against the very specific provisions of the act. Section 3 and section 4 define 'renewable energy technology', and, as someone who was there when the Renewable Energy Agency was established, I can tell the House that we very clearly and tightly defined the legislation so that it could not include fossil fuels.
ARENA is a success story. It has helped Australia generate and fast-track renewable energy technologies, whether it's assisting with the rollout of electric vehicles, something that this government has done everything in its power to slow down; whether it's grid management, to ensure that we can bring renewables into Australia's electricity grid in a way that ensures stability of supply; whether it's turning heavy industry green; whether it's green hydrogen or bioenergy; or whether it's crucial areas like demand management, which basically says, 'The cheapest electricity to save is the electricity you don't use in the first place, which is also the cheapest emissions reduction as well, so let's find ways of assisting big energy users to not use energy in the first place.' All of these technologies are technologies that ARENA, through its grant programs, has helped fast track. We know this because ARENA is a product of a shared-power parliament. We had a parliament back in 2010 where no-one had the numbers—not the Greens, not the member for Denison, as he then was, and not the Labor Party. What we did was work across the aisle to drive down pollution in this country and to fast-track the take-up of renewable energy. ARENA was one of the key organisations. ARENA was set up as a grant organisation to provide grants to beginning renewable-energy organisations. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation could come along afterwards, take the concepts that had been proved up and expand them commercially.
From day one this government and the Liberals have opposed the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, and they have used opportunity after opportunity to try and abolish it. This is the same agency, by the way, which the Prime Minister, as he's searching desperately for a fig leaf at the G7, sings from the rooftops about the government's uptake of renewable energy in Australia. It is because of entities like ARENA and the CEFC, which the Greens helped secure in a shared-power parliament. That is what has driven the uptake of renewables in this country, and the Liberals have done everything they can to try and abolish it. They were not successful in abolishing it, so they tried to cut its budget. They had some success with that but they're coming back with a new idea, having been unsuccessful in abolishing it. It's still on its feet, so what do they do now? They say, 'We're going to redefine renewable energy.' They say black is white and that renewable energy includes coal and gas.
Not only is this wrong because it will increase climate pollution if you start using public money, giving it to coal and gas and taking it away from renewables, taking it away from schools and hospitals but there are plenty of other reasons, even if you're not with the Greens on driving down emissions, to support the disallowance of this regulation. We have challenged the government to come up with one piece of legal advice that suggests that this regulation is within power, and they have not been able to come up with one. That is because it squarely is not. It breaks the law. This is the Renewable Energy Agency. The legislation says you can make regulations to promote renewable energy. Carbon capture and storage, and burning gas and coal to create hydrogen, is, clearly, not renewable.
The government knows it doesn't have the numbers in the Senate to pass a piece of legislation to give money to coal and gas. So what has it done? It has decided, instead, to come up with a regulation in the hope that the numbers in a vote on regulation might be more favourable. But if you support this regulation, which is manifestly illegal, if you allow this regulation to continue, whatever you think about renewable energy, you are opening up a legal minefield. You are putting the public on the hook for legal bill after legal bill and challenge after challenge to every grant that is made under this program, including grants that might be made elsewhere, because it is so manifestly unlawful to say that coal and gas are now renewable.
If the government had a piece of legal advice that said there is some new way of defining coal and gas as renewable, I would have expected them to have tabled it. They haven't, because they know that this is unlawful. So the regulation must be disallowed, whatever you think about renewable energy, just out of a straight responsible use of public money. Allowing this to continue, and allowing grants to be made to coal and gas under the guise of it being called renewable, is inviting lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit, which the public will be on the hook for. I say to other members of this parliament on the crossbench, even on the government's backbench: don't write a blank cheque for litigation for something that is so manifestly unlawful when your own minister can't even table a piece of legal advice that says that this is within power. They can't even table a piece of legal advice that says that this is within power.
The big corporations that are going to be lining up to get some of this money are not only donors to the Liberal Party—and, in instances, to the Labor Party—but also are some of the biggest corporations that bring in some of the biggest amounts of money to this country, and they pay no tax! The biggest gas corporations in this country brought in $55 billion in one year, in income, and paid zero dollars income tax. It is criminal that a midwife from Melbourne pays more income tax than a multinational, but that is the situation we have under this government, because those opposite are doing the bidding of their mates. But what could be the possible justification for saying to a corporation that pays no tax but brings in billions of dollars of income, 'You also deserve a public handout'? Again, even if you're not with us on renewables, why are we taking public money and asking people in this country who already pay their fair share of tax to also give a handout to multinational gas and coal corporations that pay zero tax? If you are a multinational goal or gas corporation that pays zero tax in this country, you can pay for your own damn carbon-capture and storage research, frankly. You can pay for your own gas-funded hydrogen if you want to do it, but don't line up and expect a handout from the public purse for it. We should not be giving handouts to billionaire corporations that pay no tax, but that is what this regulation is designed to do.
So there's the renewables argument, there's the legislation argument, there's the responsible-use-of-public-money argument and there's the question of why you would give handouts to big corporations that are paying no tax. Lastly, the G7 have just met. The G7 have realised that countries around the world need to work together to tackle the climate crisis, and one of the things that they have said—and they said this last night—is that by 2025 we need to stop giving public subsidies to fossil fuels; they can stand on their own two feet if they're going to stand. In the face of that communique, the government is right now trying to say, 'We are closing our eyes and ears to the rest of the world and we are lining up to give even more public money, money that wasn't in the kitty beforehand, to fossil fuels.' This regulation gives the middle finger to the G7 and says, 'We know that you are taking action to combat the climate crisis, but we are going to go in the opposite direction.'
There are a multitude of reasons to oppose this regulation. It is going to fast-track our climate crisis, it's going to give money to big corporations that already pay no tax and it's going to put the public on the— (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr WILKIE (Clark) (17:02): I second the motion moved by the member for Melbourne and reserve my right to speak.
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (17:03): I move:
That the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Amendment (2020-21 Budget Programs) Regulations 2021, made under the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Act 2011 on 18 May 2021 and presented to the House on 24 May 2021, be disallowed.
Creating ARENA and the CEFC was one of the proudest achievements of the previous Labor government. It was opposed at every turn by the Liberal and National parties—and some of us were here. Even worse, before they even formed office, the then Leader of the Opposition was writing letters to the CEFC and ARENA, warning them that if he was elected Prime Minister he would be seeking to abolish them and they should not enter into any contracts or investments, on the basis that he was quite confident of winning that election. Since even before they took office they've been trying to destroy ARENA and the CEFC. Luckily this parliament, particularly the other chamber, stopped them. It stopped them from abolishing ARENA and the CEFC, but they haven't given up. They will find any potential mechanism to water down ARENA and the CEFC, and here we are again this evening.
The minister had the opportunity, as the member for Melbourne pointed out, to bring down legislation to achieve this aim in relation to ARENA. The honourable member for Melbourne put a thesis as to why he hasn't done that. He may be right about that. I have a different thesis. Perhaps they're not mutually exclusive. The minister tried similar on the CEFC in legislation. He introduced it into this House, said it was a milestone—something to celebrate—and we're still waiting for it to come back. It's disappeared! We seek it here, we seek it there, we seek it everywhere! The government hasn't brought it back for a vote, because honourable members opposite are moving amendments and crossing the floor. They're not going to run that risk on ARENA. No: they seek to do it by stealth, more sneakily—by regulation.
But I do agree with the member for Melbourne that there is a very real chance that this regulation is illegal. The giveaway is in the name: the R in ARENA stands for 'renewable'. It's in the act, as the objective of the act. And it's a pretty clear principle, under other legislation, that a regulation cannot conflict with the legislated act. I think that even if this regulation passes, if this disallowance motion fails in this House or the other house, there is a real chance that this will come under legal challenge, and those honourable members opposite will have to explain why they voted for a regulation that was illegal. They can't say they weren't warned, because the member for Melbourne and I have both warned them that this regulation is, very distinctly, possibly illegal.
We know from Senate estimates a couple of weeks ago that the government was looking at legislation—had drafted legislation—but didn't introduce legislation. They decided to go down the regulatory route. The fact of the matter is that we still have the right to disallow this regulation, and voting for either of these motions before the House will enable it to be. Now, the government says this regulation is about expanding the remit of ARENA because the cost of solar and wind has come down so much that now they can extend to other areas. That's completely disingenuous. Anybody would think that the only thing that ARENA has invested in is solar and wind. Of course the cost of solar and wind have come down, particularly solar—in no small part because of the investments ARENA has made since it was created nine years ago. But it is wrong to say that it's remit needs to be expanded because you can only invest in solar and wind.
Looking at ARENA's own documents, since they were established they've invested $1.7 billion on 586 projects: $131 million into bio-energy, $42 million into geothermal, $270 million for grid integration, $110 million on hybrid projects, $60 million on hydrogen, $44 million on ocean related projects, $725 million on solar PV, $178 million on solar thermal and $143 million on storage and batteries. So, the idea that somehow they are restricted to solar and wind is just not true. The government should fess up that they have other reasons for seeking to expand ARENA's agenda and ARENA's remit. ARENA has been involved in some wonderful projects. I've met with the operators of mines who've received ARENA funding to help them transfer to completely renewable energy generation, so the mine becomes close to net zero. They're the sorts of projects ARENA has been investing in and doing good work in.
The fact of the matter is that renewable energy continues to deserve the support of the government of the day, through ARENA and the CEFC. That's what it was designed for, and its work is not yet done. If the government really feels that they want to invest in some of these other projects, I have a slightly different view, a slightly different perspective, to the one the member for Melbourne just put. I think there is the potential to discuss support for other initiatives, but not at the expense of ARENA, not at the expense of renewable energy. If you want to get ARENA's remit extended then put more money into it. At least then we can have a conversation. But any money that now gets spent on these other things is at the expense of renewable energy investments.
There is a final point. Even if you are convinced of the government's case on the expansion of the remit, which we're not, and if they put more money into it, which they haven't, there's a particularly alarming element of this regulation. The government wants to give the minister broad-ranging powers to declare certain technologies as low-emission. This minister—
A government member interjecting—
Mr BOWEN: The honourable member says, 'I trust him.' Well, good for you, sport. I don't. I would be very reluctant to trust any minister over there with expanding the remit of ARENA to a technology regarded as low emissions. But this minister, I have to say, I particularly don't trust. Why would we give the minister the power to just declare a certain technology has low emissions—just because he doesn't want it or because he likes it? This is a minister who stood at rallies against wind farms. He actually should be the 'minister against renewable energy'. This is a minister who—
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr BOWEN: There's a City of Sydney council election coming up, comrade. What's your role been in that, with the City of Sydney council travel costs? Are you telling us we should trust you with ARENA's remit? No thank you.
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr BOWEN: I'm happy to debate with you about tax. Why don't you take the tax off electric vehicles, like we will? Why don't you believe in lower taxes when it comes to electric vehicles in Australia? You have an appalling track record on electric vehicles. We want to reduce the tax on electric vehicles. We want to give Australians more choice to buy affordable electric vehicles. Honourable members opposite stand against that choice. They stand for higher taxes on electric vehicles. Yet they come in here and say we need to expand the remit of ARENA to invest in electric vehicles. You have no credibility when it comes to electric vehicles. You have less than zero credibility.
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr BOWEN: How's the weekend going? All those Australians who are towing their boats on the weekend and are lamenting the loss of their weekends at the hands of those terrible, evil electric vehicles are really regretting their choices.
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr BOWEN: Honourable members opposite think because they sit on that side of the chamber they have the right to undo ARENA's remit by regulation and give this bloke the opportunity to designate technologies as low emissions. Well, we have a different view. We put the view to the House that this regulation should be disallowed. If it is not disallowed, as I said before, I suspect it will end up in court and the honourable member for Hume will have to justify his actions in promulgating a regulation which is, in a very real sense, highly likely to be illegal.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr BURNS (Macnamara) (17:12): I second the motion by my good friend the member for McMahon. I am pleased that there are a few modern Liberals in the building today, but they should change their name from modern Liberals to compliant Liberals, or even silent Liberals, because under this government we have seen a systematic attack on the institutions that were designed and brought in by this country and by the previous Labor government to bring down the amount of emissions and to bring down the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere by bringing in renewable technology.
I'm pleased the minister's also joined us, because it means he's taken a bit of time away from the City of Sydney website and he's stopped downloading documents to actually join us here for this motion. This is the latest in a series of systematic attacks on the proud Labor institutions of this place and of this country to invest in renewable energy. Of course, we had the story of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, where they wanted to take the clean energy out of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. They also wanted to take the finance out of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, by putting in amendments that were going to mean that the Clean Energy Finance Corporation didn't have to invest in clean energy. If you're going to design amendments for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, that would be the thing you couldn't do, because that's why it's called the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. Of course, there's nothing from the compliant Liberals and nothing from the silent Liberals over there. I know the member for Goldstein wants to do nuclear technology and wants to build a Brighton Beach nuclear reactor, right next to the huts. He wants a big Brighton Beach nuclear reactor next to the huts. Then you've also got the member for Wentworth who wants the Bondi nuclear reactor. He wants that one as well.
We on this side of the House are proud of the institutions that we set up in government for investing in renewable energy and bringing down the amount of greenhouse gases that we emit as a country. Of course, that's not the end of the story with the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. They didn't want to just take out the clean energy bit. They didn't want to just make the Clean Energy Finance Corporation able to invest in projects that didn't stack up financially. They had other plans. The member for New England had other plans. I'm not sure if the member for New England gave the member for Hume a bit of a heads up on his amendments. I'm not sure if he knocked on the minister's door and said, 'Minister, I've got a few amendments for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation bill. I'm just going to put them into the House. It should be fine, nothing to see here.' Obviously, if the minister really was there alongside the member for New England, he would still have a bill, but we haven't seen a bill in months. Where is the bill, Minister? I can't see the bill. The bill has gone and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, thanks to the member for New England, ironically, is going to stay as it is.
Now we have ARENA. They wanted to take the clean energy part out of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, and now they want to take the renewable part out of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency. The legacy of this government is to disband and attack the very institutions that are meant to drive up renewable energy investment in this country so as to make Australia more renewable, be powered by renewables and bring in cheaper and cleaner energy. Instead, this government wants to systematically undermine the efforts of the previous Labor government.
It's not just those two institutions: there was also the incident with the NAIF where the minister was presented with a project by the department. The department said: 'This wind farm stacks up. It makes sense. This should be invested in by the public. It's going to create jobs and it's going to bring down power prices.' But, as with everything else, this government and these Liberals are ideologically opposed to renewable energy. They are ideologically opposed to investing in cleaner and cheaper energy. They are ideologically opposed to investing in cheaper and cleaner energy.
Government members interjecting—
Mr BURNS: I hear a little bit from the quiet Liberals over there, the quiet, compliant Liberals happily going along with the attacks on the Renewable Energy Agency, happily going along with the attacks on the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. What did the minister do? What actions did the minister take?
Mr Tim Wilson interjecting—
Mr BURNS: All I can hear is that the member for Goldstein has the designs of the big Brighton beach nuclear reactor—the huge nuclear reactor right there on Brighton beach—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Zimmerman ): Order! The level of interjections is way too high.
Mr BURNS: I'm looking forward to seeing the plans of the huge Brighton beach nuclear reactor from the member for Goldstein. The minister, when he had the opportunity to invest in renewable energy—in wind farms, in wind technology—absolutely denied it and refused to allow the NAIF to invest in it.
A government member interjecting—
Mr BURNS: There's plenty of hot air coming from over there. We are becoming an international embarrassment. Like-minded countries are investing in clean energy. They are investing in renewable technology. Led by America and the United Kingdom, these countries are urging Australia to do the absolute bare minimum, to lift our weight as part of the international community efforts. What does this government do in response to the international community moving and progressing? They attack the very institutions that are going to help us get there. They attack the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and they attack the Renewable Energy Agency because this government and this minister are ideologically opposed to investing in renewable energy, and they are looking for each and every single way to attack the institutions that are going to help to bring us into line with international efforts to get towards, hopefully, 1.5 degrees global warming and to get towards net zero by 2050, if not earlier.
Each and every state in this country are on board. Each and every state and territory, the Business Council and the vast majority of Australians want to see this country invest in renewable energy. One thing that the member for McMahon says repeatedly, and he is 100 per cent right, is that if we do this, if we invest in the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and in the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, then we are going to create jobs. We are going to create jobs in cleaner and cheaper electricity and in cleaner and cheaper technology. But this government doesn't want to create clean jobs. They don't want to create a cleaner and lower-greenhouse-gas future. They just want to systematically attack the institutions that were set up by the previous Labor government, because this minister and these compliant Liberals are ideologically opposed to investing in renewable energy.
Ms KEARNEY (Cooper) (17:20): I am very pleased to rise in support of this disallowance motion. It seeks to disallow this government's regulatory changes to the Renewable Energy Agency, ARENA. These regulatory changes serve a few key purposes for this climate-damaging government. First, they expand the remit of ARENA beyond investment in renewable energy into projects which will help extend the life of fossil fuels in Australia—a strange departure for an agency with the word 'renewable' in its name. Second, they direct ARENA to invest in a number of projects which form part of this government's budget. This is an agency with a board that is independent from government, but the government wants it to be directed by the minister to fund projects unrelated to renewable energy. Thirdly, they open the door to future interventions by the government as to how ARENA spends its money.
ARENA was set up to be independent, to determine its investments independently of government. Labor did this on purpose because we do not want interference from a minister that is climate denying or from a government that is climate denying. Not only do these changes undermine the spirit in which ARENA was created, they undermine the act within which ARENA functions and within which the minister must hand down his regulations. These regulations aren't as problematic for Australia's action on climate or for our future as a renewable super power; they're actually quite problematic for the minister and for this House. Whilst we know that the minister has form when it comes to fudged documents or other spurious activities well documented in this House, writing regulations which are in breach of the act under which his functions are defined isn't something we are going to let him get away with.
Protecting ARENA is absolutely vital if Australia is to properly act on climate change. It is one of the few sources of funding for renewables under this climate-denying Morrison government. It is a terrific legacy of Labor. Since its creation in 2012, ARENA has invested more than $1½ billion in over 579 renewable energy projects. Its purpose, its objective under the act, is to improve the competitiveness of renewable energy technologies and increase the supply of renewable energy in Australia; it's very clear.
In the absence of any real action from this government, ARENA is actually getting on with the job. Its investments have today unlocked over $6.8 billion worth of investment in renewables in Australia. That is a huge achievement and it's only happened because a Labor government enshrined the independence of ARENA and protected it from any climate-denying minister's interference. Think of the jobs it has created, the scale of emissions reduction work this organisation has been able to facilitate. Think of the potential this is unlocking for Australia's future as a renewables super power. It's an agency we can all be very proud of. It should be able to continue its terrific work independently from political interference.
You can only imagine where the $1.5 billion the government have invested would have ended up had those opposite been able to get their hands on it. Now, make no mistake: these regulations are seeking to undermine the independence of ARENA and allow this government to direct its funds wherever they want, and that's certainly not to renewables. Remember what they thought of a recent investment in a wind farm that would have created 250 jobs? They didn't think that was a very good idea, did they? Imagine what they could do with ARENA.
Minister Angus Taylor's track record speaks for itself. Under his watch and the watch of the Morrison government, Australia has become the laughing-stock of the world when it comes to climate action. This is a minister who does everything in his power, and apparently outside of his power with these regulations, to undermine climate action and squander our future in renewables. As has been mentioned here by previous speakers, we have seen the minister's failed bill to wreck the CEFC and now we are seeing identical interference with ARENA. Thousands of Australians, including members of his own government, spoke up urging us all to protect the CEFC and withdraw the bill.
Rather than face the embarrassment of the same thing happening with a bill on ARENA, the minister decided to do what he does best—fudge the paperwork, dodge the proper process and avoid the accountability of this House, this parliament and the Australian people. So he didn't present these changes—these substantive, extensive changes—through a bill. He made these changes through what experts are telling us are regulatory changes which he does not have the power to make. So we're seeking to disallow these regulations and we're seeking a referral to have these changes scrutinised by the appropriate committee, because undermining ARENA is one thing, but to do so in a manner which avoids the accountability of this House and the Australian people is a whole other game.
It's extraordinary, really, the lengths this government will go to to avoid investments in renewables. We've seen for too long the rumblings of climate denial go unchecked within the Liberal Party. It's become a core element of the coalition's ideology, and so they refuse to commit any real funding to deal with the climate emergency we are presented with. The Australian people know what's going on. They know climate change is having an impact. They're starting to see it in front of their very eyes and literally on their doorsteps. The polls tell us Australians want climate action.
I was recently presented with a paper called 'People's climate strategy', a new paper, written in consultation with people right across Victoria, from the regions to the city. It made clear how well the Australian public understand the failures of this government on climate action. I urge the people on that side to get a copy of it and actually read what Australians are saying about them when it comes to climate action. They are abject failures on this, and we are seeing the consequences of that failure play out in Cornwall at the G7 conference, as the member for Melbourne reminded us. If we need any further reminding of international pressures, we just have to look at President Biden's refusal to take a bilateral meeting with the Prime Minister. It's a national embarrassment. We are left out of the conversation. We are being dressed down by countries we have close alliances with.
But of course this isn't just about being embarrassed; it's about protecting our national interests and promoting Australia to the world. As time goes on, we face greater risks of sanctions, tariffs and other concrete consequences for the government's failure to take action on climate change. We have to contribute our fair share to the global fight. This isn't just about foreign relations, of course, or about fear of political ramifications; this is about taking real action to combat the climate emergency. The possibilities for this country's future in doing that are expansive. We have to become a renewable superpower. We are blessed with the resources to do so. We have a history of powering the world. It's a proud history, and I thank the men and women who've worked, and still work, so hard to power this country, and the unions that care for them. Why should we not continue to do this in a renewables-led world? It's time the minister and the Morrison government stopped their meddling and actually started to do their job.
Mr TAYLOR (Hume—Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction) (17:27): I'm happy to rise and speak against this disallowance motion. This is the latest illustration of Labor's hypocrisy when it comes to energy and emissions policy. Labor has walked away from blue-collar jobs. Labor is now walking away from jobs in energy efficiency, in hydrogen and in electric vehicles. By moving to disallow the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Amendment (2020-21 Budget Programs) Regulations 2021, those opposite have chosen to threaten $192 million going to ARENA, which would create 1,400 jobs.
This new funding will include nearly $72 million to support electric vehicle and hydrogen vehicle charging infrastructure; more than $52 million for microgrids in regional Australia—they're against that; and over $20 million to make heavy vehicles more fuel-efficient and adopt new technologies. This is one of the difficult areas in which to reduce emissions, we know, but that's what we want ARENA investing in. The new funding will also include $47 million to help heavy industry become more competitive and reduce their energy consumption. That's all on top of the $1.4 billion of re-funded resources for ARENA over the coming years. It's on top of that. It's additional funding we are talking about here. Any member that votes to disallow this is voting for higher emissions, fewer jobs and less funding for ARENA. That's what they're voting for. Make no mistake: if this motion were allowed to succeed, ARENA would deliver—
Ms Kearney interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Zimmerman ): Order! The member for Cooper is warned!
Mr TAYLOR: Let's be clear about this. If this disallowance were to succeed, there would be less electric vehicle charging than would otherwise be the case. Those opposite, on energy and emissions, are divided and scrambling. It's true. The member for McMahon is trying to endear himself to the left of the party. We know that. While they're divided and trying to work out what their policies are, we are getting on with the real and practical action of delivering outcomes, because, at the end of the day, it's that atmospheric concentration of CO2 equivalent that counts. That's what counts. It's the outcomes that count. And ARENA has an important role to play in it.
Our policies and approach are driven by technology, not taxes. We know the member for McMahon loves a good tax; he's never seen a tax he didn't like. But our approach is working. Emissions are now at the lowest levels they've been since 1990. They're down 20.1 per cent since 2005. That means we're well on track to meet and beat our Paris targets as we meet and beat our 2020 targets. The member for McMahon talked about renewables. I'll tell you about investment in renewables: 7,000 megawatts of investment in renewables in the last 12 months. Did you know that in the whole time Labor was in power between 2007 and 2013 there was 5.3 gigawatts? We did that in less than a year. In the year before that it was 6.9 gigawatts, against the 5.3 gigawatts they did the whole time they were in government. We are the party that delivers. We are the government that delivers. To keep this going, we've committed to $20 billion of additional investment through to 2030 in technology solutions for clean energy and lower emissions, which will leverage up into $80 billion of economy-wide public and private sector investment over that time period—160,000 jobs. It's being delivered by a range of agencies like ARENA, the CEFC and the Clean Energy Regulator. The CSIRO is playing a crucial role. And we see them all playing a role. We need every horse in this race—every technology and every agency.
The members here on this side understand that things like electric vehicle charging and healthy soils all have a role to play in this. When we announced the Technology Investment Roadmap in September 2020, we committed to enabling ARENA to play a technology-neutral role. That's the role they want to play. Let me tell you what the support was across the industry when we announced this—and the support, by the way, for this change in front of the House right here today. First of all, ARENA welcomed the investment. The National Farmers Federation said the announcement was 'good news for farmers', but those opposite don't like it because it's good news for farmers. The Business Council—we heard one of the members opposite talk about the Business Council—said that expanding the scope of ARENA will encourage new low-, zero- and negative-emissions technology in sectors like agriculture, transport and manufacturing. The Australian Industry Greenhouse Network said:
… removing constraints on ARENA and CEFC to enable them to utilise the full range of low, zero and negative emission technologies is a sensible approach.
The Investor Group on Climate Change said:
Expanding the functions of the ARENA and the CEFC to open up opportunities for this technology [CCUS] in other sectors can be valuable for creating opportunities for zero and negative emission technologies in harder to abate industries,
And ClimateWorks—those opposite like to quote ClimateWorks—said:
… we support the broader mandate for ARENA and CEFC to work across an increased number of sectors, as well as energy.
They all supported it, but those opposite said no.
In the nine years since ARENA has been established there have been significant changes in energy markets. We've seen phenomenal investment in solar and wind in this country. We have the highest level of household solar in the world: one in four houses. Not a country in the world can boast that level. It is time for ARENA to be able to expand out into other areas. Now, those other areas will include energy efficiency, low-emissions transport and electric vehicles, carbon capture and storage technologies including carbon capture and use, negative-emissions technologies, all forms of clean hydrogen, technologies that reduce emissions from aluminium and steel, and soil carbon to make our soils healthier—all of that.
And of course the IEA and others know that you have to have all of these horses in the race. They've all got to be involved if we're going to get to net zero. It is absolutely crucial. If you look at soil carbon alone, the University of Melbourne, which is doing a great deal of research in this area, has estimated that over the period from 2025 to 2030 it will create more than 1,600 new jobs, deliver $150 million per annum in economic benefits to Australia on average across the five-year period and reduce emissions by 16 million tonnes per year by the year 2030. We know healthier soils will benefit Australian farmers and graziers, but those opposite are against it. If Labor's motion to disallow succeeds, it will prevent ARENA from being able to invest in exactly these sorts of proposals.
The IEA, as I said, and the IPCC have said that these sorts of technologies are an imperative, but the member for McMahon thinks he knows better than them. He's got an ideological agenda to prevent opportunities to reduce emissions from being deployed. Ironically enough, if you take a technology like carbon capture and storage, I note that on page 39, paragraph 21 of the 2021 Labor Party national platform—it's tough to read it, but I did—it says, 'Labor recognises the role that carbon capture and storage will play in abating carbon pollution,' but the moment they're given the opportunity to vote on it they vote against it.
Whether this is short-sightedness or sleepwalking, I'm not sure which. The Labor Party doesn't know where it's going. It doesn't know where it stands on technology. It doesn't focus on that breadth of technologies that will allow us to bring down emissions whilst creating jobs, strengthening the economy, and making this a greater country than we already are.
Make no mistake: if this motion succeeds, it will mean fewer jobs and higher emissions, and the member for McMahon will have been behind it. We know the member for McMahon was dumped for being 'as useless as a vegan in a butcher shop', but we're seeing the same old Labor with the member for McMahon. We're getting on with the job. Those opposite should join us.
Ms PAYNE (Canberra) (17:38): I'm very proud to speak in support of this disallowance motion moved by the member for McMahon to stop government from destroying the important role of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, ARENA. The government are claiming that they are expanding the remit of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, but they're not expanding the funding and they're also trying to erode its independence by giving the minister these god powers that they so love to just decide what can be a low-emissions project. Well, I wouldn't trust the honourable member for Hume. I wouldn't trust any of those opposite. This is just another attack on ARENA, which was created by Labor in 2012. This government has tried to destroy it all along because they are ideologically opposed to renewable energy. It's just another one of their attacks.
