The SPEAKER ( Hon. Andrew Wallace ) took the chair at 09:30, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION
Valedictory
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (09:31): on indulgence—I have just broken one of my fundamental rules, with my first word, in fact. That rule is: never start a sentence with the word 'I'. It's a rule that I have tried to live by since my election way back in 2004, and its purpose is simple—to remind me several times a day exactly who this position I hold serves, its purpose, who it's actually there for, and who actually does the work of building community. In the simplest examples, it's not, 'I had a great time at the event,' it's, 'You guys did a great job of organising it.'
The positions we hold here are fundamentally and profoundly not about us. In an electorate like Parramatta, one that is so diverse, when you put it all together, it nets in the middle—it nets marginal—with such diversity in life experience, it is not only about what I believe and my perceptions of the world but also about finding a common path, quite often by using our different cultural perspectives and the skills we have at looking at the world from more than one perspective to find that path.
When you represent a community where one in two people you see in the street do not share your view of the world sufficiently to vote for you—damn it—you learn very quickly that, when you unravel the knot of disagreement, we quite often agree on what the problem is. We're arguing about the solutions we have come up with, the solutions we're vested in, the path we're on, rather than the destination or the outcome that we seek. There are times when the person in me was quietly screaming, 'How can you believe that?'—and worse—but the position I hold was quietly acknowledging that a good person sits opposite me with a different view and is trying to find the middle ground.
An electoral office is, or, at least, should be, a resource for democracy, of finding that common ground. The role our offices play in democratic processes, in finding common ground in local decision-making, in participatory democracy, in using the unique knowledge that, as members of parliament, we have of our electorates to empower us, is an important one, and one that I've seen decline in recent years as we have all stepped in to stem the bleeding in the NDIS, Centrelink and immigration.
In many ways, we've become arms of government—or, in many ways, government failure—helping people in crisis. Of course, we'll always do that first. That's who we are. The reality for me, though, and my staff, is that we spend at least 60 per cent of our resources, and, at times, as high as 80 per cent, helping individual people when they have nowhere else to go. These people find my office: homeless pensioners; two kids who couldn't go to school because of their parents' visa status; two others who've been here since before they could walk, and even as teenagers they're about to be deported because their mother, who was a visa applicant, died; Centrelink delays; real issues with the NDIS; the crisis in Afghanistan; no internet connection for businesses for weeks; people who speak other languages trying to navigate My Aged Care; and people separated from loved ones, including their newborn children, for months or years during COVID. These are not unusual problems these days; they're common. These problems are not caused by a lack of care by public servants—and I want to make that clear—but by bad policy and under-resourcing.
Similarly, we've been overwhelmed by the impact on people of bungled policy development on marriage equality and freedom of religion—government processes that left people afraid and feeling unable to participate in an informed debate, and with people on both sides of both debates personally hurt by things said and not said. My office is overwhelmed because people in the community know my amazing staff help. They really do. In fact, there are people who pretend they come from the electorate, when they don't, to come and see my staff. They really do. A school even told me they were in my electorate the other day. I said, 'No, you're not.' They said, 'Yes, we are!' 'No, you're not.'
We are overwhelmed because people know that, if you come to my staff, they are there for you. I acknowledge the impact on my staff of working with people on the worst day of their life, day after day after day. Not all of them have done well with that. Some have struggled quite significantly. But I want to thank them: Launa, Paul, Alayna, Ama, Catherine, Katerina, Pauli, Hala and Durga. And I thank past staff, and I can't name them all: Himawan, Bela, Alison, Kallista, Semane, among the many others. I and my staff will always prioritise the person who comes to me for help. That's who we are. But there should be other solutions. There are examples in democratic systems elsewhere in the world—solutions not just for the people who manage to find my office for help but for the many others who didn't and who struggled without help.
Running parallel to the failure in government policy that electorate offices are picking up, there's been a weakening in community cohesion over several years, due to structural changes in the economy that have reduced the capacity for communities to engage with each other and find common answers and opportunities. When I'm out talking to my community from individuals on their doorstep to community organisations working with youth, domestic violence or bush care, the common theme is a lack of community cohesion—of the connections that allow ideas to emerge, take root and grow. I suspect the rise of the Independents that promised their community greater participation is a reflection that many in our community know of that missing element—community led democracy and problem-solving. Our offices can do better if we refocus our attention on the role of an electorate office, which is democracy, not government. It's democracy—quite a difference.
The community I've been privileged to represent is extraordinary in what it is and in what it can and should become. I want to take this opportunity to speak directly to them. To my community: over the last 18 years, I have come to know you as a community filled with opportunity and gifts, which speaks every language and which views the world from a range of cultural perspectives of people who have lived and found solutions in remote villages and in the world's biggest cities. We have the world in us, with all the perspectives and experiences and with concepts that are easily expressed in one language and have no equivalent in another. In a rapidly changing world that is shrinking in distance and separateness and, at the same time, expanding in opportunities and possibilities, we are exactly who you want to be in the modern world. We have everything we need to do well in a changing world, if only we could see ourselves clearly enough to exploit our strengths.
Working with you now over 17 years, there is so much more to you than you know. I've been privileged to be invited in, so let me tell you what I see when I look at you. Let me start with some of the patterns that have revealed themselves to me over the last 17 years. I'm going to start by walking down the Parramatta River—not all of it, but between about one kilometre and 1½ kilometres. We start at the confluence of Darling Mills and Toongabbie creeks where the river starts, where Governor Phillip landed and began the walk that he documented in his diaries—the beginning of the dispossession of the Dharug people and a