Now, the purpose of ARENA is, in the act, 'to improve the competitiveness of renewable energy technologies and increase the supply of renewable energy' in Australia. This change that the government is making seeks to broaden the remit to things that are not renewable energy. While some of them may have some merit, they are not renewable energy and, by drawing them into the remit of ARENA, they are robbing renewable energy of that incredibly important source of funding. It is incredibly important that we should be investing in renewable energy at this time. The planet is warming. We know that. It's not up for discussion; we know it. But the people opposite in the government do not seem to know that. I find it extraordinary that the minister—a Rhodes scholar, an Oxford graduate—can ignore the science on climate change. It's because it's ideological.
In December 2015 the world joined together to adopt the Paris Agreement, which commits us to limiting global warming to between 1.5 and two degrees above pre-industrial levels. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, human activities have already caused one degree of warming and we will reach 1.5 degrees between 2030 and 2052 if we don't do anything. If we get to two degrees, our Pacific island neighbours will no longer have homes; their lands will be underwater.
These are decisions that are being made by this government; they are happy to accept that. I have read these facts into the Hansard in this parliament, but you have to keep doing it because they are not listening, they are not taking this seriously. We are becoming an absolute embarrassment on the world stage, more and more so, including right now at the G7. The Prime Minister took to the G7 the slogan 'technology, not taxes' when everyone else was committing to net zero by 2050 at a bare minimum. Every G7 nation increased their 2030 goal. Japan has committed to overwhelmingly decarbonise their power system in the 2030s. What does this mean for Australia's gas and coal exports to Japan? It means demand will decrease. The G7 moved a resolution to introduce carbon border tariffs. This puts every export industry in Australia at risk as other countries move to put taxes on high carbon goods. How does this fit with the Prime Minister's mantra of 'technology, not taxes'?
And the G7 committed to cease government funding to coal plants except where they include carbon capture and storage—and I'll talk more about CCS shortly. Not a single coal-fired power plant currently successfully utilises CCS, something the government wanted to bring into the remit of ARENA. The next climate summit is in Glasgow in November. Will the Prime Minister embarrass us there again? Sadly, I expect that he probably will. This government has had 22 energy policies in eight years—eight years of inaction on climate change. This is incredibly frustrating for people who understand how critical this is. This is our world, this is the planet we live on. It is not some little game of debating; it's something that needs to happen. We are increasingly becoming an embarrassment internationally. The cost will come to those most vulnerable, including our Pacific neighbours, as I've mentioned.
Businesses want to invest in renewable energy, and don't have the certainty they need because this government is in chaos on this issue. We need an energy policy because we have a huge challenge ahead of us to get to net zero emissions by 2050, which this government is not even committed to. The language around it is very vague. They say they want to get there but they are not committed to it. Worse still, they have no plan to get there. Labor is doing the work. We are in opposition and we are doing the work to work out how we would get there. We have committed to net zero by 2050. We are the only party of government that has done that. Labor will have an excellent climate policy at the next election and we will have more to say on that. We have already made some incredibly important and impressive announcements, including $20 billion to rewire the nation so that renewable energy can feed into the grid. This is the kind of certainty business needs to invest in renewables. They need support from the government, not chaos.
Let's look at some of the things the government wanted to bring into ARENA's remit. Carbon capture and storage is the great hope of the Morrison government. They have been all over the place on that too. Initially, they scrapped the CCS Flagships program and cut half a billion dollars in funding for CCS. According to the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute, carbon capture and storage is currently in operation at 26 locations around the world. But more than 2,000 facilities will be required by 2050, according to the global institute. So it's not really an effective thing.
We should actually be investing in things that work—things like the Australian Centre for Photovoltaics at UNSW in the electorate of the member for Kingsford Smith. This institute has been involved in every major advance in solar power, and it relies on ARENA for funding. This government wants to rob ARENA of its funding by spreading it around on things that have nothing to do with renewable energy. It's not good enough, and it's time to kick this mob out. We need people who believe science and who have a vision for the future that begins with a planet that is going to survive.
Mr SHARMA (Wentworth) (17:45): It is a pleasure to speak against this disallowance motion because I believe in ARENA and I believe in supporting its work into the future. Since its creation ARENA has committed $1.58 billion of funding towards 543 different renewable energy projects. In doing so, it has helped accelerate the shift towards renewable energy that is both affordable and reliable. The Clean Energy Regulator estimates that last year, 2020, we had seven gigawatts of renewable energy capacity installed. That beat by 11 per cent the figure of 6.3 gigawatts in 2019, which itself was a record. One in four Australian households now have solar, one of the highest uptakes in the world, and Australia's deployment of wind and solar is happening 10 times faster than the global average.
In the first weeks of 2020 Australia ticked past 25 gigawatts of wind and solar generation, making us one of only three countries in the world to have more than one kilowatt of renewable energy generation capacity per capita. Forty per cent of this new capacity has been installed in the past two years. It shows that progress here isn't linear, it's exponential. We've seen this in the continued fall in our emissions. In the year to December 2020 our emissions were 499 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent That was five per cent—or 26.1 million tonnes—lower than in 2019, the equivalent of taking half of our national fleet of light vehicles off the road entirely. We are now 20 per cent lower than our 2005 levels of baseline for our 2030 Paris Agreement target.
I noticed that some of those opposite were saying, 'We're taking this to the G7 and we'll be ashamed of our record.' Let's look at what the G7 countries have done. The OECD average, over the same period, for a reduction in emissions from 2005 is nine per cent. New Zealand is one per cent. Canada is less than one per cent. The United States is 10 per cent. Here we are, in Australia, with a 20 per cent reduction in emissions since 2005. We've got further to go but we are well on the way.
Whilst we've made great gains in reducing our emissions from the electricity generation sector; as many here would know, this accounts for only one-third of our emissions. If we are to continue to play our part and do our share in reducing CO2 emissions, if we are in concert with the rest of the world to get to net zero by 2050 or preferably earlier, then reducing emissions from our electricity generation is necessary but it's not sufficient. Our greenhouse gas inventory of December 2020 makes this clear: electricity generation is 33 per cent of our emissions, stationary energy is 20 per cent of our emissions, transport is 18 per cent, fugitive emissions in industrial processes is 16 per cent and agriculture is 15 per cent. So decarbonising our electricity sector alone will not get us to net zero. We also need to find ways to decarbonise industrial processes, to electrify transport, to create clean fuels, to find carbon savings—things such as soil carbon and carbon capture and storage—and to find offsets for emissions from processes that would be hard to decarbonise, like agriculture.
This is exactly what these regulations will allow us to do, and exactly what these regulations will allow ARENA to do. It will use government investment to bring a portfolio of technologies to commercial parity so we can reduce our emissions across every sector of the economy. This is the next frontier for our journey to net zero. In our December 2020 greenhouse gas inventory we found that the Gorgon CCS project—people on the other side were knocking carbon capture and storage—now that it has come online, has contributed to the reduction of our fugitive emissions by 4.8 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent.
These regulations that we're debating today will allow ARENA to invest in a wider range of clean energy technologies and, by and large, these changes have been welcomed. As the BCA said, expanding the scope of ARENA will 'encourage new low, zero and negative emissions technology in sectors like agriculture, transport and manufacturing'. The Australian Industry Greenhouse Network said, 'Removing constraints on ARENA and the CEFC to enable them to utilise the full range of low, zero and negative emission technologies is a sensible approach.' The Investor Group on Climate Change said this is 'valuable for creating opportunities for negative and zero emissions technologies in harder to abate industries'.
These regulations will allow ARENA to focus on the next generation of technologies. Since ARENA was first established, in 2011, there have been significant changes in technology and energy markets. Renewable technologies like solar and wind are already commercial and being deployed at a rapid rate. What these regulations will allow ARENA to focus on are things like energy efficiency, support for low-emissions transport and electric vehicles, all forms of clean hydrogen, soil carbon, technologies that reduce emissions from aluminium and steel, and carbon capture technologies, including CCS. The goal here is to get to net zero, not absolute zero.
Why is Labor opposed to these regulations? The member for McMahon argued this morning that we wanted to water down ARENA's mandate. He's got it all wrong. What we are doing is modernising ARENA's mandate, not watering it down. We're doing exactly what people like Bill Gates and the International Energy Agency have urged us to do. Lower-emissions technology, beyond just renewable electricity, will be critical to our pathway to net zero. To believe otherwise is a classic case of putting ideological zealotry ahead of practical outcomes, of allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good. This is someone who pretends to care about climate change but is in fact opposed to doing anything practical about it. You cannot talk about a crisis and then, in the same breath, disavow all the measures you can use to address that crisis.
I know the member for McMahon has a track record of impractical policy and ignoring the advice of experts. He led his own party over the precipice at the last election when he took $387 billion in new tax proposals to the electorate and told those who questioned his policy not to vote for Labor. Unsurprisingly, many took his advice. This was also the minister for immigration, from 2010 to 2013, who oversaw 50,000 unlawful arrivals, 1,200 deaths at sea and 8½ thousand children in immigration detention. I fear for those opposite that the member for McMahon is doing the same this time around. As the member for Hunter recently said:
… after 14 years of trying, the Labor Party has made not one contribution to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in this country.
I urge those opposite to break this drought. Give ARENA the tools and the mandate it needs to drive reduced emissions across all sectors of the economy. Vote against this act of self-harm. Vote against this disallowance motion.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the motion moved by the member for Melbourne be disagreed to.
The House divided. [17:56]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (17:16): The question now is that the motion moved by the member for McMahon be disagreed to.
The House divided. [18:01]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
BILLS
Fuel Security (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2021
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That these bills be now read a second time.
Mr RICK WILSON (O'Connor) (18:04): As I was saying prior to the interruption for members' statements at 1.30, the fuel security service payment is one of two key components of this legislation. The fuel security service payment will be a payment to the refiners to limit the downside risk. This payment will cease when the refining margin reaches $10.20 per barrel. It will increase to 1.8 cents per litre when the margin per barrel is as low as $7.30. That is the cap. It will not increase beyond that measure. For the refiners to be able to access this payment and this support they will have to agree to continue to refine fuel in Australia until the middle of 2027. That is the incentive, I guess, for the remaining refineries to continue to produce fuel here in Australia. That is a particularly important part of this package.
The second part of the package, one that's particularly important to my electorate and me, is the minimum stockholding obligation. This is an obligation for industry to retain levels of petrol, diesel and jet fuel to increase by up to 40 per cent by 2024. The reason this was brought to my attention was that, when we were in the middle of the COVID lockdown in April last year, we were preparing for seeding in the electorate of O'Connor, which is a vast agricultural electorate. We were faced with a situation where we had closures and shutdowns happening all over the place, farmers were preparing to sow their crops and no-one really knew whether trucks would be allowed to get through. We didn't know whether fuel supplies were going to be shipped to his country. It caused incredible angst amongst my communities, particularly the agriculture communities but also the mining communities.
As the season unfolded and the crop went in we were able to get access to the supplies that were needed for those farmers and those croppers, but it was much broader than that. The woodchip industry requires large amounts of fuel. Just getting general freight from the city to Albany and Esperance and other parts of my electorate is 700 kays. To Kalgoorlie it's 600 kilometres. Just to sustain these communities with food and general supplies requires an enormous amount of fuel, particularly diesoline in this case. We got through that, but it did bring home to my communities just how important was having a guaranteed supply or a much larger stockholding of fuel.
To illustrate the importance of getting that crop in, last year the Western Australian grain crop, which was sown in that April-May period, produced around $6 billion worth of grain, which was mostly exported. That was the sowing of the crop component and the producing of the crop. Once the crop is harvested, we have to get that crop to port. Once again, that requires large amounts of diesel, whether that be for road transport—around two million tonnes of that crop is transported by road—or for locomotives.
It's not just the grain industry that was exposed. Western Australia last year produced something like 228 tonnes of gold. Australia is the second-largest producer of gold in the world, and of course that gold last year brought in many billions of dollars of export income that was, once again, critical to the recovery of our economy, and we're seeing that ongoing recovery at the moment. So the importance of having the strategic fuel reserves was brought home in no uncertain fashion last year.
The towns of Albany and Esperance already have significant storage facilities which are not being fully utilised by the various fuel supply companies. As part of this program I'm looking forward to seeing some investment by those fuel companies in the upgrading of those facilities and in the bringing on of refurbishment to make sure that those fuel supplies are stored in the regions where they are required, in the region that produces the wealth of this state, and are available for our primary producers across my electorate of O'Connor and Western Australia and Australia more broadly.
That's all that I wanted to say on this bill in my short contribution. I just wanted to draw the parliament's attention to (a) how important it is to have these strategic stocks of fuel stored around my electorate and (b) the incredible contribution that primary producers—be they farmers or foresters—the tourism industry and the mining sector make to not only the economy of Western Australia but the economy of Australia more broadly.
Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat) (18:10): I, too, rise to speak on the Fuel Security Bill 2021, particularly in support of the amendment moved by the member for McMahon. This bill is an important bill. It extends support in an attempt to ensure the continuation of an essential Australian capability, to protect jobs and to ensure that Australia can continue to function in times of international strife and disruption. As all in this place know, Australia's fuel security is now at probably its most precarious level in our modern history. The COVID induced drop in demand has exacerbated underlying structural pressures in Australia's fuel refineries. We don't store enough fuel in this country, and we are fast losing any capability to refine fuel ourselves.
On 14 September 2020, as part of the 2020 budget, the Prime Minister and the energy minister announced an initial fuel security package. At the time, the government claimed the package would 'back local refineries to stay open wherever commercially possible'. Just six weeks later, BP Australia announced the closure of the Kwinana refinery. Then, in December 2020, the minister for energy announced that the government would bring forward the production payment to 1 January 2021, with $83.5 million to be paid over six months. In that announcement, the minister claimed that the government was 'taking immediate and decisive action to keep our domestic refineries open'. Less than two months later, ExxonMobil announced the closure of the Altona refinery. Two fuel security announcements in three months did nothing to stop the closure of two refineries, leaving us with only two refineries across the whole of this nation. This isn't a government that just got into power; this is a government that has been in power for eight long years, and it has absolutely neglected this important national security issue and our national capability.
The bill we're debating here is the government's third attempt. We hope, for the nation's sake, it is third time lucky. These bills will support the continued operation of our two remaining refineries through providing a subsidy when the market is low and imposing minimal stock obligations on fuel importers. The bill will also bring forward refinery infrastructure upgrades and accelerate the review of fuel standards in Australia, something that is long overdue. While these measures are welcome and Labor will support them, the bill does not do nearly enough to make up for this government's past failures.
To quickly sum up, half of Australia's remaining refineries have closed since the government's initial fuel security announcement in September 2020. Even after this package, Australia will remain non-compliant with its International Energy Agency obligation to hold 90 days of oil reserves, meaning we depend disproportionately on imports, and Australia still lacks a sovereign shipping capability, leaving us reliant on foreign owned and operated tankers. Hundreds of workers have lost their jobs. Australia's fuel security is worse than ever, and the government is still not doing enough to address the situation. This dire situation is the result of years of neglect. This neglect has played out not only in the closing of refineries but also in dirty, low-quality fuel and a consumer and industry fleet that is unable to accommodate the world's most modern and clean engines in this country.
It is well known across industry that Australia is a First World nation running on Third World fuel. We are one of only six nations in the OECD without fuel emissions standards. Our average emission intensity for passenger vehicles is 45 per cent higher than Europe's. The standards of our 91-, 95- and 98-octane fuel have been banned in Europe for over a decade. Our trucking fleet is older and dirtier. We can't import the most economical modern vehicle engines, because our petrol and diesel are not clean enough for them to run on. And these standards are due to remain unchanged for years to come in this country. At the same time, the government is standing in the way of electric vehicles, leaving Australia even further behind the pack when it comes to the future of vehicles across the world. The government should have got on with this years ago, encouraging electric vehicles, supporting and encouraging the upgrade of fuel refineries and ensuring that we have an adequate supply on our own shores. But the government has failed to do that.
This bill will take some action in bringing forward upgrades and accelerating the fuel standards review. But, given this government's complete failure and its record, it's hard to believe that this will be enough. They've made three announcements in eight months, but they haven't done the follow-up of securing our nation's fuel supplies, and this failure has left this country in a very vulnerable position. Fuel is important for what it does. It helps the transportation of goods, materials and people across our vast nation—our trucks, our ships, our cars, our buses, our trains and our planes. Australia runs on fuel. Our society cannot function without fuel, but we have very little here. Particularly with our limited refining capacity, we need to ensure that we have sufficient stocks onshore to maintain our society and our economy.
But once again, under this government, we are falling behind. Under International Energy Agency agreements, Australia should have 90 days of fuel reserves available at all times. Australia has not had 90 days of reserves since 2012—eight long years of this government, but not once have they met the minimum benchmark. Last year the government made an announcement, as they often do, telling us that they would do something about this. 'Finally the government cares about our fuel security,' we thought. Instead, the government—comically—announced that they would purchase $94 million of fuel to be stored not in Australia but in the United States. I don't know whether the government consulted an atlas before they made that announcement, but if they had, they might have realised that storing our strategic reserve of fuel on the other side of the Pacific Ocean wasn't particularly strategic. The fuel wouldn't be accessible in a crisis. That doesn't fix the underlying problem of fuel insecurity.
Australia relies on just-in-time fuel deliveries. It's worked for us, but one day it won't. Over the past year we have seen just how quickly things can change. It isn't hard to see how 'just in time' can easily become 'far too late'. The government's job is to prepare for these occasions, to future-proof Australia from those emergencies, not to bury their heads in the sand and pretend everything is always going to be okay. What will be essential when things go wrong and when our fuel is too far away is a fleet of ships on which our nation can actually rely. An Australian flagged strategic fleet is a key plank in assuring Australia's fuel security and broader supply chain security. But this government is leaving it to languish. Over recent years Australian shipping has all but collapsed. Over the past 30 years the number of Australian flagged vessels has shrunk from 100 to barely 10. While other maritime nations support their shipping industries, this government stands idly by and has in fact introduced policies to make it worse.
Norway has 519 vessels carrying the Norwegian flag. The United Kingdom has 1,157 flagged vessels, and China has 4,608 flagged vessels. If other nations can maintain a merchant fleet, so can we. In fact, it is essential that, as an island nation, we do so. But instead of supporting Australian shipping the government continues to open Australia up to foreign flagged vessels and crew without thinking of the importance of our own capability, not only to import our vital supplies of fuels and other essentials but also to move goods around our country and for the security of this nation. They twice sought to rip up the reforms made by the Labor government that were aimed at protecting Australian shipping, under the guise of reducing costs. This parliament twice rejected those governments' so-called reforms, calling out the legislation as bad for Australian passengers and freight, bad for Australian workers and bad for Australia's national security. All the while, each and every coalition transport minister over the past eight long years has undermined the policy settings that were put in place by the former Labor government that sought to enhance and rebuild Australian shipping. In particular, the repeated misuse of temporary licences by this government has enabled foreign flagged ships with foreign crews to trade along our coastline—work that can and should be done by Australian maritime workers who are paid Australian wages at Australian conditions.
Australia relies on shipping to move 99 per cent of our imports and exports, including our fuel. It is critical that we maintain the sovereign capacity to import these supplies and transport them around the nation. Whether it be conflict, natural disaster or pandemic, history has shown us that we cannot always rely on other nations to carry our essential goods on their flagged ships. We are an island nation. We are a trading nation. We are a maritime nation. We have the fifth-largest shipping task in the world, and under this government we are increasingly dependent on imports.
In times of crisis it is essential that we have an Australian fleet that we can rely on. That is why Labor has been calling on the government to consider the establishment of a strategic fleet that would not only protect our economic interests but also provide the training opportunities that we critically need to bolster our maritime workforce. The government needs to listen. This bill might do some good to address fuel security, but without addressing Australian shipping it cannot be enough. Whenever we do talk about shipping I am reminded of the workers of the MV Portland—men who have borne the worst of the Morrison government's shipping failures. For those that don't recall, the MV Portland worked off the coast of Australia for 27 years, hauling alumina from Western Australia to Alcoa's Portland refinery. Then at 3 am one morning they were awoken by security guards, escorted off the ship and forced to watch as a foreign crew boarded the vessel—their workplace and their home—to take it for scrapping in Singapore. They lost their jobs, like so many other Australian maritime workers, to overseas operations which pay their staff a couple of dollars an hour. The same work is still being done. It will always need to be done. But it is not being done by Australians and it's not being done by workers receiving decent wages.
The Morrison government's failures have a national security cost, but they also have an undeniable human cost. Next week, these and other maritime workers will be coming to parliament, and I encourage all members to meet them and hear the story about what happened to them and their jobs. The government needs to do more to support them and their industry, because it is in their economic interest as well as in our nation's national security interests. As an island nation in uncertain times, with only two refineries, limited onshore fuel reserves and no strategic fleet, it is simply untenable. This bill is welcome, but it does too little. Labor is committed to rebuilding our capabilities. If this pandemic has taught us anything it is that we must build back better, that we have to build resiliency into Australia's national economy and that we have to have the capabilities as an island nation to look after ourselves. If it has taught us anything it is that we have to be a nation that makes things, and part of that has to be to rebuild a strategic fleet to keep our nation secure.
The Morrison government should follow our lead and finally take some real action towards securing Australia's fuel supply and better preparing our nation to meet its future.
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (18:24): It's a great privilege to be able to speak on this bill, the Fuel Security Bill 2021, this afternoon and on the importance of fuel security for the nation. When I speak to Goldstein residents, there are a number of issues of concern to them that come up. One of them, critically, is how we secure the Australian national interest in terms of strategic threats, economically and in a defence capacity, and make sure that we have the reserves we need as a country so that we can hedge our risk and be confident going into the future. There are a lot of issues that come under those banners. People are concerned about environmental risk—the various challenges we face and how they could degrade the future of the country. We have people who are concerned about supply chains and the technologies that we're going to need for the future, including having access to the materials we need as a nation to have a viable manufacturing sector—one that can be resilient and strong and can support the Australian economy, in terms of jobs and our national security. That was highlighted at the start of last year in terms of access to certain types of materials, particularly PPE, at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.
One of the issues that regularly gets raised with me by constituents is fuel security, and it gets raised on different sides of the ledger. It gets raised with me in terms of the fuel dependence that this country has, traditionally on different types of petrochemicals, and what the need to diversify means for the future of Australia, economically and environmentally. I have a lot of sympathy for the constituents who raise those issues, because I want to see a diversification of our energy sources, much more so than the science deniers on the other side of this chamber, who seem to be only obsessed with limiting supply down to a narrow scope. I'm a great believer in hedging risk and going with technology where technology can take us. As I've said many times, I believe the future is going to be awesome. The question is whether you're prepared to embrace that technological innovation.
I welcome the discussion that so many people have raised in the areas of stationary energy, whether it's in terms of hydroelectric power, gas or renewables—not just as energy outcomes in themselves but as part of the discussion about how they can be used to build the transport fuels of the future, particularly around the potential for renewables to be part of the solution of moving to hydrogen power. That won't just deal with some of the challenges we have in a stationary energy capacity. If you look at the long-term future of things like transport energy, it's going to be dependent, at least in part, on hydrogen and its potential. Particularly if you look at the long-term risk of electric vehicles and some of the challenges we have around battery technology and recycling, as well as resource constraints around things like lithium-ion, we need fuels like hydrogen to be part of that future.
There are also more traditional concerns that people raise with me, such as our fuel security, not just for domestic industry but also for the fuels we're going to need for our national defence. This is not an academic exercise. If you look at the greenhouse gas emissions profile of the Commonwealth, a lot of it is actually absorbed in the defence forces, which use a high volume of transport fuels: shipping and bunker fuels; avgas, which is a critical ingredient for things like the Air Force; and traditional petrochemical fuels, diesel and the like, for fuelling things like tanks and other vehicles. Fuel security matters not just for our economy but also for our national security, and hedging that risk is going to be critically important for the future. But that, of course, requires a long supply chain. We have supply chains where we have domestic reservations and domestic supply. We import a large part of our fuels, particularly from Singapore, but people are increasingly concerned about what happens in an environment where those trade avenues are blocked off—it needn't be through conflict; it could simply be through some sort of blockade—and whether that will cut the country off from the rest of the world.
One of the great strengths of our country, on many levels, is that our geographic location means that we can hedge that risk by importing fuels from just about anywhere else on the planet, because there are so many different avenues for shipping routes. They're not all desirable. No-one is arguing they are all desirable, but, in the case of crisis, we have options. Many other countries do not. In fact, as a completely outside comment, a couple of years ago, I went to Armenia, a landlocked country that essentially has three out of four borders closed. It does not have the same luxury of options as we do in terms of its geography and its capacity to access open markets. We have options directly from the Middle East, directly from Singapore, directly from South America and directly from the United States, which is one of the reasons at the start of last year the government took an option to buy some fuel reserves in the United States. It gave us more options. But it's not just about having access to the fuel; it's also about having access to the shipping of it. But they're more critical in terms of refining—so that we can domestically provide resources to the Australian economy and to our national security. That's what this bill is about.
This bill is about completing the supply chain so that, if you're in the refining business, you have an incentive to continue to operate in Australia against a backdrop where we've seen a number of refineries close. We're maintaining and conserving that domestic capacity so that we can provide that degree of security for our country. As I said, it has a big impact in terms of our defence, but it also has a big impact in terms of other sectors, like agriculture, transport and mining, which are the foundations of the Australian economy and the foundations of wealth that lead to the employment of Australians. It compounds in terms of other sectors, like manufacturing and a service based economy, and ultimately provides the wealth which we all enjoy so that we can have a wealthy and prosperous country and provide the health and education services and other essential services that Australians need.
The objective of this bill is to lock in commitments from refineries so that they have clear incentives to operate, and, if there is an environment where there's a shortfall, that, of course, they get the incentive they need to continue to operate as a backstop as part of a safeguard for the interests of the nation. I've had some constituents write to me and say, 'I don't agree with what the government is doing here,' because they are concerned about environmental factors. I do understand that, but the reality is the primary basis of doing this is as a backstop for the security of the nation.
Of course, we have to make trade-off decisions and serious decisions in this parliament about the long-term interests of the nation, and that is what this bill does. It's quite clear what the impact will be. We'll stop the closure of remaining refineries operating in Australia for the next five years. It will result in 1,250 direct jobs not being lost and a further 1,700 jobs, or thereabouts, not being lost in the construction sector. Of course, it will stop a negative impact through higher prices in all fuel dependent industries. Just about every industry has fuel at the heart of its competitiveness. It's always been one of the foundations of what has made this country economically strong—not just that we've got extractive industries, agriculture and primary industries that create the wealth but also that we've got a competitive energy market that's enabled the realisation of that wealth. If you remove the competitive energy, or even the accessibility of energy, you undermine the very core of the Australian economy. When it comes to bigger discussions around stocks, it of course underpins that sense of security and confidence for the country. The way it's doing it is by providing payments directly to companies, should they end up in a situation where they drop below a certain threshold, particularly below a certain threshold in terms of a competitive price.
It's quite clear what many of the interests in this space think, because they're aware of the risks that come if we don't implement this policy, but, more to the point, what it does for the confidence of the economy if we're to back it in. I'd hope the members opposite, despite their virtue-signalling—sorry, it's not even virtue-signalling; virtue-signalling implies that there's some sense of virtue, and this is just partisanship-signalling. It's an amendment to whip up the troops, as it were, to get them excited as they watch their leader fail and flail as a consequence of their lack of vision for this country and their absence of any idea about what they want to progress. There are no other issues they want to put on the table—unless they would like to revisit the previous election agenda. We can debate that out as much as you wish. I'm quite happy to debate that.
We had the member for McMahon complaining before about Labor's last election defeat. He was, of course, the architect and the author. We see other members, like the member for Gellibrand over there, who are doing an outstanding job of ensuring that members of the coalition are re-elected, and we wish them all the best in their continued success! But we're going to get on with governing for the interests of Australia. That is the basis of this legislation. We just hope that they might, at some point, put down their partisan weapons and decide to be positive contributors. In this debate so far, that has not been the case. We hope that might change, but we know from the lessons of history that, if you want to look at future behaviour, the best indicator is past behaviour, and we know that's less likely to occur. But that's okay. That's their issue. The Australian people are ready to judge you, opposition members, very harshly at the next election, and we look forward to it.
Let's face it, they're not normally friends of mine. They're not normally fans of mine or of this government. In fact, they're normally fans of the former Leader of the Opposition, the member for Maribyrnong, and the Australian Workers Union and what they're saying the Morrison government is doing. It must have come as a knife cut in the heart of the Australian Labor Party when the national secretary, Dan Walton, of the Australian Workers Union said of the Morrison government's Fuel Security Bill and associated legislation, 'We are extremely satisfied.' They know what's on the line: their workers, their jobs, their members and, of course, the health and security of our country. He went on to say:
The security of the production payment provision, along with the investment to make cleaner fuel, will underpin longevity for both refineries. Today's announcement will save thousands of jobs, both directly at the refineries and indirectly through jobs supported in the community.
That's one of the things that has been lost by members of the opposition on this bill. It's not just that we're locking in arrangements to ensure that we guarantee the security of supply, for the Australian economy, of certain fuels for refining, but we've also increased the obligations and standards that come with it. So you're going to have cheaper, better, more environmentally sustainable and less particulate fuel supplies in this country. It's, literally, security and environmental responsibility in one. This is what we do as a government. That is not what they do as an opposition.
Let's get beyond just the naked vested interests of the workers union and look at some of the other sectors that have voiced their similar support. The Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries, whose interest, principally, is in making sure that we have an environment sympathetic and supportive to motorists, said:
Australian motorists and the environment will be beneficiaries of the Federal Government’s plans to support the operations of fuel refineries in Geelong and Brisbane …
They said it was a 'significant and positive step'. Good on them. They're right. Let's go to the Australian Trucking Association. There are many people who work in the trucking industry and they're a critical part of making sure that we have the supply chains, so when you go to the supermarket you can get some milk or apples, some fresh food, so that the next generation can stay young and healthy. They have said:
Diesel and liquid fuel security are critical to Australia’s economy—98 per cent of the energy for the transport sector is sourced from liquid fuel.
… … …
This is a big win for every road user.
Correct. If there are higher costs, what happens is they flow through to the prices Australians pay—you pay—when they go to the supermarket or when they go to purchase goods and services. The Australian automobile Association says:
The Government is right to be focussed on Australia’s need to comply with our International Energy Agency obligations, and it is right to be helping fund construction of an expanded network of fuel storage depots around Australia.
That's what this bill also does. At every point, this government is delivering: security of our national energy supply, competitiveness in our national energy supply, making sure that we back the industries that need support right now—particularly, frankly, in the great state of Victoria—as part of a plan to rebuild Australia's future.
Mr DICK (Oxley) (18:39): I don't know why the member for Goldstein wants to be patted on the back when refineries have closed down in Australia under this government. Refineries have been shut down under this Liberal government. As he skulks away from the chamber, I want to place on record my disappointment with how the government has handled fuel security in this nation. The Fuel Security Bill 2021, which we will be supporting, does two things. First, it introduces a capped fuel security service payment to Australia's two remaining refineries. Second, the bill imposes a minimum stock obligation on fuel importers. So why are we here tonight? Let's unpack what the government have done and why they should be criticised, not congratulated, for their failures on fuel security, including half of Australia's refineries since October. It is an indictment of this government that we have closed refineries.
COVID-19 has highlighted the importance of Australian self-sufficiency. We've all seen that. We've seen that in our communities; we've seen that in our local businesses. We need to ensure that, when the worst-case scenario happens, we've got the capacity to care for our citizens and to keep the critical services and operations going. It's clear that a secure fuel supply is absolutely vital to these goals. Fuel runs this country. You can't rely on anything else to get things around the country from A to B, whether it be food, supplies, groceries, construction supplies, medical equipment—the list goes on. But we've got to have the capacity to transport these vital items from one end of the country to the other. If we lose this capacity, our economy and our country grind to a halt. If COVID-19 has proven anything, it's that we cannot take anything for granted.
The member for Goldstein spoke a lot about supply chains. We've seen, particularly over the last 12 months, that supply chains can be suddenly and unexpectedly disrupted. As Australia is an island nation, we must equip ourselves with the tools to manage such a situation. But, even before the pandemic, many would have thought that this is just common sense. We exist in a complex and interconnected world, and, of course, we should be positioning ourselves so that interruptions to global supply chains will not cripple our nation. That's a no-brainer. However, the Morrison government have waited until now to take these steps to shore up our fuel security. They've literally waited until we are teetering on the edge of being entirely dependent on foreign imports to run our country's cars, planes, ships and trucks. Our refinery sector is haemorrhaging capacity, and the Australian workers who rely on this industry for their pay cheques are ultimately paying the price. This situation did not come out of the blue. Through the long eight years of the Morrison government, we've fallen further and further down the hole of foreign dependency. We've seen press conferences and shiny announcements promising to address this issue, but, as the workers at closed oil refineries know all too well, these promises were simply broken promises.
I want to go back in time a little bit to around six years ago, when a Senate inquiry recommended that the government carry out a comprehensive review of Australia's fuel security problem. After dragging their feet for three years, the government announced in 2018 that they would undertake this review, which they promised would report back in 2019. The interim report landed on the desk of this government in April 2019. There it sat, gathering dust for the next two years. The government are yet to release this final report, breaking their promise to deliver it in late 2019. We know that this is normal behaviour from the Morrison government: delay, distract—'Look over here; we'll announce something over here; we won't follow through'—just to get everyone's attention off the main issues. This government is good at managing the PR, the spin and the headlines, but it forgets that it actually has a job to do to manage the country. Fuel security is one of the basic elements we need for a secure economy, yet the government chose not to act. When given the chance in 2019, the government chose not to even deliver the report. As a direct result of the government's negligence, we are now nearly entirely dependent on global supply chains to keep our country functioning.
The interim report the government left to gather dust, as I said in my earlier remarks, highlighted key issues that could have been addressed over two years ago. Australia is seriously non-compliant with our international energy obligations for domestic fuel stocks. This is a truly dire situation. We're required to have 90 days of domestic fuel stocks to protect the Australian people and economy against global oil shocks. We've fallen embarrassingly short of this target. We have just 58 days. So, in the eight long years that the Morrison government's been in power, our economy, our national security, our jobs and our nation's families have been left vulnerable to international fuel shocks. If such a shock comes before this government is able to get its act together, then the impact on Australian families and the price they pay for fuel will be devastating.
Over the last 12 months, COVID-19 has served to deeply entrench this issue. The drop in demand for fuel brought about by the pandemic, underlined by the structural pressures on Australia's fuel refineries, has borne that out for the whole nation to see. Over the past eight months, we've seen three announcements on fuel security from this government yet we've also seen our situation grow increasingly dire. We are now significantly dependent on refined oil imports. While the government has called press conference after press conference to present these so-called solutions to the Australian people, the situation has only gotten worse. The writing's been on the wall for years as fuel refineries have closed and our dependence on imports has increased. This was not done in secret. It was not done behind closed doors. Everyone saw this happening, except the Morrison government.
Addressing fuel security, as far as I'm concerned, should be an immediate and urgent priority of any government. Yet it was not until September 2020 that the government announced a fuel security package to address these key issues. At the time, the Prime Minister and Minister Taylor made the claim that the package would be 'backing local refineries to stay open wherever commercially possible'. Just as we see with every announcement this government makes, it was not backed up by results. Six weeks later, on 30 October, BP announced that its Kwinana refinery would close.
Then, in December 2020, we saw another flashy announcement by this government, with Minister Taylor stating that the government would bring forward the production payments to January 2021, with $83½ million to be paid over six months. I want to refer to his statement. The minister said that 'the government was taking immediate and decisive action to keep our domestic refineries operating'. So what happened with this 'immediate and decisive action to keep our domestic refineries operating'? Within two months, on 10 February 2021, ExxonMobil announced that its Altona refinery would also close. What we're seeing here is a pattern. 'Yes, we're going to take action. Yes, we're going to do the media conference. Yes, we're going to stand with workers.' But for what? The refineries closed. The refineries closed on this government's watch, placing our fuel security at risk.
Finally, in May this year, the Prime Minister and Minister Taylor made their third fuel security announcement in just eight months, revealing decisions that had been taken but not announced in the 2021 budget to shore up our nation's failing fuel security.
The Morrison government have had opportunity after opportunity to act and have simply failed to do so. Those on the other side will want to use the COVID-19 pandemic as the convenient scapegoat for the dire fuel-security situation that they find themselves in. They will want to claim that this is the reason these measures are being introduced now and not years ago—when they were needed. I repeat: the writing was on the wall years and years ago. But, hard as the government may try, they cannot explain away their lack of leadership and their abject failure to act until the pandemic.
We've seen eight long years of empty announcements and policy failures on this issue. Let me summarise. In 2015, there was the Senate inquiry. In 2018, three whole years later, the government announced that they would do the review. In 2019, the interim report was handed to the government. Then nothing. The report highlighted dangerous deficiencies in our fuel security and recommended action. This was a report given to the government to say, 'This is the action you should take,' and they didn't do anything. They did absolutely nothing until, of course, the very last opportunity, the big photo op, presented itself. This Prime Minister never misses a photo op. Last September's announcement delivered nothing in terms of fuel security and nothing in terms of job security for fuel sector workers.
The government likes to play this role, as we heard from the previous speaker the member for Goldstein, of the hero of Australia—the friend of the worker rushing in to save jobs. Their record on fuel refineries renders this act completely ridiculous. I want to place on record tonight the reason the government was pushed into this action. It was pushed to act because of the hard work and the fierce advocacy of the Australian Workers Union, who had to put significant pressure on the government to deliver these changes. We owe a huge vote of thanks to the AWU delegates who came to Canberra, who pressured the government, who stood up for their members, and who, alongside members of the opposition, made sure the government heard those concerns. I particularly want to highlight delegate Mick Denton from Ampol in Lytton, who is now our Labor candidate for the federal seat of Petrie. He played a critical role in getting these vital measures across the line.
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr DICK: That's right—a real worker standing up for mates. I can hear the rubbish from the member for Fisher, disrespecting blue-collar workers. We know how much they hate unions, how much they hate workers—how much they despise workers. We absolutely know that. They're screaming and yelling because I've mentioned a fierce advocate, Mick Denton, who will stand up for workers in his electorate of Petrie and who will fight for the rights of workers to make sure their jobs are protected. I know they don't like it, I know they're antiworkers, I know they don't like blue-collar workers, and I know that because we see their actions time and time again.
So it's because of the leadership, through our national secretariat, of the Australian Workers Union—my union that I'm a proud member of and have been for about 25 years—that those workers interests are protected. If it were up to this government—they were shown the warning signs years ago—those workers would all be out of jobs now. What about all the workers at those two refineries that have been lost? Have we heard one single apology from those opposite about those jobs that were lost? Absolutely not. Those workers were thrown on the scrap heap by the Morrison government—completely rejected.
The workers that have fought for this, through the Australian Workers Union and their fierce advocacy, are people like Steve Baker, the state secretary of the Australian Workers Union in Queensland, and people like Daniel Walton, the national secretary.
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr DICK: They hate it when we talk about workers. They are resolute in their opposition to working people. We know that time and time again. We saw that in how they treated refineries in the electorates where the Altona Refinery is based, we've seen it in Western Australia, we've seen it in Victoria. We've seen it, we hear it and we live it. There's no secrecy about this, about how much they despise workers and blue-collar workers. We know that. Their actions and their hysteria tonight simply prove that.
The state of our fuel security is an embarrassment. It's an embarrassment to the Prime Minister, who likes to talk big on national security. It's an embarrassment to a government that appears to have an ideological opposition to any kind of alternatives, but perversely refuses to properly protect our traditional fuel supplies. It's an embarrassment to a government that has, after eight long years, delivered absolutely nothing to Australians except a wage slump, record debt and a fuel situation that leaves us completely dependent on foreign supply.
Labor welcomes this package of bills, but it comes far too late for the refineries that have been shut down and closed forever by this government. They should hang their heads in shame. They shouldn't be yelling at me when I'm defending workers. They should be standing up in this parliament to make sure that our fuel security is guaranteed and the jobs of the future are protected.
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (18:54): If that wasn't a preselection pitch, you'll never hear one! What a preselection pitch that was!
Mr Dick interjecting—
Mr WALLACE: Well, there you go. You're trying out for the next term—if you get that far! When the COVID-19 pandemic struck, in early 2020, I said to many people in my local community that Australia's greatest assets in this situation are the Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean—and, of course, a stable and effective democracy. Over the past 18 months, we've seen the Morrison government, with the support of all Australians, make the most of these advantages, natural and by design, to keep this country safe and to deliver arguably the best health and economic outcomes in the world.
At times of crisis, the natural barrier provided by the waters that separate our island continent from the rest of the world can of course be an important ally. The 200 kilometres between the northern tip of Far North Queensland and the southern shores of Papua New Guinea makes for an important logistical barrier to invasion from hostile powers, for example. The need to enter Australia via a port or airport makes it easier for us to deny entry to people who wish us harm and to keep out pathogens and biological hazards that would threaten our very way of life.
From World War II to COVID-19 we have used this country's natural moat to keep the world's problems at bay. However, the oceans that divide us from the rest of the world are a mixed blessing. Whilst they help us to keep out the things we don't want, they can also prevent us from getting access to the things we desperately need. Whether it's a global pandemic, instability or diplomatic failures in another region of the world, or, most seriously, an armed conflict or blockade in the Asia-Pacific, Australia is a relatively vulnerable country and it's vulnerable to having our supply chains cut off at the water's edge.
Fortunately, thanks to Australia's fantastic farmers, we have a large surplus of food and, as our national anthem reminds us, our land abounds in natural resources of every kind. However, when it comes to oil based liquid fuels, as a nation we are vulnerable. Petrol, aviation fuel and, in particular, diesel are fundamental to our very way of life. In a crisis they become even more important. The Morrison government is investing $270 billion in Defence procurement over the next 10 years to ensure that if, God forbid, our shores are ever threatened, Australia can defend itself. However, without diesel and aviation fuel, the high-tech products of that investment will have no choice but to sit idly by in their hangars, on wharfs and in sheds. Without fuel, we are effectively defenceless. Without diesel, we cannot transport from country to city the abundance of food and fibre that we produce, and we can't move medical supplies or feed for livestock or manufactured goods to where they are needed. If our roads are Australia's arteries then diesel is this country's lifeblood.
Fortunately, we have not suffered a major fuel supply shock for more than 40 years. However, with an increasingly complex and challenge geopolitical environment, it may only be a question of time. According to the department of energy, Australia currently imports 90 per cent of our liquid fuels. While we do produce our own crude oil—some 21,578 megalitres in 2019-20—most of it is exported for refining elsewhere. Much of our imported fuel comes through areas of potential future conflict, such as the Middle East, the Korean peninsula and the South China Sea. The answer is to ensure that we have substantial supplies of fuel stored here in Australia and that we have the refining capability to produce our own fuel when it is needed. The Bass Strait and Cooper basins can supply the crude oil we need to run essential services, as long as we have our own refining capability and stored supplies to provide necessary supplements during an emergency. Unfortunately, as it stands, this is not the case. According to the International Energy Agency, at the last measure—in March of 2021—Australia had the equivalent of just 64 days worth of fuel imports available. At times, as Senator Molan has eloquently highlighted, our stocks of refined fuels have dropped as low as 24 days of petrol and 17 days of diesel. This is simply not enough, particularly if you consider that the use of fuels in a conflict far exceeds the amount used in peacetime.
The Morrison government has been very aware of this challenge and has taken significant action to deal with it. In April last year, the government took advantage of historically low global fuel prices to purchase $94 million worth of crude oil from the United States Strategic Petroleum Reserve. By June 2020, Australia held just 30 days of petrol consumption cover, the highest level since electronic record keeping began in 1989. Jet fuel increased to 29 days of consumption cover and diesel stocks remained stable at just 20 days of consumption cover. Though these levels were higher than historically, we cannot pretend that such levels of supply are adequate. In January this year, the Morrison government went further, announcing an investment of $200 million in the Boosting Australia's Diesel Storage Program, which will deliver an additional 780 megalitres of onshore diesel storage capacity. These grants of up to $33.3 million will ensure that we have the additional physical storage that we need over the next three years to significantly boost our supplies of diesel. However, we don't just need the fuel tanks; we need them filled.
The bill before the House today will ensure that our extra capacity is kept brimming with fuel. The bill introduces a minimum stockholding obligation on businesses which import or refine oil products in this country. The bill lays out that, if you want to operate in this sector in Australia, you must do your bit to ensure that we have the fuel stores that we need. The government will set a national daily consumption target for gasoline and kerosene, based on the average daily consumption from 2018 and 2019—that is, before the COVID pandemic struck. The government will set a diesel target some 40 per cent higher than these average levels to reflect how critical diesel would be in a crisis. Each operator refining or importing these products in this country will then be given a specific obligation, based on the size and nature of their operations, to store in Australia a certain proportion of these daily usage targets. The government has consulted on these obligations with industry and has ensured that, through the Boosting Australia's Diesel Storage Program, we are helping operators to comply with their new obligations. The industry is ready to go on this, and this bill will lock in the agreement to ensure that we have the stocks that we need.
Alongside these reserves of fuel, we also need the capacity to refine the crude oil that we produce ourselves in this country to ensure we can keep essential services operating in the longer term, whatever the circumstances. In recent months this capacity has been put under serious threat. Refineries in Australia operated by ExxonMobil and BP were closed at the beginning of the year, leaving us with just two significant facilities remaining. Today we have only Ampol's refinery in Brisbane and the facility operated by Viva Energy in Geelong. These represent the last of our sovereign capability and the only thing standing between us and a total reliance on overseas partners for fuel. Both Ampol and Viva Energy have made it clear that without support from the government our remaining refineries will be forced to close. The Morrison government is determined to ensure that that does not happen, and the bill before the House is the means by which we can guarantee it.
The bill will deliver a fuel security service payment to the operators of these refineries when they are doing it tough. The amount of government support the refineries receive will depend on their profitability at the time. When they are making a margin of at least $10.20 per barrel, our refineries will receive no service payment from the government. When margins fall below $7.30 per barrel and refineries are making a loss, they will receive 1.8 cents per litre. When times are good, the taxpayer will be protected from providing unnecessary subsidies, but, when times are tough for the refineries, this vital industry will receive the support that it needs. The government has secured agreement from the operators of our domestic refineries that the passage of this bill and its fuel security service payment will guarantee that their facilities remain open until at least 2027, with an option to extend the arrangement to 2030. In short, the bill before the House will make the difference between an Australia which is entirely reliant on overseas corporations and foreign powers for our fuel and an Australia with a guaranteed capacity to refine our own at home for much of the next decade.
The choice is a stark and obvious one. No-one wants to see a significant disruption to international trade. Certainly, no-one wants to see conflict in our region. However, as the Romans said in years gone by, if you want peace, you must prepare for war. Australia must never be vulnerable to a naval blockade or worse. We must have the ability to refine our own fuels and we must have the stores we need to cover any shortfalls. This bill is a central part of the government's strategy and another step in the right direction to deliver fuel security in this country, and I commend it to the House.
Mr MARLES (Corio—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (19:07): I rise to support the Fuel Security Bill. As a former shadow minister for defence and having served in a number of portfolios which have national security responsibilities, I want briefly to add my voice to those of others about the significance of having fuel security in this country. In the mystical lottery of nations, Australia absolutely won the jackpot. What we have as a nation is a whole continent to ourselves. That really is the fundamental fact which is at the heart of any proper analysis that tries to understand Australian strategic policy. What it means is that every critical activity that we undertake onshore leverages the advantage of having our own continent, our own island, with all the incredible national security advantages which come from that. Equally, every time we lose a critical activity and every time we lose industrial sovereign capability, we remove the most significant natural advantage that we have.
It is hard to conceive of a more critical fundamental activity than having the capacity to supply our own fuel. It's fundamental in so many ways in terms of how our economy operates. This bill and the package that it underpins will ensure the continuation of the two remaining refineries in our country, which, with our own oil reserves, will enable us to survive for a considerable amount of time, particularly with the refining of diesel, were shipping lanes to be disrupted. It puts us in a manifestly different position than were we to have no refining capacity at all. So, from a national security point of view, this legislation is fundamentally important. It is deeply essential.
It would be remiss of me not to point out that, as supportive as I am of this legislation, the package has come too late for the two refineries that have closed within the last 12 months: ExxonMobil's refinery in Altona and BP's refinery in Kwinana, in Western Australia. That is a pity, and we are less capable for the loss of those refineries. But, at this moment, it is important to acknowledge the significance of this bill in underpinning the future of the Ampol refinery in Brisbane and the Viva refinery in my electorate of Corio, in the northern part of Geelong.
After making those opening remarks about the national security implications of this bill, I really want to spend the bulk of my time tonight focusing on that refinery in my electorate, because it is so central and significant to the lives of people in Geelong. The components of what was then the Shell refinery which was built in Corio, in the northern part of Geelong, actually were intended to be assembled in Indonesia. They were shipped out to the island of Sumatra, at a site near Pangkalan Brandan, just prior to the Second World War. With the onset of the Second World War, it was impossible to construct the refinery, but, remarkably, at the conclusion of the Second World War, the unpacked refinery, as it were, had not been touched by the occupying Japanese, and so the asset that Shell had there was still intact. That said, there was some hesitancy on the part of Shell in London about following through on the construction of the refinery at that site, given the political uncertainty in the region as it was.
So, from there, Shell's head office in London decided instead to ship the items to Australia and to establish the refinery in Geelong. The federal government at the time agreed to let those components come into Australia free of duty, and indeed the Indonesian authorities at the time allowed for the components to leave Sumatra. The plant was then constructed on a 132-hectare site which had formerly been grazing land, in 1951. It was constructed by a Dutch contractor called Werkspoor, and there was an agreement between the Victorian state government and the ACTU at the time to enable labour to come in from the Netherlands to help in the construction, given that the skills that were required to construct the refinery were not present in Australia at the time. In combination with that, the harbour trust built a pier at the site and organised for the dredging of Corio Bay, which allowed ship access to the site. Its construction is, in a sense, one of the great stories of Australian migration. It speaks so much to the history of this country as an immigrant nation. A thousand workers from 14 countries around the world, but particularly from the Netherlands, were involved in the construction of the refinery, from 1951 to the point of the refinery being opened, in March 1954. To this day, there is a Dutch community in the northern suburbs of Geelong, in Corio and Norlane, who owe their origins to those workers who came out to help build the Shell refinery, as it was, in the 1950s.
My father was a teacher at Geelong Grammar School, which was adjacent to the refinery site. It's where I grew up and spent my childhood. So I actually grew up right next to the refinery, and it forms a large part of the memory of my youth. I can remember, in days when there perhaps weren't quite the same environmental standards as there are now, getting on my bike, riding around the refinery and picking up yellow blocks of sulphur, I think it was, which I happily took back to my parents and put on the kitchen table. They obviously were completely horrified with what I'd managed to retrieve and picked it up with plastic gloves and made sure it went into the bin straightaway. But such was my youthful joy, or glee, over this miraculous establishment next to where we lived.
When I was older, a student at the school, there was a clock tower that I used to be able to go up at night-time. From there, the view of the refinery was something to behold. The thousands of lights and the flame above it made it look like some kind of fairy kingdom. It was our own personal display, for that end of town, and it really was a remarkable sight to behold. There was, and still is, a red-and-white smokestack, and on the very many journeys that we would take from Geelong—and this is a story that is very familiar to people who live in Geelong—you would know, on returning, that you were approaching home when you could first see that smokestack on the horizon. It was the very literal symbol of Geelong and home on the horizon—that we were about to arrive home. It was, in a sense, a beckoning. It was a beacon for where home existed.
So, for many of us, there is a deep personal connection that we feel to the site. In April 2013 Shell announced that it intended to sell the refinery. At that time 450 people worked onsite. We thought, at that point, that the refinery might close and would instead turn into an import terminal. But, fortunately, in February 2014 it was announced that Shell had been able to sell the refinery as a going concern to Vitol, and in August 2014 Viva Energy Australia was established to operate the refinery, which it has been doing ever since. To this day, 400 permanent staff work at the refinery, along with another 350 permanent contractors. Viva contributes something like $200 million through wages to the local economy. They've also been very focused on investing in the site. They've committed to investing the better part of $1 billion over a five-year period to the upgrade of the site through a number of significant works. Indeed, since taking over they've already spent $600 million on the upgrade of the site.
When you do a tour of the site it is an extraordinary example of industry, of human ingenuity. There are pipes going in every direction. What's remarkable to me is that there is, right there, some of the highest-level tech manufacturing that occurs in this country today, but presumably somewhere is a pipe that was taken from Europe to Indonesia back in the 1930s or 1940s. In that sense, the refinery itself is a kind of living site. It has matured as the city has grown up.
What all of that story and sentimentality, I suppose, says is that the refinery is principally about producing a product, which, as I said at the outset, is fundamental to how our economy operates. It's a place that employs hundreds of constituents of mine and provides a significant contribution to our local economy. All of that is deeply important, but it's actually much more than that. An industry of this kind—a place of this kind—goes to the culture of the town in which it exists.
In that sense, it's not unique. There would be major facilities of this kind in various settings around the country, where people would have the same kind of emotional attachment. But its shape, its size, its landscape, its skyline defines the place in which I live. It defines the memories of my childhood. It defines how we see the world, in Geelong, in which we live. In Geelong Trades Hall there is a mural of Geelong, and right in the centre of it is that red and white smokestack that I refer to as a symbol of what Geelong looks like. That's what this refinery is. It is profoundly important to the shape, the size, the place that is Geelong.
While speaking to this bill and supporting the important national objective that it has—and it's a very important national objective, in giving us the national security that we need—if I'm to be honest, at an emotional level, much more significant to me is what the impact of this bill will mean on the continued existence of the Shell, now Viva, refinery at Geelong, its contribution to the local economy, the jobs that it provides to constituents of mine but its place in the soul, in the landscape, in the identity of Geelong. While nothing lasts forever, that this will now be the case for many years to come is, for me—and I know to everyone in my electorate—a very welcome development indeed.
Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne) (19:21): I rise to speak in favour of the Fuel Security Bill 2021 along with the Fuel Security (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2021. Our nation runs on diesel and petrol, and our airline industry relies on jet fuel. It's a fact of life that 90 per cent of our transport fuel is liquid fuel. Our nation also uses plastics in everyday life, and gas and liquid fuels are part of their formation. Liquid energy security, therefore, is a critical issue for the nation. We've had five refineries close and we have two left: Ampol in Queensland and Viva in Geelong. The COVID crisis has exposed the vulnerability of our supply chains in so many areas, none more prescient and relevant than our liquid fuel supply chain.
This bill incentivises our two remaining refineries to upgrade their refinery capability, to make both pure and cleaner fuels, diesel, petrol and jet fuel, particularly in regard to the amount of sulphur in them. The bill creates a fuel security services payment that has a collar and a cap, a top and a bottom limit, which is variable, to support production when production is at a loss-making amount, as in financial loss making. The collar is at $10.20 per barrel and has a cap of up to 1.8 cents per litre when it's $7.30 per barrel. So they are only getting the assistance when they are making a loss, not when they are already making a profit.
The amount of petrol used annually in Australia is considerable. It's about the same as diesel. It's 16,170 megalitres for petrol and 16,211 megalitres for diesel. A megalitre is a million litres. Long term, we really do need to address our fuel security. As you know, we have relied on a lot of our crude oil from the Bass Strait. That is receding as a source of oil production and gas. That's why we are looking at exploring elsewhere, around the country, on land and at sea. People will only realise how critical that is if we have another disruptive episode in the supply chain.
As we are an island, we rely on trade going around the world in an uninterrupted fashion. You saw what happened to international trade when the container tanker blocked the Suez Canal in Egypt. It was really quite frightening. You can imagine everyone saying we will create so many thousands of jobs in the upgrades of these refineries and maintain employment in them. But, really, if there's no liquid fuel in Australia, could you imagine? Food transport, all industrial transport and the whole trucking industry are dependent on diesel as are everyday tradesmen and commuters, school children. Agriculture would cease to function if we didn't have liquid fuel security. It's more than just 750 jobs in the refineries themselves and over 1,000 people in improving their capabilities; it's millions of Australians who rely on liquid fuel.
The second measure in these bills, besides the fuel security services payment, is the minimum stockholding requirement, which mandates the minimum level of major transport fuel stocks that the fuel companies must keep onshore. This requirement commences on 1 July 2022 and is set at the pre-COVID-19 average consumption levels. But by 2024 that will have to rise to a 40 per cent increase in diesel holdings. We have energy sources in coal and gas, solar and wind, but liquid fuels deliver 50 per cent of our energy use. There is no way that our existing power stations, wind turbines, solar panels or hydroelectricity or pumped electricity would be able to replace all that liquid fuel energy with electrical energy. We would be building many, many more power stations; hence its great importance.
We on this side have also supported development of future fuels with the hydrogen project. We have supported biofuels by giving them a lower tax rate. Bioethanol has a lower excise at 14 cents a litre compared to that on diesel and petrol, and biodiesel also gets a discount. There are consequential amendments to several other bills that will allow the Australian tax office, the consumer competition commission and the department of energy to check on the implementation and the integrity of the minimum stockholding obligation, and the fuel security services payment. There are changes to the Competition and Consumer Act, the Tax Administration Act, the Fuel Quality Standards Act, and obviously these consequential changes are equally important.
But it's interesting, almost scary actually, how thin the margins are that we have operated our liquid fuel security on for so long. This bill is so timely and so important. It's one of the most strategically important bills that will pass through this parliament, and I highly commend it to members to all get behind and support it. I don't think we will have any objections from either the opposition or the crossbench. But to put things in perspective—that just-in-time philosophy—recently the Northern Territory fuel supply dried up because a boat was delayed. Several years ago a major trucking company advised me that Melbourne and Victoria almost ran out of diesel because one or two tankers got diverted elsewhere. So we can't rely on that any more.
The massive increase in stockholding is really important, and it will make it much safer and more secure for Australia to operate with 90 days of oil and diesel in reserve, onshore. I don't think having it all allocated on a floating tanker or in Europe or America is enough. We need to have it onshore, available for everyone, because we're living in a very uncertain world, and the coming decades—
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ) (19:30): Order! It being 7.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Immigration Detention
Mr BANDT (Melbourne—Leader of the Australian Greens) (19:30): Late this afternoon, a flight left Christmas Island to take Tharnicaa's father and sister, Nades and Kopika, to Perth. After nine long days of waiting, they'll be reunited in hospital, as Tharnicaa continues treatment for sepsis. Like their friends and neighbours in Biloela and thousands of people across the country, I welcome this decision. But the question remains when or if they will be allowed to go home to Bilo.
We know that with the stroke of a pen the minister for immigration could use his ministerial discretion to allow this family to finally return home to Bilo. The fact that the minister is refusing to do so shows just once again this government's lack of compassion and humanity. Nades could be back at work, supporting his young family; Priya could be enrolling Kopika at Biloela State School to continue her education; and Tharnicaa could be getting ready for the fourth birthday party she was promised. But, instead, the Morrison government have chosen suffering. They've chosen uncertainty. They've chosen cruelty. They've chosen to place this family in community detention in Perth, ignoring the overwhelming calls from the public to bring them home to Biloela. They will still be in detention. They will have to endure more uncertainty about their future. In Perth, Nades won't be able to work, the kids will have to seek permission from the department to go on a play date to a friend's house, and there still remains the chance of their being deported at any moment, back to the country they fled in the first place. Hasn't this family suffered enough? The minister said that Australia doesn't owe this family protection, but I disagree and Australians disagree. We owe them so much more than that, and the Prime Minister should start with an apology.
This should never have happened. A child shouldn't have to develop a dangerous blood infection for this government to free her family, because they shouldn't ever have been there in the first place. There shouldn't even be an offshore prison to go to. Australian people are compassionate, and looking after one another is at the core of who we are, and we've been let down for decades by one of the most deeply uncompassionate immigration policies on this planet. What happened to Tharnicaa is the result of a race to the bottom on refugee policy in this country. It's worth recalling what would happen if this family arrived by boat today. Under Liberal or Labor, they would be sent offshore to prison, instead of having their claims processed here and being allowed to live in the community.
Today it is about this family, but there are so many families that are suffering at the hands of this bipartisan policy of cruelty. There are still more than 200 people in offshore detention—200 people still torn from their loved ones, punished for fleeing persecution in whatever way they could. Fourteen people have died unnecessarily from this policy. There is so much blame to share, and the blame sits firmly with those from Liberal and Labor who support this policy—those who put politics ahead of the pain of people who thought that Australia would help them. Australia has become a model, sadly, for this kind of wholesale torture. It is a deep stain on our nation. It is a failure of leadership. Shame! Shame on all of those in the Liberal and Labor parties who have allowed this to continue for so long. Labor established this system, the Liberals have turned up the torture dial, but both parties back it. And don't forget that the same Liberal and Labor members and senators who have been calling for compassionate solutions over the past week are the same people who voted just last month to give the government the power to indefinitely detain refugees, potentially for the rest of their lives. To those who show compassion for the Murugappans but deny it to all the others in exactly the same or a similar situation: we see you; the Australian people see you; your cowardice will not be forgotten.
Medical neglect and sepsis caused this child to go to hospital. But there is nothing neglectful about what has been done; it is an intentional feature of this system of torture that we have. But it doesn't have to be this way. All of us, including people who are fleeing war-torn countries, have the right to live free from danger, to be treated with dignity and to be given help when we need it most, but this can only happen when we end offshore detention and create a pathway to permanent protection. Until then, the Greens will continue to say that, today, this is about one child and one family, but it is also about all of the other children and families who find themselves in this situation, stuck in limbo, without a visa, because they've been sent to prison. It is about us all and it's sick. It must end. Enough. Let them go home to Biloela or let them stay, but let's close the camps, shut down the prisons and start treating refugees and asylum seekers like people.
Bonner Electorate: Australian Made Products
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (19:35): I rise tonight to speak on the importance of buying Australian made. We just recently celebrated Australian Made Week, which is a reminder for Aussie shoppers to embrace the incredible quality of locally made products.
The Morrison government recognises the job-creating power of Australian manufacturers. Our government has invested $1.5 billion in the Modern Manufacturing Strategy. This means our much-loved green-and-gold logo can have a stronger presence not only on home soil but also internationally. The Morrison government is backing local manufacturers to scale up and grow. I'm experiencing the benefits of this firsthand in my electorate of Bonner.
Bonner is home to some amazing businesses proudly showcasing Australian made product. There are local businesses like Make Your Life Easier, in Carindale, specialising in premium home organisation products; August Skincare, in Upper Mount Gravatt, manufacturing top-quality cosmetics and skin care; Oz Backdrops & Props in Wynnum, a leader in printed and digital backdrops, printing and more. This is just a glimpse of the diverse range of Australian made products we are manufacturing in Bonner.
I want to take this opportunity to talk about my recent visit to Couplemate in Wynnum. This is a local business that is championing Australian made. Couplemate is based on the bayside, specialising in design, manufacturing and distribution of caravan and trailer parts. The last time I visited Steve and his team was late last year. Since then they have done fantastic work, reinvesting in Australian products and production. The business's dedication to what they do is second to none, resulting in their recent expansion and hiring of four new graduates.
Last year was incredibly tough on small businesses, but the Morrison government delivered a plan that created jobs, supported our skilled workers and enabled growth. We now have more Aussies in work than ever before. Since my last visit to Couplemate, their apprenticeship machinist has completed his trade and is working full time as a qualified machinist. Upskilling jobs and our young people has never been more important. It is essential that we are equipping Australians with the skills that they need to get a job today and tomorrow. As part of this year's budget, the Morrison government doubled our commitment to the JobTrainer Fund. We already have around 1,400 apprentices in my electorate of Bonner, and these new measures will lead to more opportunities for apprentices and trainees. To see Aussie grown businesses just like Couplemate go from strength to strength during this time is remarkable. The Morrison government recognise that local businesses are the engine room of our economy and, to secure our recovery, we are making sure that they can get on with what they do best.
Victoria: COVID-19
Mr BURNS (Macnamara) (19:38): I rise this evening to acknowledge the fact that this pandemic has been a long and hard time for Australians, especially for Victorians. Victoria is my home state. I want to start my remarks by thanking Victorians for their efforts, because every single time there is a lockdown and every single time there are restrictions or case numbers or exposure sites being released by the Victorian health authorities, Victorians respond incredibly. They respond in huge testing numbers and they do the right thing not just for themselves but for all Victorians. And, yes, the Victorian government, the Victorian health authorities, the contact tracers and everyone have worked tirelessly throughout this pandemic, but Victorians have done everything that they could possibly have been asked for and more.
It has been a truly difficult year for the great state of Victoria, and I want to start by acknowledging and thanking everyone and all of the businesses who have made sacrifices and chosen to close or have closed because it is the right thing to do. As this pandemic has gone on and progressed, what we have seen from the federal government is, successively, a withdrawal of responsibility and of involvement in the managing of this pandemic. Credit where the credit's due: in the early days of this pandemic, when there was a lot of uncertainty going around and we were watching the Prime Minister after the national cabinet meetings—late at night, even at 10 o'clock—making announcements, saying that there were going to be limits on gatherings and people's homes and that institutions would be shut down, it was the Prime Minister and the chief medical officer of this country making those announcements. It was the Prime Minister who did it in the early days. The Prime Minister also announced, with the Treasurer—I remember it well, that press conference—that there would be a wage subsidy. They also announced there would be a coronavirus supplement for those who had lost their jobs. I was impressed with the way in which the government was handling this pandemic early on. There was a willingness to be front and centre and a willingness to support Australians.
But as this pandemic has gone on and become tougher and tougher, what we have seen is the Prime Minister and this government systematically walking away from responsibility and walking away from supporting Australians. The Prime Minister no longer does announcements on restrictions. The Prime Minister completely walked away from the management of the pandemic. Last sitting week, he said in this place that those decisions are matters for the states. That is a decision that the Prime Minister made. He made it during the stage 4 lockdown in Victoria last year, when, instead of being in the middle of the political storm and the difficulty that the stage 4 lockdown presented, the Prime Minister decided that he wasn't going to insert himself into that problem; he was going to stand on the sidelines and observe and comment on the decisions made by the Victorian government. Politically, I can understand why the Prime Minister did that, but that is not leadership. That is not the leadership that this country needed.
The Prime Minister said that the app was going to be our ticket to freedom. He urged all Australians to download the app, and, when the app didn't work, the Prime Minister decided he wasn't going to bother to try and fix it. The Prime Minister was willing to do press releases and press announcements, time after time, on the vaccine rollout. He said Australians were at the head of the queue. The health minister even said that the eagle had landed. What we now know is that this vaccine rollout was ill thought out. They were ill prepared. They have not rolled this out properly. Victorians today are being forced to delay their bookings for the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine. The government had the opportunity to secure Pfizer doses and, amazingly, sent a low-level bureaucrat into the meeting with Pfizer, basically insulting Pfizer out of the room. The longer this pandemic has gone on, the less the Prime Minister has been willing to stand up and support Australians and the less this Prime Minister has been willing to insert himself into the difficult political decisions that confront people day to day.
I know that many of my friends in the Victorian government have had a very difficult year. They are deeply sorry about all of the consequences of the decisions made, but they had to front up and make these decisions because the Prime Minister of our country, during the middle of a pandemic, refused to.
Queensland Government
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (19:43): Today in Queensland is state government budget day. I just thought it would be interesting to compare and contrast what the state government has done for the good people of Queensland as opposed to what the federal government is doing.
Let's have a quick look at what the federal government is doing for the good people of Queensland, particularly in my patch, from an infrastructure perspective. State-wise, $110 billion is in our infrastructure program, and $3.5 billion of that has been committed by the federal government to road and rail projects which are going to benefit the people of the Sunshine Coast. There was $808 million for the Bruce Highway upgrade, Caloundra Road to Sunshine Motorway, 80 per cent of which was funded by the federal government. If you listen to Mark Bailey, the Queensland Minister for Transport and Main Roads, you would think it was funded 100 per cent by Queensland. They're only funding it to the tune of 20 per cent. There was $800 million for the Bruce Highway, Cooroy to Curra, section D; $500 million for the Bruce Highway, Caboolture-Bribie Island Road to Steve Irwin Way; $130 million for the Deception Bay Road interchange. All of these works are funded 80 per cent by the federal government and 20 per cent by the state government. There was $12 million for a new four-lane bridge at Mayes Canal in Mooloolaba. Admittedly, that's not a Queensland government project; that's a local government project. But, once again, it's the federal government coming to the assistance of both state and local governments.
From a state perspective, there was $390 million for the duplication of the North Coast rail. It's a $780 million project. I wonder why they call it Queensland Rail? Is it because the Commonwealth owns it? No. It's because the Queensland government owns it. Yet, when we stumped up and offered to pay $390 million, what did our fearless Premier say? That's not enough money. She wanted us to pay more than 50 per cent on something that's wholly owned by the state government. There was $14.4 million in safety upgrades on Steve Irwin Way, 80 per cent of which was funded by the federal government. Steve Irwin Way is a state government road, and yet we had to pay 80 per cent. Why do you reckon that was? It's because the state government is so inept and incompetent. It just refuses to spend money on good Queenslanders and their projects, and inevitably the federal government has to come to their rescue.
Again, there was $5 million for a network planning study in Caloundra, 100 per cent of which was funded by the federal government on a 100 per cent state road network. In the May federal budget, there was $160 million for the Mooloolah River interchange on phases 1 and 2. The Mooloolah River interchange is a state road, and yet we're funding it to the tune of $160 million. There was $7 million for the Nicklin Way and Third Avenue connection in Caloundra. That's a local government and state road project. Once again, we're coming to the rescue of both the council and the state government. You will very rarely hear either the state government or the mayor of the local government of the Sunshine Coast Council give any appreciation for the funding that we continue to provide the local government. That's really a great shame, Mark Jamieson. When we fund projects like your Mayes Canal Bridge and the Third Avenue connection, you'd expect a little bit of appreciation. From time to time, we can't fund everything you want, like the $20 million that you've been hitting me up for for the stadium. If we didn't have to keep propping up this state government, maybe we could fund $20 million for the stadium. For as long as we have to keep putting our hand in our pockets and propping up this hopeless Labor state government in Queensland, we are going to have to make certain priorities.
Cameron Dick has handed down a budget today with not one extra cent for additional road projects that haven't already been announced—not one extra cent. The people of the Sunshine Coast continue to get ripped off by this Queensland government.
Crawford, Professor James Richard, AC
Mr BUTLER (Hindmarsh—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (19:48): A little over a fortnight ago, Australia lost our greatest ever international lawyer, James Crawford AC. James was arguably one of the world's most influential international legal scholars, advocates and jurists, and we lost him far too young.
After graduating in law from Adelaide, James completed a doctorate at Oxford in international law, under the supervision of the great Ian Brownlie. His doctorate on the creation of states was not just jurisprudentially groundbreaking; it was also apparently so incredibly long as to lead to the adoption of word limits for doctoral theses for the first time in the University of Oxford's 900-year history.
James rose quickly in academic ranks at the universities of Adelaide and then Sydney. Though focused on international law, he applied his talents much more broadly. His seminal work on Australian courts of law was still required reading when I studied, and his work for the Law Reform Commission in the 1980s on Aboriginal customary law remains the commission's most cited work ever—a remarkably progressive study penned in the legal era of terra nullius.
In 1992 James was called back to the UK, this time to Cambridge university. In the same year, he was elected to the UN International Law Commission, where he completed two profoundly important tasks. He played a central role in the establishment of the International Criminal Court at The Hague and he completed a mammoth job that had been stuck in the UN's too-hard basket since 1949—delivering articles on the responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts. The Guardian newspaper wrote recently that these articles and James Crawford's commentary are among the most significant texts in modern international law, cited daily by courts, tribunals, practitioners and scholars.
James was also an immensely influential advocate, appearing in some of the most important cases litigated before the International Court of Justice—often on behalf of much less powerful members of the global community, including many of the small island states in our own region. Obviously he also represented his own country, Australia—most notably in the whaling case against Japan, with my colleague the now shadow Attorney-General, and the East Timor case against Portugal. In addition to having one of the best brains on international law, James also brought a characteristic Australian sense of irreverence. For example, he notoriously declared the independence of South Australia before the ICJ—alas, simply to make a legal point!
As Australia's only ever permanent judge of the ICJ, Crawford built even further on an already extraordinary career, serving five years on the bench right up until his death. James will be remembered as much for his warm personality as for his extraordinary intellect and work ethic. He mentored countless young international lawyers, including my brother Rowan Nicholson. Rowan told me that everyone leaned forward when James stood up to speak in court.
James was utterly reliable. Rowan and James were due to fly from the UK to the Netherlands for a hearing at the ICJ the next day, but the airline refused him boarding because of a minor irregularity. Well, he went straight out to hire a car, loaded it up with classical music and spent the next seven hours driving there by himself. Nothing was going to stop James from appearing in court that morning. To Rowan and to so many others, he repeatedly demonstrated a sense of his moral duty as someone who worked at the top of his field. He took pride in representing smaller countries without huge legal teams and resources, especially when they were the underdogs. And having James on your side was better than having a whole law firm. He was unflagging. He would fly to Latin America for a day, fly back and pop into the office, and then email you at four o'clock the next morning from a hotel in Central Europe.
Australia and the world have lost a truly great global citizen. James Crawford leaves behind an enormous body of work that has made the world a better, safer and fairer place. He leaves behind a legion of younger lawyers and officials who were mentored and inspired by him. Most importantly, he leaves behind a large family who loved him and will miss him terribly. Vale, James Crawford.
Mallee Electorate: Renewable Energy
Dr WEBSTER (Mallee) (19:53): With abundant solar resources in the north and wind in the south, Mallee is well placed to be a national leader in renewable energy generation. I've been campaigning for a recognition of our potential, and I'm very pleased to report that the Morrison-McCormack government is making further commitments to this emerging industry in Mallee through a $15 million investment in an innovative solar-hydro power plant near Mildura. RayGen is building a fully dispatchable solar-hydro facility at Carwarp to generate affordable and reliable renewable energy. RayGen will meet the government's investment with an additional $27 million in private funds. The project will create 70 jobs in the construction phase and 45 ongoing positions. This is wonderful news for Mallee. RayGen will use its innovative, first-of-a-kind concentrated-solar PV technology and combine it with electrothermal storage technology to generate renewable energy on demand in the National Electricity Market. The facility will offer up to 17 hours of energy storage. Renewables are great when the sun shines and the wind blows, but deploying or storing the energy produced is a key challenge. That's why this project is so important. It's an innovative approach to the issue of storing excess power that would otherwise go to waste.
Ensuring our solar assets are backed up by dispatchable generation is vital for the energy grid's stability and for shoring up our long-term supply so that Australians have access to the reliable and affordable power they need. This same technology has six years of successful operation in another RayGen facility, in Newbridge, which is also in Mallee. Projects like this will improve the viability of solar farms across the country, and it's fantastic that Mallee is leading the way.
This investment displays that the federal government is backing technology, not taxes, to meet our emissions reduction targets without compromising energy affordability or security. And while we are investing in innovative technologies to better store renewable energy, we're also committing to vital projects that will allow for expanded transmission and stability throughout the grid. These projects include the western Victorian transmission project; the VNI west interconnector at Kerang, which will improve connection between Victoria and New South Wales; and the EnergyConnect interconnector between Robertstown and Wagga Wagga, which will include our spur into Red Cliffs in Mallee. Not only will these projects create a more stable network to deliver the power generated by renewables, they will provide certainty and security to private sector investors, particularly for those looking to invest in Mallee. I've spoken on several occasions about the importance of transmission projects to Mallee, and I am pleased that they are progressing so well.
I've been working closely with industry and with research and development organisations to assess options for the future of renewable energy in Mallee. I've spoken also about my desire to see Mallee become a hub for hydrogen energy and biofuels, and there's been significant progress made in this space. The Loddon Mallee branch of Regional Development Australia have completed their hydrogen road map, which plots a course of opportunities for investment and growth in our region for the emerging hydrogen industry. In addition, the Mallee Regional Innovation Centre has received funding to take part in a nationwide hydrogen cluster through National Energy Resources Australia, or NERA. This cluster will advance research on new hydrogen technologies to help develop this emerging industry. This places Mallee in a position to be a leader in hydrogen development, giving the prospect of linking our solar generation with the creation of clean hydrogen.
I've also recently met with a young farmer, Thomas Blair, who is pioneering a renewable energy project which aims to produce green hydrogen using solar energy to power his farm all year round. This project could be a model to help farmers reduce carbon emissions, save on energy costs and contribute to the nation's transition to renewable energy technologies. Hydrogen is exciting because it has the potential to grow into a vital export industry for Australia to replace coal. That's why we are seeing big corporates like Fortescue Metals, Toyota and Hyundai investing heavily in hydrogen, and I'm focused on attracting this momentum to Mallee. There are several exciting opportunities to be had in Mallee. (Time expired)
Compton, Mr Everald Ernest, AO
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (19:58): I want to congratulate distinguished Queenslander Everald Compton, who has friends on both sides of the House. Everald was recently honoured with an award in the Order of Australia. This is his second. He's now an Officer in the General Division of the Order of Australia. Everald's work in the community is legendary. A founder of National Seniors, he has worked with the Uniting Church and has advocated for the ageing. He has an effervescent personality and is an author wishing Australia to become a republic. He's an advocate for voluntary euthanasia and an advocate for progressive causes. He's an interesting character. As Wayne Swan has described him, he's one of Australia's true independents. He is a good friend of mine and of many people on both sides of the House. I think you also know him very well, Speaker.
I congratulate Everald. He has been a tremendous advocate for causes in which he believes. He's constantly telling all of us to behave better, to do better, to think in a more humanitarian but also more decent way, to treat each other more fairly and to make sure this country is a better place in which to live. Congratulations, Everald; you thoroughly deserve the honour.
House adjourned at 20:00
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
Mr Coulton to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Act 2008, and for related purposes. (Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Amendment (Governance and Other Measures) Bill 2021)
Mr Littleproud to present a Bill for an Act to make provision in relation to COVID-19 disaster payments, and for related purposes. (COVID-19 Disaster Payment (Funding Arrangements) Bill 2021)
Mr Bowen to move:
That this House:
(1) recognises that the Assyrian people, who are Christian by religion, are an original and Indigenous people of Iraq and encourages the Iraqi Government to reflect this in the Constitution of Iraq;
(2) notes the aspirations of the Assyrian and Chaldean people for the establishment of an autonomous region in the Nineveh Plains and welcomes the in-principle agreement of the Iraqi Government to this request in 2016;
(3) being aware of the Assyrian aspirations for the establishment of an autonomous province, calls on the Iraqi Government to take all appropriate steps to protect the human rights of minorities, including the Assyrian Christian people, and to support the continuation of their linguistic, cultural and religious traditions;
(4) reaffirms the rights of Christian and other minorities of Iraq to live in peace and freedom and calls for all steps to be taken to ensure that members of the affected communities can live in freedom in Iraq; and
(5) calls on the Turkish Government to immediately cease its military campaign in civilian areas of northern Iraq which has resulted in the evacuation of dozens of Assyrian villages and the displacement of thousands of Assyrians.
Mr Watts to present a Bill for an Act to require the reporting of ransomware payments to the Australian Cyber Security Centre, and for related purposes. (Ransomware Payments Bill 2021)
Mr Thompson to move:
That this House commends the Government on the delivery of the 2021-22 budget, and in particular the measures to incentivise business investment, including:
(1) extending temporary full expensing;
(2) extending loss carry-back measures; and
(3) establishing a 'patent box' for the biotechnology and medical technology sectors.
Mr R. J. Wilson to move:
That this House:
(1) notes the Government's ongoing commitment to improving connectivity for regional businesses, and better connecting regional communities through the Roads of Strategic Importance (ROSI) initiative;
(2) recognises that the ROSI initiative upgrades key freight roads to efficiently connect agricultural and mining regions to ports, airports and other transport hubs;
(3) commends the Government for its funding of $4.9 billion for projects nation-wide to deliver works such as road sealing, flood immunity, strengthening and widening, pavement rehabilitation, bridge and culvert upgrades and road realignments; and
(4) acknowledges that the ROSI initiative is providing substantial social and economic benefits, including opportunities for greater regional employment and business growth.
Mr Christensen to present a Bill for an Act to protect children born alive (including as a result of terminations), and for related purposes. (Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill 2021)
Mr Hill to move:
That this House:
(1) calls on the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister to act now and speak frankly with our closest allies, to ensure that Mr Julian Assange is:
(a) not extradited to the United States of America where he could face the death penalty; and
(b) released from Her Majesty's Prison Belmarsh in the United Kingdom where he is currently detained after being denied bail; and
(2) recognises that it is incumbent on the Australian Government to ensure Australian citizens do not face the death penalty, and that Mr Assange could face the death penalty if extradited to Virginia in the United States; and
(3) welcomes the priority given to the health and welfare of Mr Assange by the United Kingdom's court decision which found that: 'the mental condition of Mr. Assange is such that it would be oppressive to extradite him to the United States of America'; and
(4) notes that the United Kingdom's court decision was handed down almost six months ago, and that Mr Assange continues to be imprisoned despite winning his court case; and
(5) notes with approval the letter sent on 11 June 2021 signed by 24 Members of the United Kingdom House of Commons to the President of the United States appealing for the President to: 'drop this prosecution, an act that would be a clarion call for freedom that would echo around the globe'; and
(6) calls on the Australian Government to formally request the United States Government to review Mr Assange's case and drop the charges; and
(7) acknowledges that Mr Assange is an Australian citizen and is entitled to the protection of his government.
Mr Katter to present a Bill for an Act to require the repatriation of Defence data to sovereign Australian storage facilities, and for related purposes. (Repatriation of Defence Data Bill 2021)
Mr Wilkie to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, and for related purposes. (Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Cleaning up Political Donations) Bill 2021)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Owens) took the chair at 16:00.
BILLS
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022
Consideration in Detail
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Owens ) (16:00): Before I call the minister to propose the schedule for the order of consideration of the portfolios, I'd like to remind all members of the purpose of the consideration in detail stage and outline the way it is expected to proceed. Shortly, the Federation Chamber will be asked to agree to a proposed schedule for the consideration of portfolios. This may need to be varied but is a useful guide to assist ministers and members in arranging their commitments.
Consideration in detail is a debate, and the call will be alternated between the government and non-government sides as always. Even though this debate sometimes takes the format of question and answer, this is not question time. Ministers and government backbench members both will be considered as speakers on the government side and should bear this in mind when they seek the call. All speakers are required to be relevant to whichever portfolio is being examined, but there is no requirement of direct relevance in respect of any responses to matters raised. It might be practical for ministers to respond to more than one speaker when they seek the call. I note that this general arrangement applied in recent years and seems to allow maximum participation at this stage of debate.
Each minister and the member will have up to five minutes to speak each time they are called, but they may wish to speak for a shorter time. Ministers may wish to speak first and make an introductory statement when debate on their portfolio begins, but that is a matter for them to decide. Members might also be aware of some administrative documents that are circulated when consideration in detail begins. To avoid confusion, let me say that any documents showing times allotted for debate on portfolios are informal and indicative only. Chairs will not be seeking to enforce these times strictly.
The Federation Chamber will now consider the bill in detail. In accordance with standing order 149, the Federation Chamber will first consider the schedule of the bill.
Mr GEE (Calare—Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Investment and Minister for Decentralisation and Regional Education) (16:02): May I suggest that it might suit the convenience of the Federation Chamber to consider the items of proposed expenditure in the order and groupings shown in the schedule which has been circulated to honourable members.
The schedule read as follows—
Foreign Affairs and Trade
Attorney-General's
Defence
Defence—Veterans’ Affairs/Defence Personnel
Industry, Science, Energy and Resources
Education, Skills and Employment
Education, Skills and Employment—Education and Youth
Treasury
Home Affairs
Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications
Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications—Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts
Agriculture, Water and the Environment
Agriculture, Water and the Environment—Environment
Agriculture, Water and the Environment—Resources, Water and Northern Australia
Health
Social Services
Social Services—National Disability Insurance Scheme/Government Services
Finance
Prime Minister and Cabinet
Prime Minister and Cabinet—Indigenous Australians
Mr GEE: I also take the opportunity to indicate to the Federation Chamber that the proposed order for consideration of portfolios estimates has been discussed with the opposition and there has been no objection to what is proposed.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is it the wish of the Federation Chamber to consider the items of proposed expenditure in the order suggested by the minister? There being no objection, it is so ordered.
Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio
Proposed expenditure, $7,125,531,000
Mr GEE (Calare—Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Investment and Minister for Decentralisation and Regional Education) (16:03): Today I rise to speak to the 2021-22 budget covering the Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio. This budget will support the government's commitment to create jobs and drive economic growth, serve Australians in need overseas and advance Australia's interests internationally.
The government will provide $198.2 million over four years from 2021-22 to boost DFAT's trade and strategic capabilities to better support Australian exporters and businesses and to increase cooperation with partners overseas in support of an open, inclusive and resilient Indo-Pacific. The measure includes funding for supporting Australian businesses to diversify their trade; strengthening the rules based trading system; expanding advocacy and cooperation with partners for an open, inclusive and resilient Indo-Pacific; sustaining the government's overseas diplomatic network; and returning the New Colombo Plan to prepandemic funding levels.
The government will invest $119.9 million over four years from 2021-22 to increase Australia's consular capability and provide additional support to vulnerable Australian citizens overseas whose return to Australia has been impacted by COVID-19 travel restrictions, including providing critical funding to strengthen DFAT's consular capabilities so it can continue to provide a responsive, effective and enhanced service for Australians.
As part of its COVID-19 response, the Australian government is continuing the special overseas financial assistance program, the hardship program, to provide emergency assistance, including grants and interest-free loans, to the most vulnerable Australians overseas seeking to return to Australia. I'm pleased to note that the Australian government will continue the facilitated commercial flights, FCF, program, with an additional $56.4 million over two years from 2021-22. This will fund an estimated 120 flights. The government will also provide $37.1 million over two years from 2020-21 to support India's response to the COVID-19 outbreak. I note, Madam Deputy Speaker, that on 5 May the Australian government delivered to India 1,056 ventilators, 43 oxygen concentrators, power supply cables and essential equipment required for operation of the ventilators and oxygen concentrators. This funding is classified as official development assistance and is on top of the government's previously announced temporary and targeted measures in response to COVID-19 that supplement the $4 billion ODA budget in 2021-22.
The government will provide $10.9 million over five years from 2020-21 to support ongoing efforts to achieve truth, justice and accountability in relation to the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17, and the government is continuing its support of the Dutch national prosecution of those responsible.
The government will provide $37.4 million over three years, including $19.9 million for Austrade, to support initiatives to modernise and improve Australia's trade system, including a review of the regulatory processes and ICT systems that impact cross-border trade. This involves driving implementation of ambitious simplified trade system reforms to make trading simpler and cheaper for exporters and importers.
The International Freight Assistance Mechanism is a targeted and temporary measure established by the Australian government to keep global air links open in response to the ongoing effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. On 11 March 2021 the Australian government announced a further $112.8 million in funding to extend the International Freight Assistance Mechanism till the end of September 2021. On 11 March 2021 the government also announced that around 800,000 air fare prices would be halved in the Tourism and Aviation Network Support Program, the TANS program, as part of its $1.2 billion aviation and tourism support plan. The Tourism and Aviation Network Support Program will get Australians travelling, supporting tourism operators, accommodation providers and other businesses heavily impacted by the loss of international visitors.
I also note that on 23 December 2020 the government announced a $72.7 million funding package to establish the Agri-Business Expansion Initiative to help Australian agrifood exporters expand and diversify their export markets. I have much more to say but I will yield to the opposition. (Time expired)
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (16:08): I will pick up where the minister left off. Obviously, the tourism industry has been particularly impacted by COVID-19 and will continue to struggling in the face of the Morrison government's delays with the vaccine rollout and its refusal to take responsibility for quarantine. Pre-COVID, tourism employed over one million Australians across some 300,000 businesses, but over the past 18 months we've watched as the industry has contracted and shuddered under the weight of mounting pressures. While some parts of the industry have begun to recover, particularly those that are in the domestic market, businesses reliant on international visitors continue to face challenges and need support.
To date, the government have overwhelmingly relied on economy-wide measures to support the industry, not recognising the unique challenges in the tourism sector. I think it is important for the government to explain why they don't fully understand or appreciate some of the challenges and stresses that the tourism industry are under. You can see this demonstrated in the approach to the end of JobKeeper. The Morrison government knew for some time that it was not going to continue JobKeeper, but, instead of being clear with tourism operators, in an industry that relies on forward planning, it made them wait until the eleventh hour and then announced a haphazard plan that did not provide any immediate support. The government's plan of discounted flights to hand-picked regions, which were selected in a shroud of mystery, alongside the guaranteed small business loans, which are almost impossible to access, was immediately slammed by peak bodies as falling short of what the sector needs to save jobs and businesses.
In addition, the government has doubled down on a series of grant programs which have repeatedly missed the mark, whether it is the Supporting Australia's Exhibiting Zoos and Aquariums Program, which, after a year, has only spent around 50 per cent of its funding, or the lacklustre COVID-19 Consumer Travel Support Program, which, during the first round, produced vastly inequitable results across agencies, followed by a second round that has seen significant delays for many agents. Both grant programs have suffered the same problem: they were designed by a government which isn't on the side of the tourism industry and the over one million people whose livelihoods depend on it. In my own electorate in South Australia, I've heard from a number of tourism operators who are uncertain about their future and their ability to weather this storm.
We know that domestic tourism alone cannot make up for the $45 billion gap of international tourism, and the government has acknowledged borders are unlikely to open until the middle of next year. Why won't the government provide much-needed support to internationally reliant businesses, who continue to be impacted by the government's delays with the vaccine rollout and the refusal to take responsibility for the quarantine arrangements? What does the government say to the thousands of business owners whose livelihoods hang in the balance while waiting for this government to recognise that it has a special responsibility to these businesses, who are in this situation through no fault of their own? And can the minister be content to continue to sit by and simply watch this once thriving industry struggling to desperately hang on?
Mr GEE (Calare—Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Investment and Minister for Decentralisation and Regional Education) (16:12): I thank the member for her question. The reality is that the tourism industry has no greater friend than this government.
An opposition member interjecting—
Mr GEE: Those opposite might want to listen, and I'll run through all of the support that we have given to this industry. We are a true friend of this industry; we have supported it through these very trying times. On 11 March 2021, the government announced a $1.2 billion tourism and aviation support package to support the tourism sector through the vaccine rollout and set back up for normal trading. In terms of the funding and support in the package, we have the Tourism Aviation Network Support Program, which I just referred to in my opening remarks, designed to drive demand for aviation tourism by halving the cost of up to 800,000 airfares to regional tourism destinations for four months, or around 46,000 seats a week; the extension of the $50 million Business Events Grant program by three months to support the events sector; the extension of the $94.6 million Supporting Australia's Exhibiting Zoos and Aquariums Program by six months so that zoos, aquariums and wildlife parks can maintain their animal population; a further $130 million of support for travel agents so they can continue to process refunds and hold credits for Australian consumers; and the extension of the SME loan guarantee scheme to underwrite loans with banks, with an 80-20 split, to support up to $40 billion in lending to small and medium enterprises.
We on this side of the House know how difficult it is to run businesses. We know what it's like to build businesses. We are the coalition of businesspeople, of the men and women who build the prosperity of this country. We are not a party of union apparatchiks like those on the other side.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the government also supported the tourism sector through whole-of-economy measures such as JobKeeper and sector specific measures. They included direct tourism support of $387 million, tourism related support of $270.2 million, indirect tourism support of $451.8 million. Have any of you on that side of the House ever run a small business or a medium sized business or a large business? There are very few of you, I can tell you that. In fact, you've only got one tradie on that side of the House, and that's Joel, the member for Hunter. The tourism sector was one of the biggest beneficiaries of the $1 billion COVID-19 Relief and Recovery Fund, which included the following tourism support: regional airlines funding assistance, $100 million; regional air network assistance, $198 million—and the member next to me loves that fund—zoos and aquariums, $94.6 million; business events, $50 million; and Regional Recovery Partnerships, $100 million.
Turning to the Tourism Aviation Network Support program, as I've said, this was announced on 11 March, and around 800,000 airfares will be halved under that program. That's real support to businesses and tourism areas in need. We have answered the call on this side of the House. Other tourism measures include the Recovery of Regional Tourism program, $50 million; the National Tourism Icons program, $50 million; and the COVID-19 Consumer Travel Support Program Round 1, $128 million, which supported travel agents to process refunds and continue to hold credits while receiving little to no revenue. We know on this side of the House what a difficult time it has been for our tourism sector and the business people that keep it alive at all levels, from the transport sector through to the folks who run the hotels and hospitality to our tourist destinations themselves—our events, theme parks, all of that. We understand how difficult it is.
I can remember looking outside my electorate office window in those early days of COVID and seeing those lines of folks outside the Centrelink office, which is across the road from my office. How uncertain and desperate those times were. But we have answered the call on this side of the House. JobKeeper was a game changer. Our tourism initiatives have been a blessing and a lifeline to the tourism sector. We on this side of the House have been there when the industry and the sector have needed us, and we have answered that call.
Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand) (16:17): My question on appropriation is for the Assistant Minister representing the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. Minister, it's absolutely clear that the rest of the world is moving toward net zero carbon emissions by 2050. More than 120 countries worldwide have adopted this target, and more than 70 per cent of Australia's two-way trade is now with countries moving to net zero emissions by the middle of the century. Yesterday, the leaders of the G7 reaffirmed their commitment to this important target. The Prime Minister was invited to the summit, yet he chose to thumb his nose at the G7 leaders by refusing to back net zero emissions by 2050.
Australia is more isolated than ever on climate change. In addition, some of our biggest trading partners are moving closer to implementing carbon border taxes designed to hit nations such as Australia that have made insufficient efforts to combat climate change. Within weeks, the European Commission is expected to release the details of its proposed carbon border adjustment mechanism—that's carbon tariffs. I'm not a fan of any kind of tariff, but these are real and they're going to exist. The carbon tariffs will require importers of polluting industrial goods to pay a border levy based on the volume of emissions used in making and shipping their products. Other nations could easily follow the EU's lead. Indeed, the US has already put carbon tariff legislations through their congress in 2009. The writing is clearly on the wall, and this government, Minister, is ignoring it. The world is moving on, and we are being left behind.
So my question is: why won't the Morrison government commit to net zero carbon emissions by 2050 when all our main trading partners and major economies already have? Why won't the government honestly explain to Australia's trade exposed industries that our status as a climate change laggard poses a real threat to jobs and exports? Minister, why does this government have its head in the sand on the issue of climate change? The Prime Minister said last year he was not concerned 'about Australia's future exports.' Imagine that—a Prime Minister not concerned about Australia's future exports. Well, I sure am. Then, in February this year, the Deputy Prime Minister dismissed talk of net zero emissions by saying he was not worried about what might happen in 30 years time. Well, I reckon a few people around here are worried about what might happen in 30 years time, especially young children and older people. They are definitely worried about what will happen to their lives and their children's lives in 30 years time.
Minister, why are both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister not worried about the real threats facing Australia's exporters? Why won't the Morrison government commit to net zero emissions by 2050, when peak industry bodies such as the National Farmers Federation, the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group and the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association have either committed to the target or have called upon the Morrison government to adopt policies that align with international climate change goals? Minister, why won't the Morrison government commit to this, when resource and major export companies in this country, such as BHP, Rio Tinto, Fortescue, INPEX, Origin Energy and Santos—companies driving the economy and providing jobs for hundreds of thousands of Australians—have already committed to net zero by 2050, or even sooner in the case of Santos?
I'll raise another threat to our exporters: this government's genuine failure to ensure Australia has a genuine diversity of trading partners. Australia is a trading nation; we depend on trade. It is the Australian government's job to encourage businesses to export their goods and services to the world and to support these businesses in doing so. It is the government's role to ensure diversification in trade and to go beyond the mere inking of free trade agreements and the celebratory shenanigans that go along with them. Minister, it was said in December that the government wanted to diversify Australia's export markets by restarting talks with India on a free trade agreement. But almost three years ago this government was handed a blueprint for closer economic engagement with India that would almost certainly have led to more exports to India and more jobs for Australians. An India Economic Strategy, written by Peter Varghese, contained 20 priority recommendations. A highly valuable report that was funded by taxpayers, it has been ignored. My question is: Minister, why has the government implemented only one of the 20 priority recommendations from the Varghese report?
To achieve genuine trade diversification takes years and decades of work, requiring skilled diplomacy and even personal intervention and, dare I say, leadership from senior ministers or even the Prime Minister. This is not happening with this government. Previous governments, both Labor and Liberal, have managed to achieve trade diversity, but it is not happening under this government; they just do trade agreements and then leave the room. Minister, when will you admit that you simply have not put in the hard yards needed to genuinely open up new export markets? (Time expired)
Ms BELL (Moncrieff) (16:22): I'm pleased to rise to speak in this budget consideration in detail on a very important key pillar of the Gold Coast economy, which is tourism, and also, of course, on foreign affairs and trade. I echo the sentiments of the minister when I say that the 2021 budget considers $198.2 million over four years to boost DFAT's trade and strategic capabilities to better support Australian exporters and businesses and to increase cooperation with partners overseas in support of an open, inclusive and resilient Indo-Pacific to be very much in Australia's national interest.
There's $119.9 million over four years to increase our consular capability to provide support to those vulnerable Australians overseas whose return to Australia has been impacted by COVID-19. There is an additional $56.4 million over two years for approximately 120 facilitated commercial flights. There's $37.1 million over two years to support India's COVID-19 response. There are very many from the Gopio community in my electorate whom my office has helped reunite with their families and there are many heartbreaking stories from India in my community. There is $37.4 million over three years, including 19.9 million for Austrade, to support a simplified trade system, including a review of the regulatory processes and ICT systems that impact trade.
Let me outline a couple of the programs that I have been directly working on from Moncrieff with the current Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, and also with the former minister, who, of course, is now the Minister for Finance. Firstly, there is the aviation and tourism package, which was announced in March this year post JobKeeper. At the Currumbin Wildlife Sanctuary, Minister Tehan and I, together with local Gold Coast ministers, the member for Fadden and the member for McPherson, announced the $1.2 billion aviation and tourism support plan to support 15 destinations across Australia. Over 800,000 half-price airfares have gone on sale, with over 786,000 already sold. The Gold Coast is amongst the biggest beneficiaries, with 233,506 half-price airfares into the Gold Coast. The money that comes up with tourists to the Gold Coast goes into local cafes and restaurants, and we very much appreciate being one of those destinations.
Let me talk about the $94.6 million Supporting Australia's Exhibiting Zoos and Aquariums Program, which was originally an outcome of a tourism round table in Moncrieff way back in February last year with Senator Birmingham. I'm pleased that it will now be extended for a further six months. I can tell you with authority that the dolphins at Sea World are healthy. I visited them just last week. The staff taking care of the koalas at Currumbin, the tigers at Dreamworld and the animals of many other attractions across Australia know that their wildlife is taken care of under this budget and under this government.
An additional $65.5 million for export market development grants will assist Australian and Gold Coast exporters as well. There is $185.3 million for Tourism Australia in 2021-22 to continue marketing domestic tourism and ensure Australia is well placed to restart international tourism when it is safe to do so. The government has also extended and expanded the $40 billion SME loan guarantee for small and family business—music to our ears in Moncrieff.
I want to outline for the Chamber travel agents and assistance, because I advocated very heavily for that to the Prime Minister. Round 1 opened on 14 December and closed on 13 March 2021. On 2 May 2021 the $130 million second round of the COVID-19 Consumer Travel Support Program opened. The program, now worth $258 million, provides grants to travel agents to continue to operate and process refunds for consumers. It has been a very difficult time for travel agencies, and 2,964 travel agents are very, very grateful. They have received their round 1 payments. As at 19 May 2021 $19.5 million in grant funding has already been paid under round 2. There are 945 additional travel agents who have received their payments.
Then there was, of course, the $50 million business events grants that I'm so pleased assisted us on the Gold Coast, with conferences coming back to the Gold Coast, coming back to Royal Pines and coming back to the Gold Coast Convention and Exhibition Centre to buoy our local economy. I thank the government for that; I really do. My community are so grateful for the help that the government has delivered post-JobKeeper and in this 2021 budget to the tourism industry, who absolutely were on their knees. The Morrison government has come to the rescue and helped us through this very difficult time.
Mr CONROY (Shortland) (16:27): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for International Development and the Pacific. Australia's official development assistance program is how we help the poorest people in the world climb out of destitution and despair. The coronavirus pandemic makes official development assistance more important than ever. Many countries in our region have poorly resourced health systems which have struggled to cope with the pandemic, and the plight of people in developing countries is getting worse as the pandemic continues to unfold.
When I spoke on last year's appropriation bill in November, the World Bank was estimating that COVID would push an extra 88 million to 115 million people around the world into extreme poverty. In the seven months since then, the World Bank has revised this estimate up to 124 million people who have fallen into extreme poverty in 2020 alone. Since last November there have been major COVID outbreaks in our region; Indonesia, India and Papua New Guinea have been hit hard. Yet, in those seven months as COVID has worsened in the Indo-Pacific, the Morrison government increased official development assistance by only $37 million in the 2021-22 budget. That additional $37.1 million in support for India is welcome, but it represents an increase of just 0.2 per cent in the aid budget over the forward estimates. It's a tiny amount when we remember that this Liberal government has already cut a massive $11.8 billion from Australia's aid budget since 2013, and it is positively miniscule in the context of a budget with policy decisions costing nearly $100 billion.
In the 2020-21 budget the government did provide new funding of $304.7 million to help Pacific countries recover from the impacts of COVID-19 and $500 million to support access to COVID-19 vaccines in the Pacific and South-East Asia. Labor welcomes these measures, but they are a drop in the ocean following the government's $11.8 billion of cuts to foreign aid. The axe which the Liberals have taken to the aid budget includes large cuts to health programs in developing countries—a remarkably short-sighted approach in light of the pandemic.
Australia's official development assistance for health programs will be $229 million lower in 2020-21 than it was in 2014-15—a reduction of 28 per cent. Let me repeat that: this government, in the midst of a global COVID pandemic, has cut the level of health ODA by $229 million since 2014-15. These cuts have fallen hard on countries in the Indo-Pacific. Since 2014-15 the Morrison government has cut bilateral aid for health programs by 39 per cent for Laos, 64 per cent for Cambodia, 80 per cent for Bangladesh, 82 per cent for Vietnam and 87.5 per cent for Indonesia. These are massive cuts for some of our most important regional partners and are incredibly short-sighted. When Australia walks away from our partners, who does the Prime Minister think will help fill these gaps? Our region is more contested than ever. How is the Prime Minister delivering on our interests and supporting our shared pandemic recoveries if he leaves vacuums for others to fill?
The main vehicle the international community has established to tackle the pandemic in developing countries is the Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator, overseen by the WHO. The ACT Accelerator, which includes the Gavi Covax Facility, is rolling out tests, vaccines and treatments to low-income countries around the world. The Morrison government has contributed $143 million to these efforts. By comparison, the United States has contributed US$5.2 billion, Germany has contributed US$2.6 billion and the UK and Canada have contributed US$1.1 billion each. On a per capita basis these countries have contributed between 3½ and seven times as much as the Australian government has to the Covax Facility and the ACT Accelerator. The government of Norway, with a population a fifth the size of Australia, has contributed nearly five times as much as the Morrison government. Australians donate hundreds of millions of dollars every year to charities for international development and humanitarian work, but individuals, churches and NGOs can't do it all. The government's inadequate response risks damaging Australia's national interests and our international standing. My question to the minister is: why has the government responded to the biggest development crisis in a generation by providing inadequate temporary measures rather than an ongoing sustainable boost to Australia's aid budget?
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Consideration in Detail
Attorney-General's Portfolio
Proposed expenditure, $1,950,915,000
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts) (16:33): In the 2021-22 budget the Australian government announced $819.6 million over four years for new measures in the Attorney-General's portfolio, including $145.3 million over two years for the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. The Morrison government will provide $320.1 million over four years from the Women's Safety Package to further support services that assist women and children experiencing family, domestic and sexual violence to engage with the legal system.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 16 : 34 to 16 : 48
Mr FLETCHER: This includes $129 million for additional legal assistance funding for women's legal assistance under the National Legal Assistance Partnership; $101.4 million to increase access to children's contact services; $85 million over three years from 2022-23 to continue and enhance funding towards existing Family Advocacy and Support Service's family law support; and $4.7 million over two years to support a joint program of work with the states and territories to strengthen the justice response to sexual assault, sexual harassment and coercive control.
The government will provide $123.8 million over four years to support the reform of the family law system and improve access and safety for children and families. The funding includes $60.8 million to reform family law case management processes to improve outcomes and better meet the needs of families by delivering a safe, child-centred, accessible and efficient system; $29 million to improve information sharing between the family law and family violence and child protection systems to achieve the best possible outcomes for children and families interacting with the family law system, including managing risks to family safety; $26.9 million over four years from 2021-22 and $6.8 million per year ongoing to improve access to legal assistance for family law matters in South Australia, and to increase judicial and court resources in the South Australian family law registry; and $6.3 million in 2021-22 to the Family Violence and Cross-examination of Parties Scheme to continue to protect victims of family violence in family law proceedings.
The government will provide $2 billion over four years from 2021-22 for the National Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Plan, and in the Attorney-General's portfolio $77.1 million will be provided to the National Legal Assistance Partnership to support the early resolution of legal problems for those experiencing mental illness and for specialist mental health workers to support women who have experienced family violence.
The government will provide $146 million over four years from 2021-22 for initiatives to prevent child sexual abuse, including $40.8 million in the Attorney-General's portfolio to provide enhanced support to victims of child sexual abuse, including expanding the national specialist trauma-informed legal service and establishing a specialist national legal online chat service dedicated to young people experiencing, or at risk of experiencing, sexual abuse. It also provides increased resourcing for prosecuting child sexual abuse perpetrators and for managing the parole of convicted offenders.
In the Attorney-General's portfolio $9.3 million has been committed to new activities to implement the government's Roadmap for Respect, tackling sexual harassment in all Australian workplaces. The government will also provide $3.5 million over two years from 2020-21 to the Australian Human Rights Commission to conduct the Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces. Further, the government will provide $10.7 million under the Women's Economic Security Package to assist vulnerable separated women with small-value property disputes to achieve affordable, timely property settlements.
The government will provide $13.2 million over four years from 2021-22 to continue the operation of the Commonwealth Fraud Prevention Centre in developing a coordinated, whole-of-government approach to addressing fraud vulnerabilities in Commonwealth programs, including building practical tools, guidance and data analysis to support counterfraud work.
Through the 2021-22 budget, the Australian government will implement initiatives to help rebuild our economy by reducing the regulatory burden on Australian businesses, including small businesses, and that includes measures in the Attorney's portfolio for $10 million over four years from 2021-22 to implement regulatory technology solutions to assist employers to interpret and comply with modern awards.
Mr DAVID SMITH (Bean) (16:53): It's clear that the past year has been tough for the people of my electorate of Bean and, more broadly, for the millions of workers across Australia. This pandemic has exposed the harsh truths we have known for years. Too many people in this country are working in low-paid, insecure employment, in some instances—like those in the gig economy—in conditions that drift towards modern-day slavery. Too many are in labour hire or casual employment.
This budget was not designed to get us through a pandemic that we are still in; it was designed to get the Prime Minister through to an election at the expense of many working families. While the Prime Minister is focused on the nearest camera, the wage price index is forecast to not even keep pace with inflation and Australians are left with a debt of over $1 trillion. Sure, the budget includes some funding for better technological integration for payroll, to assist with modern award obligations, and there is additional funding for the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency. These are good things. But we still see the ideological wars continue, with funding of the Registered Organisations Commission. And, importantly to many in my community, when it comes to skills, apprenticeships and investment in sciences, our universities and the cutting-edge innovation sector, we don't see enough. Funding for apprenticeships focuses on commencement years and doesn't flow through to completion.
We've seen thousands of jobs disappear across our university sector. This is despite the importance of this sector to our economy, driving innovation, productivity and investment. We don't see enough in these bills supporting this area. At their core, it's really in wages growth and secure jobs that these bills don't deliver. Too many workers barely have enough security to make ends meet and hence have to hold down multiple jobs. There used to be a time when individuals could plan five, 10, even 20 years down the track. They could have enough certainty to start a long-term career, to start a family, to own a home. But after eight long years of consistent attacks on industrial relations, on the Fair Work Commission, on the wages of workers and on the working conditions of families, too many are doing it too tough. There was a time, decades ago, when both sides of politics respected the livelihoods and wages of workers and were not driven by an emphasis on profit and self-interest. But today we have a government that has cutting workers' pay firmly in its DNA. Remember we had the former finance minister noting this as a design feature of the government's approach to wages policy.
The vision outlined in these bills for Australia is one where millions of Australian struggle to pay their bills and take care of their family, where millions of people are left behind. Remember it was Labor and the union movement that pushed hard on a wage subsidy last year. We got JobKeeper, but the government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to support that program. Even before COVID-19, the growth in insecure work and wage stagnation were major issues for Australian workers and our economy. Remember the government's IR bill, a bill that promoted casualisation and limiting the better off overall test. It's an absolute disgrace that this government expects workers to sacrifice more and more in their conditions when they've already lost so much. Rather than taking this opportunity to learn the lessons from COVID-19 and dealing with the twin problems of insecure work and flatlining wages, some of the measures contained in the government's proposed laws did the opposite. This government believes that Australians should be thankful for having jobs, regardless of the circumstances.
Labor, on the other hand, believes that Australians who work hard at their jobs should be rewarded, not have their pay and hours cut. This place and this budget shouldn't make it harder for them to get ahead. We should make it easier. This is a government led by a Prime Minister who refuses to take responsibility. He doesn't hold a hose, he says it's not a race, he's only interested in saying whatever it takes to score political points. In the meantime, working families pay the price for his failure to act and his failure to plan. We've been in this pandemic for more than a year, and the Prime Minister still can't get quarantine right and he still can't get vaccinations right. This budget doesn't get IR and skills right either. I ask the minister here, representing the minister for industrial relations: is this budget your government's answer to the problems of insecure and low-paid work? Are these bills your answers to the skills crisis in Australia? What do you say to the workers of Australia trying to get ahead when their wages are forecast to be cut against inflation? And is this your thank you to the workers who are working hard to get us through the pandemic?
Ms HAMMOND (Curtin) (16:58): I'm happy to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022 with respect to the Attorney-General portfolio. I note that the 2021-22 budget will provide more than $819 million to enhance legal and workplace services to support Australians. These investments are being made to ensure that our legal and justice system is accessible and efficient and our workplaces are fair, safe, productive and flexible. There are a number of initiatives in this budget and under this portfolio, but those which I seek the minister's further elaboration on are those which are directed primarily at women's safety in their homes, their communities and their workplaces. Women are more likely than men to be victims of family, domestic and sexual violence. As we have seen this year, physical and sexual abuse against women is not something that happens somewhere else. It is not limited by demographics, by suburbs, by professions. It can and does happen anywhere, and any time or anywhere it happens, it is wrong. According to official statistics and surveys undertaken by the ABS and other bodies over the last five years, on average one woman is killed every nine days in Australia, one in four women have experienced physical and/or sexual violence from current or previous intimate partners since the age of 15 and approximately one in two women aged 18 and over have experienced sexual harassment during their lifetime. The COVID-19 pandemic, sadly, coincided with an onset or escalation of violence and abuse against women, with two-thirds of women who had experienced it during the pandemic saying that it had either started or escalated during this time. These statistics are dreadful. They are not acceptable. It is beyond time that we as a society—all of us, regardless of our gender—stand up to this and stop it.
In relation to violence and abuse in the home, this government is providing additional funding of $310 million through the National Legal Assistance Partnership, including $129 million in additional legal assistance funding to allow women's legal centres to help vulnerable women access justice; $60 million to provide dedicated legal assistance services for people with mental health issues; $83 million to enhance and expand the number and geographic coverage of family advocacy support services; $17 million for enhancements of domestic violence units and health justice partnerships, providing additional mental health specific funding for services to respond to growing needs of women in rural and remote areas; and $14 million to pilot legal assistance in family law in South Australia. The government is also making significant investments in the Family Court, $60 million worth, to reform family law case management in the federal family courts to deliver safe, child centred, supportive, accessible, timely and efficient decision-making.
With respect to the safety of women in the workplace, I note that the government announced its response to the Respect@Work report of Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins on 8 April 2021 in releasing A roadmap for respect: preventing and addressing sexual harassment in Australia's workplaces. This response sets out the government's commitment to preventing and addressing sexual harassment and building a culture of respect in Australian workplaces by agreeing to in full, part or principle, or noting, all 55 recommendations. In the 2020-21 budget, $2.1 million was provided to fund the implementation of a number of initiatives, including the establishment of the Respect@Work Council. This budget builds on that, providing more than $15.3 million, including $7.3 million to support the council to implement a range of practical measures to address workplace sexual harassment and implement amendments to strengthen legislative and regulatory frameworks; $200,000 in intervention funding to continue targeted delivery of support for women on work related matters; $1.7 million for Comcare to deliver training in national forums on sexual harassment for Commonwealth, state and territory work health and safety inspectors; and $6 million to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency and the Australian Public Service Commission to strengthen public sector reporting on harassment, prevalence, prevention and response. As I said at the outset, this is not before time. I ask the minister to outline how these and other initiatives in the 2021-22 budget are addressing violence against women in the home, in the community and in workplaces.
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs) (17:03): I have a few questions for the government under the general heading of 'Why is it that the Morrison government is doing all it can to prevent the establishment of a powerful, independent and properly resourced national anticorruption commission?' Is it correct that the previous Attorney-General, Mr Porter, before he was removed from his role, failed to deliver a national anticorruption commission, despite promising to establish such a body almost three years ago? Is it correct that nothing will change with the new Attorney-General because the Morrison government is terrified of what an independent anticorruption commission would reveal about this government's conduct over the eight long years that it has been in power? Is it correct that nothing will change with the new Attorney-General because the Morrison government, and the Prime Minister in particular, hate accountability? Is it correct that the Morrison government has spent almost three years finding excuses to delay the establishment of a national anticorruption commission and that these excuses will now continue until after the next election?
Can the minister, as the representative of the Attorney-General, confirm the evidence provided in estimates hearings by the Attorney-General's Department two weeks ago which made clear that there is now no possibility of a national anticorruption commission commencing operation in this term of government?
Can the minister confirm that the failure to establish a national anticorruption commission in this term is yet another example of the Morrison government being all announcement and zero delivery? Is it correct that the new Attorney-General, Senator Cash, is concerned that a national anticorruption commission could investigate her own conduct in relation to the illegal tip-off of a police raid on a union office that occurred from within her own office, and her subsequent refusal to cooperate with an Australian Federal Police investigation into that criminal activity?
Will the new Attorney-General continue to delay the establishment of a national anticorruption commission because she and the Morrison government are terrified of the many, many scandals that have occurred on their watch being investigated by such an independent body? Perhaps I can assist the minister in answering that question, with a few examples of the corruption and scandals that have occurred in recent years and that Mr Morrison has tried to sweep under the carpet.
We could start with the sports rorts saga, in which the Auditor-General discovered that over $100 million of taxpayer funds had been unlawfully diverted into a slush fund for the Liberal Party's re-election campaign. This was a scandal with an email trail that led directly to the Prime Minister's office, so perhaps we shouldn't be surprised that the Prime Minister has desperately sought to bury the scandal with a secret inquiry by his own former chief of staff, who now heads his department.
We could mention the Leppington Triangle land scandal, in which the Morrison government paid a Liberal Party donor some $33 million for land that was worth only around $3 million, which the Acting Prime Minister still inexplicably thinks was a bargain. With that kind of economic brilliance around the cabinet table is it any wonder that the Morrison government has driven Australia into a trillion dollars of debt with very little to show for it? This is something that the minister at the table might be able to provide particular advice on, given his role in that obscene waste of taxpayers' money. And who could forget the minister for energy's imbecilic attempt to embarrass the Lord Mayor of Sydney by using a forged document with falsified City of Sydney travel expenditure figures?
I don't really have time today to go on listing all of the scandals that the Morrison government has been involved in. I note that these examples are only drawn from the scandals that we know about from the work of the independent but sadly underfunded Auditor-General and the work of investigative journalists. We have no doubt that there are other scandals that a powerful and independent anticorruption commission would uncover.
Now that the government has been dragged kicking and screaming to admit that a national anticorruption commission is needed and has at last, years late, released draft legislation for such a body, can the minister, as the representative of the Attorney-General, explain why the model proposed by the Morrison government has been excoriated by virtually every integrity expert and legal authority in the country as a sham that fails virtually every test for an effective anticorruption commission? Does the Attorney-General agree with Anthony Whealy QC, former judge of the New South Wales Supreme Court?
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts) (17:08): I respond to a number of the issues that have been raised in this chamber today. Let me deal firstly with the member for Isaacs, who ran through his standard list of talking points. The fact, though, as he is very well aware, is that the Morrison government is delivering on our commitment to establish a Commonwealth integrity commission. It will be the lead body in our successful multiagency anticorruption framework.
We recently concluded a nationwide consultation process on the legislation, with 330 written submissions and 46 consultations, meetings and roundtables. The government will consider the feedback received through this extensive consultation process to inform further refinement of the draft legislation before it's introduced to the parliament. We have put in place funding for the Commonwealth Integrity Commission, with $106.7 million committed in the 2019-20 budget, in addition to the $40.7 million of funding for the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, which will transfer to the commission a total of $147.4 million. The member for Isaacs did put out at least one highly misleading media release that I saw, but the fact is that the funding is there.
Of course, we've taken into consideration a number of very important design matters. It's clear from the design of the scheme that only the most serious types of criminal conduct are to be considered by the Commonwealth Integrity Commission. We do not want to have public resources wasted on referrals which are purely for political purposes, like the member for Isaacs' nine referrals to the Australian Federal Police. Now, you may ask: how many of those nine referrals were successful? Was it nine? Was it eight? Was it seven, six or five? Actually, the number is zero. That is nine wasteful political stunts by the member for Isaacs. We are not going to squander taxpayers' money to appeal to his apparently limitless appetite for empty political stunts. On the contrary, what we are doing is carefully designing the Commonwealth Integrity Commission so that it will be an appropriate and effective body, the lead body in Australia's successful multiagency anticorruption framework.
While we're talking about stale Labor Party talking points, the member for Bean rolled out the usual canard about wages growth that we hear from those on the other side. According to the International Labour Organization, the facts are that, over the period of the last year, COVID has had a dramatic impact on wages in just about every country. In the first half of 2020, monthly wages either fell or grew more slowly in two-thirds of countries as a result of the COVID-19 crisis. Now, let's turn from that to see what has happened in Australia. The facts are very different to the stale Labor talking points trotted out by the member for Bean. The facts are that real wages have increased in Australia over the past year. So all this talk from the member for Bean is at odds with the fact that the wage price index grew by 1.5 per cent over the year to the March quarter 2021. The consumer price index was 1.1 per cent over the same period. Now, it's interesting to draw a historical contrast. In the period when the Labor Party were last in office, there was a cut to the real minimum wage in three out of their six years. The member for Bean wasn't here then, but he may want to go and look at the history.
By contrast, I'm asked some excellent and important questions, some substantial questions, by the member for Curtin, who brings to this place very serious experience in the whole area, certainly, of tertiary education but also of the law. She asked: how are we working through these issues in relation to women's safety? In the 2021 budget, we've delivered $85 million in additional funding for the family advocacy support service, which uses an integrated method of support to assist families to transition between and manage matters across both legal systems. It integrates frontline legal services with non-legal social supports in the court setting. This is all about delivering the best outcome for Australians who are caught up in these processes. This is a very unfortunate but regrettable necessity, so we are committing significant extra funding, particularly to support women experiencing family violence.
Dr HAINES (Indi) (17:13): The question is that the expenditure be agreed to. Wouldn't it be lovely if we could say yes to that, knowing that we could all sleep comfortably at night, knowing that there was an independent cop on the beat looking out for anticorruption in this place should there be something as extraordinary as, for example, an unfavourable ANAO report on departmental expenditure? Let's just contemplate for one moment the unthinkable happening. This, of course, is not a talking point; it is, in fact, an uncomfortable truth. Like a minister deliberately rorting a sporting fund program for electoral benefit or, good heavens, the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications handing over nearly $30 million to a Liberal donor for a parcel of land near the Western Sydney airport when it was worth barely $3 million, it is very uncomfortable indeed!
The problem, of course, is that there is no such cop on the beat. While there are anticorruption commissions in every state and territory in this nation, there is not one in our federal parliament. On 8 September, it will be 1,000 days since the Prime Minister promised this country an integrity commission, and what have we had since then?
First, we waited 690 days for no action at all. The Prime Minister sat on his hands and hoped that the public would forget, but I want to say to you that I did not forget.
I introduced the Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2020, a private member's bill, into this House in October last year. Immediately following that, in November, the Attorney-General published a dud draft bill. He sent it out for consultation for the third time in as many years and received hundreds of submissions, as the minister acting for the Attorney-General just pointed out. But those submissions found that the bill was, in fact, unsalvageable; it was dead on arrival. The government received 333 submissions to this round of consultations on this dud bill. Analysis from the Centre for Public Integrity found that none of the 333 submissions supported the bill as drafted. In fact, only two of the 333 submissions had anything positive to say at all, and it's pretty clear why: exclusive private hearings for MPs and the Public Service, referrals restricted to inner-circle bureaucrats and an impossibly narrow definition of 'corrupt conduct'. Can the minister representing the Attorney-General accept that this bill needs a total rewrite?
It's pretty clear the government has no intention, really, to deliver on this election promise. With the rolling scandals coming out of parliament on both sides, it's obvious to see why it doesn't want to deliver. MPs are sent to parliament to deliver for the people they represent, not to play games, not just to deliver talking points and not to deliver stunts but to give good, honest, decent legislation. They're not here to stall, obfuscate and sit on their hands. That's why I wrote my own robust consensus bill with good MPs on both sides. That's why it's sitting on the paper right now. It's really time we got it done.
In 53 short days, we'll be in an election season. I ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General: given that it's taken almost 1,000 days for you to get this dud proposal this far, how can the Australian people believe you when you say that you hope to pass a bill before December? We already know that the government's bill would be rejected in the Senate, and we also know that good MPs on both sides would find it very difficult to vote for any government bill in the House. So will the minister admit that it has no chance of passing its own bill and get out of the way so the parliament can pass a consensus bill, like the Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2020?
A bill really needs to be able to deliver for what it is intended to do, and the government's proposal limits referrals to inner-circle bureaucrats. It does very little to uncover corruption, let alone inspire the public that is trying to hold its officials to account. It's critical that an integrity commission has the power to initiate its own investigations. Where there's smoke, there is often fire. An integrity commission needs to be able follow that thread, and it needs to be funded to do so, but there is no money and there is no line item in this year's budget.
The question is that the expenditure be agreed to. I'd love to assist the government in spending some money on a decent integrity commission. I'm committed to working with the government to do so. I really hope it does, and I really hope it gets on with it. I don't want to go to an election without an integrity commission and nor do the Australian public.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Consideration in Detail
Defence Portfolio
Proposed expenditure, $32,339,880,000
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (17:18): I rise to ask the minister a series of questions in relation to the expenditure of this very important portfolio. Before I do, I acknowledge the letter he sent to me today in relation to RAAF Base Woomera and ADF training facilities, explaining exactly why those kinds of facilities would not suitable for quarantining. I appreciate the comprehensive response I received today. If required, I will reply. But certainly that response explains why there may not be options in relation to those two particular locations.
It's clear to see, when you look at the issues around Defence asset contracts and when you listen to the commentators—and, indeed, the government—about rising tensions in the region, this portfolio, which is always a critical one, is perhaps increasingly critical in line with insights by experts, by national security agencies and by others about the need for us to have a sufficient defence capability to defend this nation. The minister and the government have recently, I think it is fair to say, elevated the language. They have certainly focused upon some of the challenges. The federal opposition shares the concerns of the government in relation to ensuring that we have sufficient capability to defend our citizens and this nation—to defend our sovereignty. It's absolutely critical that we execute the contracts we enter into, with primes and others, in order to provide the defence assets required for ADF personnel, and for that reason I want to touch upon some of those.
I'm also mindful of the fact that, whilst the minister has been a minister for a long time and has been a member of the National Security Committee of cabinet, he has been in this portfolio for a relatively short time and is dealing with a whole series of challenges. I think it's important to note that there have been six defence ministers since 2013, and there are some very significant questions that need to be answered in relation to the largest defence asset contracts in our history.
With the first question I have I'll exhaust the five minutes, as I do understand this process and I won't get another go. I don't expect the minister to be able to answer all the questions today, and I would appreciate him taking those questions on notice if he needs to. Firstly, what does the future hold for the Future Submarines program? Can the minister confirm that, due to the very long delays in the French developed Future Submarines program, the Prime Minister is having what some have described as crisis talks with the French President as we speak? Last week in estimates the Defence secretary disclosed that the government was considering prudent contingencies—he also described it as plan B—for the Future Submarines program. So the question we have for the minister is: what are those prudent contingencies, those things contemplated by government to get this contract back on track? The reality is that at the moment there is an overspend, or a blowout, of up to $40 billion on this defence contract, the time line for which has now blown out by a decade. What does the minister say about those problems and what will the government do about them? Will the government fulfil the contract, curtail the contract or cancel the contract? It's really important that we understand exactly what is happening. Of course, if it is to proceed, will be minister give an undertaking that the contract will ensure a minimum of 60 per cent local industry content over the life of this contract, noting all of the comments made by previous ministers that that was going to happen?
The second question is in relation to the report in The Australian last week that there had been a decision by government to have a life-of-type extension for the six Collins class vessels. Has that been taken to cabinet? Is it a government decision? If so, when was it given the first pass and final pass approvals? What will be the case in relation to full-cycle docking of the Collins class vessels? When will that occur? When will the decision as to where full-cycle docking will take place be made? Of course, there are 700 nervous workers in South Australia not knowing their lot, and indeed Western Australia also anticipate that they may well be beneficiaries of a transfer of that process of full-cycle docking of the Collins class vessels.
Mr SIMMONDS (Ryan) (17:23): To keep Australians safe and to create jobs—these are the two primary objectives that Australians want from the Morrison government and that the Morrison government is delivering via the defence spending in this budget. I'm proud to be part of the government that is meeting these very important objectives, because we know that the global environment is changing, it is increasing volatile, and that now, more than ever, we as a nation must be safeguarded against any future unprecedented threats. I know that Minister Dutton and Minister Price are both acutely aware of the changing global conditions, and this government is arming our serving men and women with absolutely everything they need to protect our national interests, Australia's sovereign interests. There are no two ministers who would be better placed to steward Australia right now and into the future, backing our exceptional Defence Force every step of the way.
In my electorate of Ryan, we are the very proud home of the Gallipoli Barracks. We've had the pleasure of having both Minister Price and Minister Dutton visit the Gallipoli Barracks and speak to the troops. It was recently one of the first stops Minister Dutton undertook when he took over as Defence minister, and he spent a great deal of time talking to our serving men and women there. From the conversations that I had with them, as well those that I had with him with those serving personnel, I know that they know that this government has their back, that the Minister for Defence has their back and that we are here to support them as they protect Australia's interests.
In Ryan we have not only serving personnel at the Enoggera Barracks but also many veterans and their families—they keep their families in the area. They all make incredible contributions to our local community, and I really want to thank them for their service.
Can I take a moment to mention that serving defence personnel from the Enoggera Barracks via the 7th Brigade were also a very big part of Operation COVID-19 Assist and to thank them very much for what they have done to support the government's frontline efforts against COVID-19.
Increasing defence funding has a very real and direct impact on the electorate of Ryan. Our government has met and exceeded our commitment to raise defence spending to two per cent of GDP. Unlike when Labor were in office, when they looked to defence for the first opportunity they could to cut funds to fund their other reckless spending, we won't do that. In fact, we have made a rock-solid commitment to the Australian people to make sure that defence is properly resourced. It's a fact that the last Labor government hacked so much money out of defence that Australia's defence spending was at its lowest level since 1938, an absolutely shameful statistic that Labor should not be proud of—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr SIMMONDS: And I know that they're not proud of it by the interjections that I can hear. Australians would be very, very concerned if they were facing today's world with that level of catastrophically low defence spending from the Labor members opposite. Luckily, this government, as I said, with this budget is delivering increased defence spending, so we will have a well resourced defence force which will ensure that we can protect Australia's sovereign interest.
We're investing $55 billion to modernise land capability over the decade. New investments are planned in strike weapons, watercraft, helicopters, logistics, resilience, robotics and autonomous systems. Importantly, at Enoggera Barracks in the Ryan electorate, we're investing over $100 million in the local economy for the construction of vehicle workshops, hardstands and shelters at the Gallipoli Barracks to support the modernisation of the Australian Army and Royal Australian Air Force vehicle fleet.
Minister Price and I were able to be out of there to see the Boxer vehicle, one of the first Boxer vehicles to come across and arrive in Australia and arrive at the Gallipoli Barracks. A lot of that work and investment in the Gallipoli Barracks will go into supporting the new Boxer vehicle, which is being built not too far away from the Ryan electorate just across the river.
Lendlease, in addition, will deliver new facilities under the Land 121 Stage 5B as a continuation of works under the Land 121 Stage 2A. This investment will deliver the supporting infrastructure for the sustainment and maintenance of the Australian Defence Force's Land 121 vehicle fleet. Not only does this back our ADF but it provides an injection into our local economy. Lendlease is committed to achieving its target of 85 per cent of local workforce participation, which means more local jobs for our community in the Ryan electorate. So, with those introductory remarks, I ask the minister if he will further outline how the Morrison government is boosting Australia's sovereign capability through the spending in the Defence portfolio?
Mr KEOGH (Burt) (17:28): I wish to draw the chamber's attention to our Australian government's interpretation of the meaning of 'Australian' content. You see, when it comes to defence work you don't have to be doing defence work in Australia. To be counted as doing defence work in Australia you could in fact be going about your business running a hotel, teaching French or booking flights. In fact, in Australian defence work you don't have to be an Australian company or even from New Zealand to be doing defence work as an Australian. You just have to look at the others that are included. You don't actually even need to be an Australian incorporated entity, even if owned entirely by an overseas entity. You merely need to be a foreign business registered in Australia. But you don't even have to be in Australia to be doing Australian defence work. Australian nationals who happen to be working in France on the future submarine project will count towards NOVAL group's promise to spend at least 60 per cent of its contract with local Australian industry. They don't even go here. These are all features of the latest details to emerge from the amendments to the strategic partnering agreement, the SPA, for future submarines. Yet this critical document, obtained via freedom of information, has kept secret the definition of 'Australian contractual expenditure'. That bit is redacted. It says a lot about the Morrison government, when it wants to keep that definition secret.
We all know this just continues the government's view that hotels, French language lessons and security guards constitute Australian defence industry content. But if they beat that 60 per cent milestone, or the redacted milestones that we can't actually see in the SPA along the way, it would appear that NOVAL group will receive a bonus. But what happens if NOVAL, or other international primes in contracts that we haven't seen, fail to meet their local industry spend obligations? Is there a penalty? Is there a consequence? None that's evident, unless again that's also in the redacted content of the agreement. Maybe it's just a slap on the wrist. Maybe there's no financial implication whatsoever. Maybe there's even a pat on the back from the Minister for Defence Industry or the Minister for Defence. We don't know because the government is keeping all that secret. 'We don't want to talk about it at all.'
Back to the 'they don't even go here' problem. The SPA reveals that local industry activity value includes the direct labour cost of Australians temporarily working in France. But what is temporary: a week, a month, a year? Is temporary from now until 2035, when the first sub will be in the water allegedly, or working through until the last sub in 2054? Temporary, indeed. Does this mean that the first or more submarines are actually now being planned to be built in France? Hundreds of workers in the defence industries in shipyards across the country, particularly in Osborne and Henderson, are hanging out for this work. But they remain in limbo while the federal government drags its feet and second-guesses itself and its defence department on a variety of projects in terms of scope, timing and the use or the development of Australian industry capability. And then, of course, there's always the confidential plan B that we heard about in estimates.
This Liberal government has proven time and time again it doesn't support Australian companies doing Australian defence industry projects. At the Land Forces exposition a couple of weeks ago I met a Western Australian company, Chironix, that was earmarked to receive $1.2 million in funding from the US government for its involvement in an awesome project, Project Simpson. All that the US government has been asking is for the Australian government to contribute about $800,000. I had more conversations, more than I can probably count, about Australian businesses that are doing excellent work in supply chains for other forces, supplying the Americans or the British, but fighting with one arm tied behind their back because they can't demonstrate that they're getting any work out of Australian defence. They can't point to their local work. It seems completely illogical, and so I ask the minister: why is it that foreign countries are supporting Australian SMEs better than the Australian government? Why hasn't the government joined Project Simpson? What is the definition of 'Australian contractual expenditure' under the future submarine SPA? Why is the detail of what constitutes this Australian content or, indeed, any penalties for not meeting that obligation being kept secret? What else does the government have to hide?
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (17:33): I rise to support this government, a government that is critical to building Australia's sovereign defence industry, a government inclusive of two essential commitments: keeping more Australians in jobs and backing small business in the defence industry. These are the ingredients for building the strongest defence industry the country has ever seen. We are living in increasingly uncertain times, both at home and abroad. Australia should and must prioritise its own interests, and that is exactly what the Morrison government is doing. We are investing $270 billion into strengthening Australian sovereign defence capabilities over the next decade. Currently, 15,000 businesses and 70,000 Australians are employed in our defence industry. This is tens of thousands of men and women serving our country admirably; tens of thousands protecting Australia's national interests. These numbers will increase thanks to our $270 billion plan. In a rapidly changing global environment, we are ensuring the men and women of the Australian Defence Force have the critical capability they need to keep Australians safe and secure.
The Morrison government has already proven more than capable of getting on with the job when it comes to delivering for this industry. I'm interested to hear what the other side of the House has to say today, especially after their track record of sitting idle for six years. Labor gutted $18 billion from the defence budget. Labor did not commission a single Australian ship. Imagine the thousands of lost jobs on top of this and the lost opportunities for the defence industry. Defence was a casualty to Labor. It's not enough to just talk about the defence of our nation; you need to have a plan. You need to execute and invest in that plan. Australia must be an active and assertive advocate for stability, security and sovereignty in our immediate Pacific region.
When it comes to jobs, there is no shortage, thanks to the Morrison government, with at least 15,000 new jobs in the Australian defence shipbuilding. This is just the start, with a plan to build more ships, create more jobs and create more opportunities for small business. This will continue into decades ahead under the Morrison government. The Morrison government is giving small businesses a key role in the defence supply chain. The important work of our Defence Force can only succeed with the help of the thousands of Australians and Australian businesses working in our defence industries. Why? Because small business is the backbone of our economy, and by backing small businesses we are investing in local jobs, jobs that are crucial in keeping Australians safe.
The five-pillar approach to enhance support for small businesses is crucial. These pillars represent the Australian defence industry first. For the first time ever, it's this government that is putting the policies in place to make it easier for local tradies and suppliers. For the first time ever, we are easing the load for the regions to get involved in defence projects. In Queensland and the Northern Territory alone we have seen companies tender for defence infrastructure work using over 80 per cent of their local workforce from the nearby local region, and it's more important than ever that we keep Australians at work.
The Morrison government is determined to see that Australia has the capacity to build at home what it needs to defend our nation, with more jobs and more opportunities for our skilled workers who so valiantly dedicate their careers to keeping peace in our region. My home state of Queensland is headed towards being Australia's front line for the defence industry, home to Townsville, which is Australia's largest garrison city. With this, I would like to ask the Morrison government: how is it supporting Queensland to deliver this gold standard? Can the minister outline the Morrison government's ongoing commitment to strengthening the Queensland defence industry, and how is it going?
Mr CONROY (Shortland) (17:38): Six defence ministers in eight years. Goldfish have a longer life expectancy than defence ministers under this government. If it weren't tragic it would be funny, but it is tragic because this is leading to massive dysfunction and mismanagement at Russell defence headquarters.
Let's look at the facts—because we get plenty of bragging from the government—evident in their own budget papers. First off, for all their talk about spending, they have cut $10.7 billion from the defence acquisition budget since the 2016 white paper. $10.7 billion promised to be spent on acquiring defence equipment since 2016 has been cut from the defence budget. Secondly, we have 28 major defence projects running cumulatively 70 years late across 28 major defence projects. We also have 19 major projects that are $6.4 billion over budget. I remember the Minister for Defence Industry in late 2019 making a commitment in this debate that her performance would be judged on three things: on time, on budget, and on spec. My first question is: when is she resigning? She has clearly failed: $10.7 billion cut from the budget, 28 projects running 70 years late, and $6 billion of budget blow-outs on specific projects.
What are some the lowlights? We have submarines running 10 years late and $40 million over budget. Future frigates: not the first piece of steel has been cut, but we have seen a budget increase of 50 per cent. Only recently we established that there is already a schedule blow-out. The first ship is now running two years late. It was scheduled to be in service in the late 2020s; now it will be the end of 2031. Very concerningly, the last frigate is now running six years late. It was due to be in service in 2038; now it will be 2044—a six-year delay. The MRH-90, the backbone of our helicopter fleet, is 7½ years late. It was initiated by the Howard government, stuffed up then and now stuffed up by this government. We have established that it can't fire weapons when troops are roping out of the helicopter. We saw a catastrophic tail rotor failure that nearly destroyed one of them. The cargo hook took years to fix. The machine gun mount needed three different versions to be able to work. And now they're spending $37 million on leasing helicopters from Toll because 27 MRH-90s were grounded because—get this—they didn't have enough door sliding rails. This is a joke. We have also got Battlefield Airlifter aircraft that can't fly into battlefields—a minor problem. We've got patrol boats that use substandard Chinese aluminium, therefore delaying the project very significantly. The Jindalee Operational Radar Network, JORN, is 1½ years late. This is a series of bungles after bungles, because we have seen six defence ministers in eight years.
We have also seen major mismanagement in sustainment—the key thing about giving our ADF troops, our sailors, soldiers, and air people, the equipment and the availability they need. Here, I'm sad to say, we've seen a $5 billion blow-out in the sustainment budget. This government is so incompetent it's spending $5 billion more than planned on sustainment. What's worse, even though they are spending $5 billion more on sustaining our ageing, obsolete equipment because they can't get the new equipment into service, the performance of our equipment is well under par. Our C-27J Spartans are flying 65 per cent fewer hours than planned. The armed reconnaissance helicopter is flying 38 per cent fewer hours than planned. The Joint Strike Fighter is flying 30 per cent fewer hours than planned. Our amphibious fleet is available for 22 per cent fewer days than planned and our major combatants for 11 per cent fewer days than planned.
These are the actions. Ignore the cheap talk. Ignore the cheap bragging about how much they are spending. It is all about performance—making sure our troops have the equipment they need when they need it and that our taxpayers get value for money. On every single marker, this government is failing the Australian people and failing the troops. They don't have the troops' backs; they are failing the troops and they are failing taxpayers through their incompetence and mismanagement.
Ms PRICE (Durack—Minister for Defence Industry) (17:43): Firstly, can I say that I am very proud of all Australians who are working on our Defence capability projects, whether they live in Western Australia, South Australia, New South Wales or anywhere in Australia. There is also another category of Australians, who are living in France and working on our very, very important submarine project. I'm very proud of those young people. I had the opportunity to meet a couple of them only two weeks ago in my office. I'm very impressed with Naval Group, because they decided that we do need to train our own so that we have the know-how and the know-why. So it is very disrespectful to talk about our young people in this way, who are travelling from Adelaide to live in Cherbourg. I went there a few years ago and met a group of some 40 Australians, mainly from South Australia. They are key to the success of our project. I would caution those on the other side not to be disrespectful to young Australians who are carrying out a very, very important role of ours.
It is a great pleasure to be here this evening. I thank the members for Bonner and Ryan for their questions this evening. This government holds as sacrosanct our two most sacred duties as a government: to keep Australians safe and to protect our national interest. This means ensuring that Australians locally build and sustain the ships, the vehicles and the aircraft that the men and women of the ADF need to keep us safe. It means creating more jobs, backing Australian businesses and keeping the wheels of defence industry turning. As we know, this is more than just about the programs like the Hunter class frigates, the Boxers or the F-35s; this is also about ensuring our ADF personnel have the world-class infrastructure they need to train the way they need to fight.
Queensland is indeed at the core of the Morrison government's pledge to build stronger defence industry and defence capability over the next decade. Defence infrastructure in particular underpins this government's commitment and focus to support defence industry. Last week the Minister for Defence and I announced over $100 million worth of infrastructure spending in Brisbane. We are very proud of that. This will deliver world-class infrastructure to support the ADF's next-gen armoured logistics vehicles. The Brisbane works will be a major win for local SMEs, with local workforce participation expected to reach 85 per cent. Additional supporting infrastructure is being developed around the nation, in Perth and Hobart, for a total program value of $150 million.
In Queensland the Morrison government has created the environment that is allowing defence industry to flourish. In early May the Prime Minister and I announced $155 million worth of infrastructure upgrades at HMAS Cairns. The upgrades will provide work for up to 180 people on the project, with a target of some 10 per cent Indigenous employment through the program. This project also has a target of 80 per cent of subcontract packages being awarded to the local industry in the greater Cairns region. Given the issues that they're experiencing with tourism, I can assure you that those jobs are very welcome in the broader Cairns region.
These projects are part of the almost $870 million that the Morrison government is releasing for estate works to the marketplace to bolster defence industry recovery. This includes additional investment of $300 million in the national Estate Works Program. That includes significant work in regional Australia. These are great wins for the workers and for the businesses of Queensland which support Australia's defence capability. As a regional member, I know that there are many regional businesses included in those projects. I'm very proud of that.
As I've said a number of times, defence industry is more than just shipbuilders, engineers and cyberprofessionals. Our defence industry is also the local tradies who help deliver the infrastructure that the ADF needs and the community businesses that support the bases right around the country. The Morrison government is creating the environment that is allowing defence industry to flourish. Proudly, the $5.2 billion Boxer armoured vehicle program will create 330 new jobs at the state-of-the-art Rheinmetall Military Vehicle Centre of Excellence, which we call MILVEHCOE. The MILVEHCOE facility will also deliver the next generation of protected logistics vehicles for the ADF. These same vehicles will benefit from that $150 million infrastructure I mentioned previously.
I'm very proud of our $270 billion investment in our defence capability. We will never be lectured to by Labor—cutting the budget, cutting projects and not making sure there are enough jobs for Australians. We on this side know what we're doing. Things are under control, and we're very proud of it.
Mr KEOGH (Burt) (17:48): I appreciate the gags coming from the Minister for Defence Industry. I want to pick up on a few points she just made and in particular any imputation that might arise from her remarks in respect of the good work that is being done by Australians on behalf of the defence forces in their defence industry work. No issue is ever taken with the work that is being done. I have to say that has certainly been my experience whilst I have been in the portfolio, both in meeting with the men and women of the Defence Force and the men and women in our Australian defence industry businesses around the country. Not only do they do good work and are firmly committed to the work that they do for the benefit of the nation but they bring great insight, technological development and innovation in the work that they do.
It must be said and I think acknowledged that Australian defence industry businesses are amongst the greatest and best employers of our veterans. That is something to be commended and expanded upon. The opportunity of ensuring that, of the much-trumpeted $270 billion to be spent over the next decade on defence capability for Australia, there's increased spending in Australia is something that will enable the employment of more veterans and more people in these defence industry businesses. It will also ensure the development of a greater and an advanced manufacturing sector here in Australia, one where we don't just build things or put things together but where we also develop that technology and intellectual property and we're involved in the engineering and the drafting. That is fundamentally important. As I mentioned earlier, it is so fundamentally important that there is transparency around the concept of what constitutes Australian contractual expenditure when it comes to the SPA with Naval Group for the development of the future submarine project, and in similar contractual terms in these major multibillion-dollar programs.
We don't take issue with the spending of multiple billions of dollars on defence capability for our nation. We desperately need it. There is a concern, as the member for Shortland just pointed out, that many of these projects are slipping not just in terms of cost but also in terms of time. This government has over recent months made a lot of the fact that it sees the chances of armed conflict increasing in our region and that it may happen sooner than we had otherwise anticipated. The force structure review goes to this exact point. Yet not only are these major capabilities more than a decade away in their planning time frames alone but those time lines are also slipping and slipping and getting further away. That is not just of concern to us on this side of the House; it is of concern, I'm sure, to the Defence Force, it is of concern to defence industry—and it is one that they have spoken to me about—and it is of concern to many strategic observers in Australia.
As we've gone through the last 18 months or so of the COVID-19 pandemic, the importance of being self-reliant has never been greater. We as a nation need to make sure that we are investing everything that we can in developing that self-reliance, that we're identifying the gaps in defence industry and that we're identifying where we're not currently doing the work here in Australia but we could be. Government should be supporting that happening and understanding what those gaps are. One of the key things to come out of the government's review of the CDIC was that the CDIC didn't know the scope of defence industry here in this country, yet the one thing that the CDIC is supposed to do is know the scope of defence industry here in this nation so that it can better connect those businesses.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 17 : 52 to 18 : 07
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (18:07): Labor believes this budget, in terms of the Department of Veterans' Affairs, is really a case of marketing, mismanagement and missed opportunities. We have a situation where the Department of Veterans' Affairs needs to be rebuilt. It's so obvious from the Productivity Commission report, which said that, for veterans, navigating the department is complex and difficult and the whole claims process is really difficult. The government seems in this budget to be throwing around some money to fix political problems of its own creation. There are some stopgap, bandaid solutions rather than the delivery of fundamental reform, and the government is yet to respond fully to the Productivity Commission recommendations.
We do welcome the funding for additional staff, but we'd like to know when the additional staff are going to be employed in the Department of Veterans' Affairs. We note there is another $98.5 million in the budget for an extra 440 staff. How long will it take to employ those staff—over what period? At what level does the minister expect those staff to be employed?
We do know after Senate estimates that the same figures seem to come up all the time: 40 per cent of Department of Veterans' Affairs staff are labour hire workers and 50 per cent of the frontline staff dealing with veterans and their claims are labour hire. When are those percentages, in relation to frontline services as well as to the whole department, going to come down, Minister? We really need a better resourced DVA and faster claims processing, and we really need to crack down on labour hire to guarantee 'same job, same pay' and allow people more secure Public Service jobs, ending inappropriate temporary contracts. One of the things that is quite clear is that there is a big problem in terms of temporary workforce in the department. I'd like to know, Minister: How many of the employees that are working at the Department of Veterans' Affairs are on temporary contracts? How many are casual? How many are working on a full-time basis?
Minister, the government is really not using its position as a model employer to give a good example to the workforce generally, including the private sector. The government should only be utilising non-permanent employment where it's absolutely essential. Minimising permanent employee numbers in the Department of Veterans' Affairs is simply not the way to go. I want to congratulate and thank the men and women in the Department of Veterans' Affairs as well as the men and women who serve in the ADF for the work they do. A job in the Public Service is really critical, and delivering service to our men and women is really, really important.
A DVA labour hire worker recently told the union:
I have been a casual for five years and now I have to reapply for my job because the company that employs me has lost its contract with DVA. If I don't get employed I'll have no redundancy pay or any leave paid out. If the new contractor employs me then it just shows I'm not a casual. This sort of thing is happening to more of us all the time. We are doing permanent work and should have secure jobs.
Minister, it's really critical that workers like that who work in the department are employed in the Australian Public Service.
The other thing that's quite clear from what people tell me—and I get this wherever I go, whether it's in Tweed Heads, Townsville, Adelaide, Sydney, Melbourne or anywhere I visit—is that the waiting times are up to a year for payments or even sometimes for just a claim to be allocated to a delegate. When is that going to be addressed, Minister? It's an absolute disgrace, and this government should hang its head in shame.
What is the government going to do to fix the delays, denials and dysfunctions in the Department of Veterans' Affairs, and how many more people are going to be in a position where they are going to have issues that affect their mental health? That's been the result of many, many inquiries we've had, including coronial inquests where people have said their experience with the Department of Veterans' Affairs has impacted on their mental health, with issues of suicidal ideation and others. I could quote many, many inquiries and many, many coronial inquests in which that has been said. This is a really critical issue to address. We thank those people who have been involved in that.
We note the government has been dragged kicking and screaming into a royal commission into veteran suicide. It's really important, Minister, for you to take a systemic approach to the royal commission. I'm asking if you intend to do that, because certainly what we've seen in terms of the themes has been an individualised approach. We're asking, Minister, that you look at a systemic approach that deals with the challenges of the Department of Veterans' Affairs in the royal commission.
Mr PEARCE (Braddon) (18:12): In the little bit over two years since I've been elected to this place, I've seen a lot of change. Put the COVID-19 pandemic change aside; there is also the change that we've seen in our international geopolitical situation. Along with the Defence 2020 Strategic Update, we've seen the epicentre become the centre of the Indo-Pacific region. We've seen a $270 billion spend, the largest since the Second World War, on maintaining our defensive posture in that centre of the Indo-Pacific region. But at the centre of that huge record spend are people: those brave men and women who literally raise their hands in defence of our nation. They go to a recruiting office, raise their right hand and swear, by oath or affirmation, that they will defend Australia, its people, its government, its Queen and heirs and successors according to law, so help me God. Once they make that commitment then they give the prime of their life to defending our nation. We as a nation need to stand by them and we need to make a commitment to them, because their situation has also changed. It's that change, Minister, that I'd like to speak about this evening.
We've seen over the last two years that the volume of claims has more than doubled from around 50,000 in 2017-18 to more than 121,000 in 2019-20. Over this time, the government has continually supplemented DVA's resourcing to address the increased workload, providing more than $54 million over two years of increased staffing. Building on this investment, the 2021-22 budget includes an additional $98½ million to provide DVA with a significant increase in staffing to address the backlog of claims and manage the increased workload. This funding will see an increase of more than 440 positions, with a significant proportion being allocated to claims processing. This is important. We need to get onto their claims and expedite them. We need to help them make that transition from the big family that they had in the military and that loyal commitment that they made to the defence of our nation. We need to stand by them once they exit defence. This spend that I talk about is the largest single increase in DVA resourcing in decades. It reinforces what this government continually invests in, and that is veterans' support and putting veterans—and, more importantly, veterans and their families—first. This is important.
I also want to talk about some of the additional considerations that we've made as a government. The fact is that we've helped veterans transition and translate their skills, their knowledge and the qualifications that they earned in the military into the civilian world, making their transition from the defence family into the civilian population easier. We've also invested money in trying to help families along the way, because families play an important part of that transition as the veteran makes that important leap from the big military to the big civilian world. Minister, can you please advise how many additional resources were funded as part of that $98½ million for the Department of Veterans' Affairs? Will these additional resources directly assist with the current backlog of claims? I want to know, and I think Australia needs to know, whether this money is going to trickle down and be spent at the coalface, where it's really needed. Is it going to reduce claims and claim times? Is it going to help veterans? Is it going to help their families? Are we going to do the right thing as a government? Are we going to do the right thing as a nation?
Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (18:17): Today I join my colleague the member for Blair in bringing to the attention of the Minister for Defence Personnel a range of issues that appeared with a concerning regularity during the estimates hearings we had recently. A well-trained and motivated workforce is an ongoing issue for any large organisation, and we fully comprehend the extra layers of complexity when that workforce involves members of the Australian Defence Force and the public servants who support them.
The latest defence budget brief of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, known as ASPI, points out that, according to Defence's latest workforce census—this is Defence's own census done in March of this year—the external, contracted workforce is now larger than any other service: Navy, Army, Air Force or APS. We have more contractors than people in uniform. How does the minister justify this extraordinary statistic? ASPI pointed out that many of these contractors are doing the work of uniformed personnel or public servants and that, in some cases, Defence is using these workers on a permanent basis just to help run projects. Minister, how do you justify having permanent contractors like this? We understand the cost of the contractor workforce in 2019-20 was $1.5 billion. ASPI has estimated this is costing Defence $1.1 billion more than if these workers were public servants. How does the minister justify this exorbitant cost? Does he think this represents value for money and a responsible use of taxpayers' money? Does the minister concede that the government's arbitrary Public Service cap is forcing Defence to spend more money to employ almost 33,000 external contractors just to plug the gaps in skills and capability?
Does he believe this exploding external-contractor cost is sustainable over time? And, does the high number of contractors risk deskilling and, more to the point, demoralising Defence's own workforce through high turnover? People who took that pledge—what is the department doing to address this? On page 24 of the portfolio budget statement, it states:
A major revision will be undertaken to produce a new Defence Strategic Workforce Plan looking out to 2040—
When are we likely to see the plan, Minister, and will it address the hollowing out of areas like CASG who rely heavily on external contractors? How will you address the brain drain of skilled ADF and APS personnel who find it more financially rewarding to be part of this ever-expanding external workforce? Where is the plan, Minister?
When it comes to the ADF workforce in recent years, the latest Defence annual report shows that in 2019-20 Defence only met 93 per cent of permanent workforce recruitment targets. They missed by seven per cent. Could you imagine if a soldier missed by seven per cent? That person would be out on their ear.
Also, we know that Defence has failed to meet its 2016 Defence white paper recruitment targets every year since 2015-16. You've missed them every year! You can't hit a target for love nor money. Luckily the soldiers in the Australian ADF are a lot better than you lot trying to run the show. What are you going to do about this? Are you on track to meet the white paper target of around 62,400? Is the new defence workforce strategy still due later this year? Can you tell us how many personnel will be in this new plan? Is the government confident Defence will have enough people to undertake the new workforce plan to operate the future force? All the capability in the world is absolutely useless if you don't have the people to operate it, and you certainly shouldn't be banging the drums of war if you don't have the people to follow through.
I'd like to address one other important thing with the minister, and I'm hoping he's paying close attention. During a period when close contact was discouraged, when many of us were isolating or working from home, sexual assault within the Australian ADF reached an almost record high. The latest Defence annual report shows 161 sexual assault incidents were reported to military police, consistent with Defence's unpublished data. This is a shocking statistic. What are you doing about it, Minister? You need to be on the front foot about this and certainly many other equally as serious issues that are going on in Defence and seriously putting in jeopardy the security of Australians here at home and whilst they're serving in the broader world.
Mr THOMPSON (Herbert) (18:22): I would like to start by saying I'd like to thank the men and women who put on the uniform every day in service of this nation whilst they're still serving and of course when they transition out and become veterans. This is a grateful nation, and, for the debt that you've paid putting on that uniform, we can't thank you enough—thank you for that—and of course your families, the backbones of the ADF and the veteran community. Most people in this place I'm hoping now realise how important the family is in the veteran space as well as for our still serving men and women, because, without you, sometimes those difficult days become a lot more difficult.
I'd like to pay tribute to my good friend the member for Braddon, Gavin Pearce, who served many years in the Australian Defence Force and got all the way to RSM. It's really an honour to serve in this place with you. He's not a person that I call a colleague; he's a person that I call a brother. I would also like to congratulate you in the coming weeks—or coming days actually!—on having another child. I think that Phillipa is a good name for any young girl coming into this world. So thanks for coming here, Gav. The member for Braddon came here just for this. He's leaving tomorrow to go give birth to his child, so, thanks for that, Gav.
An honourable member: Assist!
Mr THOMPSON: Assist—well, he's got a very important role. Before I start I'd also like to thank my beautiful wife, Jenna, who nursed me through some very dark times in my life to get me to where I am now. There is an old saying that I don't agree with. The saying is: 'Behind every strong man is an even stronger woman,' but that's not the case in our relationship because my wife doesn't stand behind me; she stands beside me. So I'd like to thank you for that.
Our men and women of the ADF are very important to this nation. Through floods, through fires, through COVID, they play an integral part in ensuring that our nation is safe and protected. Our veterans put on different shirts at different times to go out and help in clean-ups from natural disasters and they get involved. Our ADF is owed a great deal of thanks, appreciation and support from any government and all levels of government. Our veteran community deserve the utmost respect, deserve the utmost support and deserve a parliament that works in lock step to support them. Whilst, in this place, we might have different views and we have different thoughts on how to get to the same end state, that end state is about supporting our men and women who have supported our nation. Whether you've never left this country and transitioned out or you've been wounded on operations and transitioned out, you need to be supported and we stand in lock step with you. I know the minister stands here today to answer these questions and we will stand together to support our men and women.
The community has developed veterans hubs throughout this country. There's one in Townsville, one in Braddon, one going in Sydney, another one in the Top End, in Darwin. A veterans hub is a one-stop shop for our veterans to get support. They're veteran led, not government-led. It's a safe place for our men and women who have transitioned out or are transitioning out and their families to go to get the supports they need, to hear from the ex-service organisations. I know in Townsville there are also employment opportunities. There's a place where you can sit down and get a coffee. There's a lecture room where you can get upskilled through training. This is what we like to see, some positivity and accountability in our space because, when you transition out, sometimes you transition into nothing. You have that feeling that you've flown out and you're forgotten about. I know that's not the case, and that's why the veteran wellbeing hubs are extremely important.
Minister, can you advise how much the government has committed to the wellbeing centres across the country and provide an update on the services that The Oasis centre in Townsville will provide to the veteran community? The Oasis Townsville I think will be the point that everyone looks at when they ask, 'What does a veteran wellness centre look like?' It looks like Townsville, it looks like The Oasis. It looks like what the team is doing there, and it will be fantastic to have centres like it throughout the country. Thank you to every veteran for contributing to this debate. Of course, I also thank the shadow minister for his contribution.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (18:27): Minister, why is it that you have increased fees for occupational therapists and podiatrists, but for the second year in a row have failed to increase those fees for physiotherapists when many veterans require holistic allied health care? For two years in a row you've raised expectations in terms of support for health professionals like physiotherapists, and yet you've failed to deliver. In addition to that, Minister, why is there no funding in this budget to address the terrible plight of homelessness among veterans, where the estimates are that about one in 10 people who are living rough on the street or who are homeless are indeed veterans. We've seen RSL NSW and RSL Queensland raise the point that they have had an increase of nearly 25 per cent and 26 per cent respectively in demand for their housing and homelessness services during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is a huge issue and a significant factor in veteran suicide and mental health. Why has this not been addressed? Why has this been outsourced to the states? Why has the Morrison government shirked its responsibility and failed to show national leadership in terms of homelessness amongst our veteran community?
In addition to that, Minister, why are three of the veterans hubs so far behind what was announced? It was the intention of this government to make sure these veterans hubs were delivered by the end of 2020, but still three of the hubs have yet to be delivered and are expected perhaps by 2022. You've made commitments in the budget for two extra veterans hubs, one in Tasmania and one in South-East Queensland. Minister, the situation was that in 2016 in my electorate the then LNP candidate, Teresa Harding, made an unfunded commitment for a veterans hub in Ipswich near the RAAF base at Amberley, but your government has reneged on that commitment. In the 2019 election you made no commitment, and in this budget there's nothing. You've made a commitment now for a veterans hub in South-East Queensland.
I call on you, Minister, and I ask you: will you put that veterans hub near the RAAF base at Amberley in my electorate or will you just put it in coalition seats like Dickson, Ryan or other northern parts of Brisbane? Minister, it's really critical that you deal with this issue and address the issue of why these veterans hubs are so far behind. I call on you to answer these questions: why have you failed to deliver the veterans hub on time and where precisely will you deliver those veterans hubs you announced in the budget? The member for Herbert said one will be in Braddon. Is that true?
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Deputy Leader of the House, Minister for Defence Personnel and Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (18:30): I'm well aware that, due to divisions, the time to respond has been significantly diminished for the Veterans' Affairs portfolio, but I thought it was important to give members a chance to raise their concerns. For any concerns I haven't got the chance to address this evening, I will seek to respond in writing to the members. I want to thank all members for their contributions—the members for Herbert, Braddon, Paterson and Blair. Thank you for your contributions and the issues you've raised.
What concerns me a great deal right now is that there is a general tone to the debate in relation to our veteran community which runs the risk of doing more harm than good. I was in Townsville recently with the member for Herbert, and one of the veterans said to me, 'Hope is like oxygen to a drowning man.' The point he was making was that we need to actually provide hope to our veterans who may be struggling at any point in time. What this government has done consistently year after year is invest more in services to support our veterans and their families; not to force it upon them in a Canberra-centric approach but to work with those communities and ex-service organisations. We partner with them to look at new models of delivering service and look at ways of supporting those veterans who may require some assistance, whether it's with their physical health or their mental health.
The contrast in approach that we're starting to see now from those opposite alarms me. It alarms me that we are in a position where those opposite are tending towards negativity to the point of taking hope away from our veterans. I caution those opposite from that approach. The contrast in approach from those opposite needs to be called out. I call on those opposite to work constructively, as historically it has been a portfolio where people have worked in very constructive manner. Those opposite may take exception to it, but they're being called out on the fact they have been very negative about the veterans portfolio in recent months, and it runs the risk of talking Australian veterans down and eroding hope.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr CHESTER: Those opposite can dish out criticism but they don't seem to be able to take it in return. The facts don't match the rhetoric of those opposite. The investment by the Australian government of Australian taxpayers' money, $11.7 billion in this year's budget, is a very significant commitment to those who served our nation and to their families.
Australians can be proud of the fact that the overwhelming majority of people who serve in the Australian Defence Force serve with great pride. It is some of the finest moments of their life. They are satisfied with the way they make a contribution to our nation, and then they transition well to civilian life. If we continue to portray all veterans as broken, bad or damaged goods it will be very difficult to attract them to future employment opportunities in the private sector. I encourage those opposite to join with the government in promoting the achievements of our veterans, notwithstanding the fact that there are many who require additional services and support upon transition. I encourage those opposite to work with the government in a more constructive manner in the future. This year's budget does see further investment in wellbeing centres.
Mr Husic: You're a total fraud.
Mr Chester: I take exception to the member opposite's comment. A person who has never sought a single briefing from me on veterans' issues is now calling me a fraud. That's outrageous. I take exception to that comment. Thank you for raising the point. You've never raised a single veterans' issue with me. Not one. How long have you been here? Not one veterans' issues have you ever raised with me.
I look forward to responding to the issues in relation to the staff employment details. As members on this side of the House indicated, this year's budget saw a very significant investment in additional support for our veteran community, with an additional 440 APS staff to be employed to assist in the time taken to process claims. There is no question the time taken to process claims has been an issue of concern for the Department of Veterans' Affairs and for me as minister for many months—in fact, for more than a year now. What we've seen is a record number of people coming forward to make claims, which is a positive, because veterans are actually seeking support when they need it, and the challenge now for the government is to ensure that support is provided in a timely manner.
In relation to the wellbeing centres, I can report that, as recently as last week, the Townsville wellbeing centre, The Oasis, was opened in the seat of the member for Herbert. It has taken a great deal of community effort to get to this point. What I would say in relation to the wellbeing centres—and I take the comments of those opposite on board—is that their intention is to make sure they are local solutions to local problems driven by local communities. So it is not a question of Canberra saying, 'This is what every wellbeing centre is going to look like.' We will work with those communities based on need to ensure we are delivering services in the communities for the families and for the veterans when they need it.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Consideration in Detail
Industry, Science, Energy and Resources
Proposed expenditure, $4,857,652,000
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Industry, Science and Technology) (18:36): I'm pleased to speak about the 2021-22 budget and other recent measures in the Industry, Science, Energy and Resources portfolio. This is one of those forums that offers those rare opportunities to speak about the positive developments that occur inside a portfolio, particularly on the expenditure side of a portfolio. Inside my own portfolio, there has been a very significant expenditure in this recent budget. As we work through the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, I think the expenditure inside my portfolio is very relevant to this recovery.
There has been $475 million invested to drive industry growth, productivity, and technological and scientific developments, and the new funding in this budget supports strategic investments in Australia's science and research capability. They, in turn, are designed to drive economic growth and job creation in Australia. They help businesses thrive and they meet challenges that exist in the economy as we work our way out of the COVID pandemic recession. That investment of $475 million includes a very major investment of $387.2 million over the next 10 years to support the international collaboration with 16 other participating countries to deliver the Square Kilometre Array. That is, of course, a radio telescope in Western Australia. I recall, indeed, in its inception, when I was a state Attorney-General doing the native title on it, that it will be the world's largest radio telescope, enabling astronomers to learn about the creation of the universe. There will be 350 jobs during its 10-year construction phase, many of those in Western Australia, with 230 ongoing positions over the 50-year life of the project.
Our government is building on the $1.5 billion Modern Manufacturing Strategy announced in last year's budget. That will be part of making Australia a globally recognised, high-quality, sustainable and innovative manufacturing nation. Building on that very significant investment from last year's budget, that $1.5 billion Modern Manufacturing Strategy, we are making investments in this budget to strengthen Australia's antidumping system; we're increasing access to Commonwealth government procurement opportunities; and of course, we are looking to the capacity to develop onshore mRNA vaccine capability to maximise potential applications of that platform over the longer term and indeed a 10-year horizon.
The government is also seeking to explore new frontiers in manufacturing. We're providing $13.3 million to help the Australian Space Agency support the growth of that very exciting industry. As part of the budget, we are also providing $124.1 million to deliver Australia's first artificial intelligence action plan, and that itself is part of the larger $1.2 billion Digital Economic Strategy, which is helping to cement Australia as a global leader in responsible artificial intelligence development and adoption. The government is delivering funding to support and increase Australia's workforce skills in cybersecurity and emerging technologies. That includes $43.8 million over three years to expand the Cyber Security Skills Partnership Innovation Fund, and that fund will create a pipeline of cybersecurity professionals that will meet the growing demand for cybersecurity jobs across the Australian economy.
It's also notable through this budget that we are encouraging more innovation by introduction of the patent box initiative. Of all of the initiatives, I think this is an exceedingly good initiative. The patent box will ensure that tax income derived from Australian patents, specifically in the medical and biotechnology sectors, is incentivised through a 17 per cent effective concessional corporate tax rate. That's going to encourage business to undertake R&D in Australia and keep patents here. This measure is obviously going to be complimented by the government's $2 billion existing investment in R&D through the R&D tax incentive.
Australia's manufacturing sector is presently creating jobs. It's doing so very thoroughly. Indeed, I recently had the privilege of joining in our first Australian Made wheat campaign, encouraging more consumers to buy local, which is supporting our manufacturers and growing local jobs. One job in manufacturing produces three to four jobs in all the other parts of our Australian economy. That's why we've committed that $1.5 billion to expand manufacturing activity and create jobs across our six national manufacturing priority areas. We've continued our work. We're providing significant, timely and necessary investments to ensure that we're maximising opportunities in industry, science and technology over the long term. I think that those investments are extremely sound. They are based on a framework of lower taxes, putting more money in people's pockets and generating business incentives to increase investment and create a path for businesses, which is at the heart of this government. I look forward to other member's participation in this setting.
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (18:40): I have been in this place for a while now. This process, ultimately, is a joke. We will have the pretence of being able to ask questions here today. We'll have a number of the coalition government MPs come in and soak up time. Any of the questions that we put forward won't get answered, just as we saw with the last minister here, and I suspect that, with the minister we have here today, it'll be the same sort of drill. We have a lot of issues—
Government members interjecting—
Mr HUSIC: He's not even paying attention now. This is supposed to be consideration in detail. There is no consideration, reinforcing my point that the process is a joke.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Gillespie ): Order! Member for Shortland, the member for Chifley is trying to speak.
Mr HUSIC: To be fair to the member for Shortland, this is the point, Minister, and it's what I said earlier: the process is a joke. Consideration in detail in the lower house is a joke because they will just not answer any of the stuff that we put forward. You have one minister here, one minister there and another one who will probably come in as well, and they'll all dodge the answers. This minister here is basically marking time and I bet that in 300 days he will not be here. He's just going through the motions. He is a fantastic brief barrister. He'd be able to give you the best responses, but his heart's not in it and he will not be around to fulfil any of the stuff he just told us about. I bet you that he will not respond to any of the questions that I ask him now, in term of his portfolio. He has a whole process.
What we are witnessing now with this government is that they hollow out successful industry programs and then shift the money into another program that has been announced with much fanfare—a program that hasn't generated many jobs in manufacturing. This will be the new variant of what we see in the coalition. Basically, it will set a pool of funding aside, open it up to people to nominate for funds and have a minister make decisions about how it will be allocated, and then we will find out down the track, by virtue of an ANAO report, that it has been rorted. We've had it in sport rorts, road rorts and regional rorts, and now we'll get it in manufacturing, in terms of this Manufacturing Modernisation Fund that they've set up. The minister himself knows that in his own department.
Here are the questions that I'll put to him, which I'll bet any money he won't answer; we'll just get a dodge on them. He has a report, the ACIL Allen report, that was given to the former minister. They spent $400,000 of taxpayers' money on it. The report itself said that they've actually got a good thing going in these industry growth centres. They're not spending enough money in supporting them. They are actually driving long-term benefit in industry. This is across pretty much similar areas to those they have in terms of their manufacturing modernisation initiative and the strategies and all the stuff they have there. They won't release the report. I would love to know whether or not the minister has actually read the report. He has previously said that he hasn't. Will he release the report? Here am I, an opposition MP, asking him to release a positive report into a government initiative, and the government won't release it. Why? It is because the funding to the industry growth centres has only been provided for, I think, the next year—or maybe two years maximum—and then they'll kill these growth centres off and siphon all this support into the Manufacturing Modernisation Fund. I also want to know why they won't fund the industry growth centres for longer, given that they have a report that says they're doing well. Why won't they release the report that says the centres are doing well into the public domain? And why won't they tell us how all the investments into the growth centres will be sustained?
The government won't let the industry growth centres bid for their own programs in the Manufacturing Modernisation Fund across the different industry areas. Another question I put to the minister is: why won't those growth centres be allowed to go for that funding? The government's argument is that they want them to be self-sustaining. They don't want them to be sustained on any government funding whatsoever. They won't support them directly but they won't allow them to go for the funds themselves.
On top of all that, the government are not building any industry capability longer term to ensure that manufacturing actually does flourish in this country. Let's see if the process is a joke. Maybe the minister will prove me wrong and actually answer a question or two, but I doubt it.
Dr MARTIN (Reid) (18:45): The Morrison government continues to back Australia's strong, innovative and resilient industries and to build our scientific and technological capability to help these industries grow. We know that these industries will be instrumental in securing Australia's economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic and creating high-paying jobs for the future. Australia's manufacturing sector is already renowned for its high-quality, sustainable and innovative products. The government has mapped out for our manufacturers a clear vision which will drive industry growth, productivity and developments in science and technology. Indeed, money is already flowing from the Morrison government's $1.5 billion Modern Manufacturing Strategy to exemplify manufacturers in our six national manufacturing priorities.
In this budget, the Morrison government is building our manufacturing industries by developing an onshore mRNA capability that will strengthen our nation against future pandemics. It's also helping Aussie small to medium-sized enterprises to access Commonwealth procurement opportunities, with $2.6 million committed to building capability and increasing awareness of Australian-made products. It is improving the efficiency and effectiveness of Australia's antidumping system, with $5 million in funding to ensure our industry has a level playing field for competition. It is supporting Australia's fashion industry, which employs over 200,000 people, with a $1 million grant to support the design and development of a certified trademark. And it is promoting our automotive sector by extending the research and development tariff concession to keep high-end automotive research activities in Australia.
I am also pleased to hear that the Morrison government, through an additional $13.3 million in this budget, is building the Australian Space Agency's capacity to grow the industry and deliver regulatory services. This funding, of course, adds to various existing commitments to growing the space sector, like backing emerging domestic space capability with a $19.5 million investment through the Space Infrastructure Fund. In my electorate of Reid, local company Abyss Solutions have been awarded $109,690 for their space-borne robotic inspection and intervention project. The Moon to Mars demonstrator feasibility grant opportunity aims to support Australian small to medium-sized enterprises to develop and demonstrate space projects with a clear potential to support Moon to Mars for qualification, space operability, space support and access to space.
It's clear the government is taking steps to build our tech capabilities, ensuring Australia's place as a trailblazer in artificial intelligence development and adoption, cybersecurity and digital economy capabilities. It is developing Australia's first ever Artificial Intelligence Action Plan, with over $120 million to support and encourage local adoption and use of AI solutions, develop AI solutions to overcome some of Australia's biggest problems, and raise awareness of AI in regional areas. We will also see the establishment of a new national AI centre, four AI digital capability centres and industry focused, co-funded scholarships to attract and train homegrown AI specialists.
We're also creating a pipeline of security professionals through $43.8 million to expand the Cyber Security Skills Partnership Innovation Fund. We're awarding national scholarships totalling $22.6 million in emerging technology areas, including robotics, cybersecurity, quantum computing and block chain. I'm very pleased to hear that we're continuing to back our scientists and our scientific community by investing in Australia's science and research capability. This builds on the record investment the government has made in science through initiatives to support greater women's participation in our vitally important STEM fields. In my electorate of Reid young change agents were recently awarded a grant for their project to encourage cross-generational social entrepreneurship for Indigenous women and girls. The Morrison government is continuing its work to boost the next generation of women in STEM through new industry focused university scholarships worth $42.4 million and delivering the Square Kilometre Array radio telescope, at $387 million, which is committed to learning more about our universe. We're also supporting strategically important emerging international science research and technology collaborations with global partners through our new Global Science and Technology Diplomacy Fund and ensuring the ongoing function and maintenance of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation.
Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (18:51): My question to the government is simple: why is it so focused on a gas folly? We see it locally, where the minister for resources is refusing to rule out the extension of the granting of the PEP 11, the petroleum exploration permit which goes off the coast from Newcastle to Manly, the most ridiculous idea that could possibly be explored. It has been rejected by Deputy Premier Barilaro at New South Wales government level, and yet Minister Pitt refuses to confirm that he will also reject the application. We go on with this gas folly, from the local issue to the broader issue. At a time of record debt levels, eye-watering levels of debt that future generations are going to have to be committed to paying back, there must be a focus on investing public money in a way that will actually provide a return to the Australian public. Instead of focusing on industries that actually have longevity and that will in fact provide a return, the government is intent on spending $600 million on the Kurri Kurri gas peaker plant that Kerry Schott, the chair of the Energy Security Board, has described as the most expensive power. She's questioned the need for the plant. There were so many other options on the table, like pumped hydro, wind and solar with big batteries, all much cheaper. AGL, for example, unveiled just one week ago that they were going to transform the Liddell site, which theoretically is the very reason why this peaker plant is allegedly needed, according to the government's argument. The Liddell site will be replaced with solar and pumped hydro from 2023, in line with the closure date.
We know that huge amounts of public money are being spent on a gas folly of this government, ignoring all the advice to the contrary that this is not the safest path. If we want to keep Australians safe then we need to invest in the technologies that will in fact reduce emissions and will in fact deliver a return to Australians on their money, because, make no mistake, this is their money that is being borrowed to invest in technologies that have no future. There's been no release of a business case in relation to Kurri Kurri, only slogans and spin at the time of the by-election. It doesn't make sense. Every person in the industry, in the energy sector, has described this as being not at all the best way of spending public money. It is in fact an intervention in the market that goes completely against any principles of liberalism and the free market. If this proposal actually makes sense then please deliver a business plan that will give us a reason why we are spending so much public money on an investment that the public don't want and the private sector simply does not want to touch. I think that says it all. We know that the true build cost could be somewhere in excess of $1 billion. A report has found that there will be a limited gas supply for the plant because gas is mostly going to go to export and that New South Wales already has three gas peaking power stations, which will hardly be used before 2030, so it does beg the question.
The Australian Energy Market Operator created and released its integrated systems plan and identified that there was no need for additional gas in the system—that, in fact, the transition to renewables, the cheapest form of power, was occurring at a rapid rate—and that interventions would actually be detrimental to the market. But instead of believing the advice of the experts—and I can only assume there is some cynical, hypocritical or other reason—public money will be spent on a technology that simply is not the technology of the future. We know that it's not going to be needed. It comes back to those local questions, like whether we should be expanding gas exploration off the east coast of Australia with PEP 11. We know this is one of the most populated areas, with so much tourism and work going on and that that would be put at risk by a ridiculous project. It's more public money being wasted on a gas folly of the government.
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (18:55): I'm addressing the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction, who knows my electorate well. I come from South Australia, and he would know that 60 per cent of South Australia's electricity last year came from renewable energy, which is quite an achievement. In fact, there has been huge investment across South Australia in wind and solar, both large and household. More than 290,000 households now generate around 12 per cent of annual consumption, at a peak of 1,400 megawatts per hour when it's fully functioning. But largely that supply of renewable energy and the ability to absorb it into our grid has been maxed out.
AEMO has passed an upper limit on wind generation in South Australia of 1,300 megawatts when there is 2,053 megawatts of wind energy already installed in South Australia. So sometimes when the wind is quite brisk and you know that the demand is high, or at least moderate, you can drive around and see these wind turbines already switched off. The reason that AEMO has to do that is that the grid becomes unstable with that much fluctuating electricity and that there's a strong need to keep the gas generators that supply baseload electricity chugging over and supplying the bottom line, if you like.
It's interesting that investment in new generation continues at speed across South Australia when investors know there is an absolute limit at the moment. At the moment at Lincoln Gap there are another 86 megawatts of wind going in, and at Port Augusta in another project another 320 megawatts of solar and wind are going in, knowing full well that the market—for South Australia, at least—is already saturated. I have spoken to some of the companies involved, and they made their decisions based on the back of the decision of the South Australian and New South Wales high-voltage electricity movers to build a new connection between South Australia and New South Wales. It's going ahead. It's been announced. There's an 800-megawatt interconnector going in. It will hook up South Australia to Snowy Hydro 2.0, and that will provide a new market for new generation in South Australia, and it will also provide more stability back into the South Australian grid.
The fly in the ointment here is that, the more diversity you have in your electricity grid, the more stable it is and the more reliable it is. But, in fact, there are still times when you need to, virtually, fully back up that grid. The government made recent announcements about an 1,000-megawatt capacity to replace Liddell, and there was much made of the fact that it will only generate two per cent of time. The more that you have renewable energy, the more that you actually need the plug to fill in the gap when renewable energy is not available, even though it is on a smaller and smaller time scale that that plant will be operating.
Thank you very much to the minister, who has put some money into the development of pumped hydro possibilities in South Australia. We have more renewables, and things are generally going pretty well. I'm very interested in hydrogen and the fact that the minister and the government have announced as part of the budget an extra four sites, which will give us five hubs around South Australia. It's worth noting that even at two kilograms—and that is the aim of the government investment—it is still about four times the price of coal when it comes to generating electricity, at least in direct forms, which is slightly less of a margin on gas. Some of the great possibilities in hydrogen lie in the transport industry, where $2 hydrogen is more than competitive with the diesel price of $1.50. It's just how we get to this $2 hydrogen and how much of it is a renewable in the first instance.
I'm very pleased that the minister found the time last week to visit Moomba, which I think will be the site of one of the world's most efficient carbon capture and storage projects. The government has invested $15 million there. I ask the minister to update the chamber on how the government is providing affordable, reliable energy to families and businesses like those in my electorate of Grey. Can the minister outline how we're doing this while at the same time, importantly, reducing emissions?
Mr CONROY (Shortland) (19:00): My question is to the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. Why did it take a recession for this minister to finally achieve a reduction in Australia's greenhouse gas emissions? When he released the latest National Greenhouse Gas Inventory in May the minister boasted about reducing emissions by 26 million tonnes in 2020, compared to 2019. This was the first significant reduction in annual emissions since this government came to office, but the reduction was entirely due to the fact that the economy went backwards last year.
Under this government's watch Australia fell into its first recession in nearly 30 years. Hundreds of thousands of people lost their jobs, thousands of businesses lost their livelihoods and whole industry sectors were closed down. Australia's economy shrank by 6.4 per cent in real terms in the March quarter of 2020, so it's not surprising to anyone but the minister that emissions were also down five per cent in 2020. They were down for all the wrong reasons—not because of government policies to support investment in renewable energy, not because of government policies to drive the take-up of electric vehicles, not because of government policies to boost energy efficiency in businesses and households and not because of government policy to drive the innovation and new technologies that will reduce emissions, create new jobs and grow our economy. Emissions were down for the first time since this Liberal government came to office not for any of those reasons but because of the sharpest economic downturn since the Great Depression. The economic contraction cut emissions by 26 million tonnes in 2020.
A counterfactual analysis using the government's own figures suggested that, if GDP had grown last year in line with pre-COVID forecasts, emissions would have increased by several million tonnes—because this Liberal government has economic policy and emissions policies around the wrong way. Labor knows that we need to grow the economy at the same time as we reduce emissions. Under the former Labor government Australia's real GDP increased by 17 per cent, employment increased by 8.7 per cent and greenhouse gas emissions fell by 14 per cent. Let me repeat that: Labor grew the economy by 17 per cent and grew jobs by nine per cent while at the same time reducing emissions by 14 per cent.
By contrast, this Liberal government has reduced emissions only by shrinking the economy and shrinking the number of jobs. It's a failure of environmental policy and it's a failure of economic policy because as the economy recovers the new jobs that will come under the government leading the way on renewable energy and low-pollution technologies will not be there and the government's lack of effective climate and energy policies means that, as the economy recovers, the reduction in emissions will stall at best and go into reverse at worst.
The government has no policies for sustaining and reducing Australia's emissions and it has no policies for growing a low-carbon economy and creating the low-pollution jobs for the future. Instead, from this government we have 23 energy policies. We have a government crab walking towards net zero emissions by 2050 but not committing to it as a target. We have a technology road map with no actual policies to deliver the technologies that are supposedly going to provide the abatement that they're counting on to reach their 2030 target.
All we have got from this government is shambolic announcement after shambolic announcement. They're more interested in wedge politics and politics of coal cultural wars than delivering concrete policies that will effectively reduce our emissions, grow jobs and grow new industries while protecting existing industries. I'll hazard a guess that those on the opposite side will talk a bit about coal and gas in their contributions. That's fine, but when it comes to standing with coalminers on the issues that impact them, they are nowhere to be seen.
What coalminers care about is security at work. What coalminers care about is making sure that, if someone is on a labour hire contract next to them, they get paid the same amount as the permanent worker. When it comes to things like that, this government goes missing. When it comes to standing up for coalminers, they're missing. They stand up for coal companies but they don't give a fig about coalminers. That is the truth of it. When they're given the chance to support coalminers and to stand up against the casualisation of the coalmining industry, they are nowhere to be seen. In fact, they stand up for coalmining companies and labour hire shonks rather than for coalminers.
Can the minister confirm that his department's latest projections are for Australia's greenhouse gas emissions to be 478 million tonnes in 2030? Can he further confirm that this means the government will exceed its 2030 emissions reduction target by 35 million tonnes? Is the minister aware that 129 countries have now committed to net zero emissions by 2050? Can the minister explain why under this government Australia is one of only six industrialised countries refusing to commit to net zero by 2050? We're standing shoulder to shoulder—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Llew O'Brien ): The member's time has expired.
Mr CONROY: The previous Deputy Speaker let them finish their sentence.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm obviously not the previous Deputy Speaker, am I? The minister has the call.
Mr TAYLOR (Hume—Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction) (19:05): I thank those who have contributed to this debate. I particularly thank the member for Grey for his question and his ongoing commitment to families, businesses and industries that are crucial for jobs and projects across the country, including in Moomba, where I was recently and where we see Santos's gas plant. We have just announced Moomba to be one of six carbon capture and storage projects. That's a world-leading project which will not only sequester 1.7 million tonnes of CO2 a year but also position Moomba for hydrogen production in one of the biggest market opportunities I've seen in my career. The Japanese market is desperately looking for low-emissions hydrogen—clean hydrogen—and ammonia production to feed through existing thermal generators. Moomba is one of a number of sites around Australia where we see great potential for that, which is why we recently committed $15 million towards that project in the member for Grey's electorate.
We're partnering with industry to drive down emissions and at the same time to create export opportunities for Australian workers and Australian businesses. That's all about our understanding of the competitive advantage of this great nation of ours. Low-cost energy that can be exported is absolutely central to the history and future of this great nation—that is central to our energy and emissions reduction policy and shows our deep understanding of these sectors.
Through the budget we committed $58.6 million to support new initiatives to make sure our gas industry is efficient and effective, to unlock supply, to deliver the infrastructure and transportation market that is needed and to empower gas customers. That industry is absolutely central to the 900,000 Australians who work in manufacturing in this country. It's also crucial for firming up the record levels of investment we're seeing in renewables.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr TAYLOR: To respond to the comments from those opposite, in the whole time Labor was in government there was 5,300 megawatts of investment in renewables. That's 5.3 gigawatts from 2007 through to 2013. That's how much was invested. Last year alone there was 7,000 megawatts of investment in solar and wind. Indeed, we're now seeing in Australia the highest level of household solar in the world. One in four—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr TAYLOR: Those opposite don't want to hear this because this is good news. This is talking up Australia. We like to talk up Australia. Those opposite love to talk Australia down any chance they get, but these are the facts: 7,000 megawatts last year of solar and wind—
Mr Husic interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Chifley is warned under section 187.
Mr TAYLOR: and the year before there were 6,900 megawatts—we pipped it by a little bit. Investment in both of those years was higher than the total investment made when Labor was in power. But we're doing that whilst we're providing the affordable, reliable energy Australians want. That means when a coal fired generator closes it needs to be replaced. Those opposite don't understand this: it needs to be replaced. The member for Paterson understands it. The member for Hunter understands it. But their neighbour the member for Shortland has never got it. We're losing a thousand megawatts of capacity in the Hunter Valley at Liddell in April 2023. That's all we're losing! And the member opposite, the member for Shortland, thinks you don't need to worry about it, that it'll all be okay. Well, it's not. It needs to be replaced.
The good news is EnergyAustralia has committed to the Tallawarra gas generator. They're investing—the private sector—making very significant investment there. Alongside that, Snowy is making a very significant investment too. We know, from modelling that was done with the New South Wales government, if this doesn't happen, the wholesale price will rise by 30 per cent or more over time. Replacing that capacity is essential. The member for Shortland needs to support this, because this is good for the manufacturing industries in his electorate, good for Australian jobs and good for Australian industry, and that is that pragmatic emissions reduction and energy policy that is delivering for all Australians.
Mr BURNS (Macnamara) (19:14): My first question to the minister is: can you come and deliver that speech in my electorate, because my vote will go up if he does that time and time again. The minister doesn't come to Macnamara often. He's welcome to, as much as he wants. Minister, you are more than welcome in my electorate any time you want, mate, any time. But, the real question I have for the minister—he's very confident, this minister, very self-assured and not burdened by self-doubt—is: after all of your time in government, where is your national energy policy? Where is your policy—just one policy!—that will actually set Australia up into the future, that will actually set the framework for Australia's energy market going into the future? There isn't one. They had one. They had an energy policy. It was the NEG. We all remember the NEG, but that NEG went the way of Malcolm Turnbull. They got rid of him, just like they got rid of the NEG.
One thing this government and minister is good at doing is just picking and choosing projects not based on low-emission technology or based on the finances of this particular project but just based on their own ideological war on renewables. The first project that I'd mention is the $4 million they spent on the Collinsville coal fired power station feasibility study—$4 million of taxpayer funds that they spent—and that is not going to happen, and this minister knows it. He knows that they cannot justify building that coal fired power station. They haven't told the people of Collinsville. They're not honest about it with the people of Collinsville. They're happy for this to drag on, but they know that if they were to built this Collinsville coal fired power station then the federal government would be up for billions and billions of dollars in guarantees. But, instead, what's this minister willing to do? Instead of doing the hard work and creating a national energy policy or a framework that creates investment into the renewable energy sector and creates investment to set up our grid, all they are willing to do is throw away $4 million of taxpayer funds just to play a bit of politics with a community that they know is never ever going to have the Collinsville coal fired power station built under this government. They know it.
The member for Dawson has come into the chamber. Obviously they haven't told him, but the minister knows that there is no chance that that Collinsville coal fired power station is going to be built.
Mr Christensen interjecting—
Mr BURNS: As I said, the minister's welcome in my electorate. It will sink his vote very, very quickly every time he visits my electorate.
The other question that I had for the minister is: where is the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Bill? What happened to that bill? That was a piece of legislation where we were meant to see investment in clean energy in this country, and they came with a whole range of reforms. They wanted to take the clean energy out of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. They wanted to remove the standards which the projects were held to. They wanted to be able to invest in lower-return projects—the great Liberal Party economic managers wanting to invest in projects that don't have a good return on investment! Instead, what happened? The member for New England came into the House of Representatives, introduced a series of amendments and the bill has just disappeared. It has disappeared off the shelf. The great reform of this minister has completely disappeared. I guess the member for New England is credited for stopping the bill. It was a terrible bill. I am glad that the bill hasn't seen the light of day, but where is that bill, Minister? We haven't seen it.
I have another question for the minister. In hearings that we had with the department, it was clear that there was no modelling done by this government on how long it's going to take for Australia to get to net zero emissions by 2050. We know that they aren't commissioning that work, because they're not interested in getting to that target. They don't have a commitment to get to net zero like every state and territory, like all of our comparable countries or like our friends and allies around the region. This government is being left in the past, and is stuck in the past, through ideological wars, so why is there no modelling on how we can get to net zero by 2050? The answer lies in the fact that this government doesn't want to get there. They're happy being stuck in the past, and Australians are going to pay the price for it.
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (19:16): It's my pleasure to rise to ask a question to the minister for resources and northern Australia, which are two of my favourite things: the resource of coal and the great north, Northern Australia, and North Queensland in particular. I refer the minister to the ongoing demonisation of coal. We've just heard a bit of it, badmouthing the Collinsville coal-fired power project—
Mr Husic interjecting—
Mr CHRISTENSEN: I can speed it up if you want, Ed, but I really need to talk slow so that you can understand! The clean coal-fired power project in Collinsville and their opposition to it over on that side of the House is symptomatic of their entire opposition to coal. It seems, unfortunately, that the once great party of the worker, the Labor Party, is now the party of the inner city greenie. They are led by the nose by the green movement.
We hear all sorts of things from those opposite. The member for Shortland over there is supposed to be a champion of mineworkers, but gets up here and rabbits on about renewable energy all the time rather than worrying about the jobs of his own workers. I'm very worried about the jobs of local workers, particularly when we've got negativity from—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr CHRISTENSEN: That's not what happened at the last election. I can tell you, Minister, that the coalminers were that supportive of me and the government that I, on Labor Day of all days, standing outside the prepoll booth, got a big hug from a guy who'd just wrapped up in the march, emblazoned with his bright green CFMMEU shirt and hat. He told me that he was voting for me because I was such a strong supporter of the coal sector and the coal workers. That's the kind of record that I have in my electorate.
We always hear this talking down of the sector from those opposite and from the green movement, so I thought I'd put some facts on the table. Interestingly, I got this brochure from the Minerals Council earlier today with some quick facts in it that the minister would certainly know about: 199 million tonnes of coal, making Australia the world's second-largest thermal coal exporter in 2020, generating revenue of $16.6 billion. Some important facts: along with metallurgical coal jobs, there are 40,000 jobs in this nation directly from coalmining; $5 billion in royalties for state governments, paying for hospitals and schools; an investment of $6.3 billion capital expenditure in coal projects across the country; and $289 million in exploration. Coal-fired power plants, it says, produce 58 per cent of the power in our homes. And we've seen what happens when you take out coal-fired power, with the sad situation at Callide, where we've now got a coal-fired power plant out of action, and the resultant impact on wholesale power prices in Queensland in particular.
Minister, my worry is that we've got all of this negativity from the other side of politics—the Labor Party, the green movement, all of the groups that are out there like GetUp!—coming towards the coal sector. But, fundamentally, if you take politics out of it, the coal sector is very, very strong, including the thermal coal sector; there is much demand for it. I know the minister knows this. So what I'm wanting to understand, minister, is: how does the government see the outlook for coal, particularly thermal coal, into the future? Is the government completely supportive of the coal sector and all of the people that work for the coal sector? How does the government respond to the attacks on the coal sector from the other side of politics, from the green movement and from all of the groups like GetUp!? I would be very interested to know this, as would all of the workers in my electorate and throughout Central Queensland and throughout the Hunter whose jobs rely on the coal sector, because they want the minister and the Morrison Liberal-National government to continue its strong support of the coal sector. I'm sure that's the answer we're going to hear from you, Minister. I really want to hear that.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr CHRISTENSEN: I'm sure those opposite want to hear it, because they can't get the same kind of thing out of their own shadow minister or their own leader. They'll never, ever support coal, much to their shame. They've walked away from coal workers, who were once the backbone of the Labor Party. (Time expired)
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (19:21): I have five minutes but am only going to speak for one minute; my esteemed colleague will do the rest. I just want to say: thank you to the coalition for (1) proving the point that I made that this process is a joke—none of the ministers that were asked questions are here. And (2) I said Christian Porter wouldn't stay around for long, and he left early; he never answered any of the questions. I said he wouldn't do it, and he didn't do it. Thank you for proving my point. They treat the industry portfolio as a joke, and that minister is an absolute representation of the contempt they have for this whole process.
Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand) (19:21): I heard the member earlier talking about support or otherwise for coal, and I've come out very strongly in support of the coal industry, as have Labor; it's in our national platform and it's in many statements I and many others have made. What I do want to point out to the minister and others in the room is that there is a threat facing Australia's resources exports other than a decline in trade with China—that is, the government's refusal to commit to net zero emissions by 2050. It's obvious from the G7 meeting that we saw earlier this week that this government is completely isolated on the world stage when it comes to taking action on climate change. More than 120 countries, including 70 per cent of our trading partners, as well as every state and territory in this country, including Queensland and WA, our biggest resources states, have committed to a target of net zero emissions by 2050. I might add that joining them are our largest exporters and our largest resource companies, who are therefore the largest employers in this country—BHP, Rio Tinto, Fortescue, Santos, INPEX and many more. These are the job creators of this nation, and they have all decided to adopt a net zero emissions target by 2050. Industry groups have also—we know APPEA supports and has called for the government to align its policies with international policies to reach net zero emissions by 2050. But this government has not done so. Our exporters understand that action is urgently needed and the cost of inaction will be steep. That is why they are committing to net zero emissions in the absence of leadership by this government. Our resources exporters are facing the prospect of carbon border taxes, which are being actively considered by the European Union, the UK and were even legislated by the US Congress way back in 2009.
Minister, my question is: When will you and your government realise that you are completely out of touch with the policy settings and frameworks that Australia needs for the 21st century resources industry? When will you and your government admit that the coalition's inaction on climate change presents a serious threat to our exports of minerals and energy? You are damaging Australia's future resources trade. It's time this government had a good look at what the international community are doing and started getting with the program and being more positive about this and working with it so that all our export industries, particularly our resources industry, can work with you and with the rest of the community to reach net zero emissions.
I do have some other questions for the minister. I would like to know what the government's plan is to make sure sanctions introduced by China, which have already wiped out the Australian red wine industry by 96 per cent—that's how much their exports have gone down—will not affect the resources industry. Will the government listen to industry leaders and take their concerns seriously, in the national interest of maintaining and improving our trade-in-resources relationship? Just last month, BHP Minerals Australia President, Edgar Basto, warned the Morrison government of the risk these long-running tensions with China bring to Australia's largest-trading partnership. Mr Basto is one of the business voices the government would probably rather not hear on the China trade relationship, but we should listen to Mr Basto because BHP employs more than 45,000 people as employees or contractors across this country.
A report in the Sydney Morning Herald last month raised the prospect that China could widen its trade sanctions on Australia to target LNG exports, which account for $13 billion a year and thousands of jobs. Minister, are you concerned about the prospect of this happening? What is this government actually doing to ensure that our other biggest exports, including LNG and iron ore, are not caught up in these trade tensions?
I want to reflect on a few of the reports this government has issued in relation to the resources sector. Recently there was a media release announcing the $20 million Global Resources Strategy to build new markets for Australia's resource exports and to develop closer relationships with key trading partners. Minister, why have you abandoned a plan to create the Strategic Resources Advisory Group, an expert body intended to provide advice on the challenges and opportunities for exporters? Your predecessor, Senator Canavan, promised to implement the Strategic Resources Advisory Group back in 2019, but it has sunk without a trace.
We have the new Global Resources Strategy. What is going on with that? And what about the Resources 2030 Taskforce report? What happened to that? How is your government progressing this to make resources a stronger and more sustainable export industry well into the future? This government treats that report a bit like it did with the India Economic Strategy—again a massive report that was totally ignored by this government. There's lots of money on reports and no action. Minister, what will you do to make sure the resources industry stays strong?
Mr PITT (Hinkler—Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia) (19:26): I acknowledge the shadow minister for resources, who has picked up the tradition of all shadow ministers for resources and ministers for resources for this country of working together on the things that actually matter. I want to acknowledge the work that we have done in recent weeks, particularly around the proposal for Australia's low-level radioactive waste facility, which we're having discussions on now. It has been congenial and it is in the national interest.
I'm asked about the Chinese trade relationship. Clearly it is an incredibly important relationship for Australia's exports, regardless of whether they are in the resources sector, the agricultural sector or otherwise. We continue to engage, both in country and through diplomatic channels, with our biggest-trading partner. That is the reality. Trade is trade is trade. Trade is built on relationships, and those relationships, particularly in the resources sector, are between companies in country. And they remain strong.
In terms of our coal exports, right now we have more people employed in the coal sector than there has been since 2012. That is a phenomenal result for this country. In regard to LNG—and I've been asked this question a couple of times—all of the information we have from industry is that demand is actually increasing and price is increasing, and that is in pretty much all of our trading countries right across the world, including China. That is the feedback from industry—that there is a very positive outlook for the LNG sector moving into the future.
I'm asked what we will do in addition to the other challenges and the other things we have in place. This is why we have implemented Australia's Global Resources Strategy. In the budget, $20 million was put on the table to help us look at diversifying options for trade to find additional markets at better value, to assist Australian companies to open up those markets and provide further opportunities for Australia's exporters. We must never forget that this is Australia's biggest export sector. It's more than 50 per cent of what we trade around the world. My expectation is that, in the very near future, we will find that we break through $300 billion in exports in this financial year. To put that into perspective, in the midst of COVID, the estimate was under $250 billion. There is no other industry in this country that can turn around a $50 billion increase, not only in economic activity but also in the jobs that go with it. And the resources sector has now well over 260,000 people directly employed, particularly in areas like the member for Dawson's electorate, where there is a significant amount of employment not only directly in mine sites and resource companies but also in the METS sector and right across that technological expertise which we export around the world.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:30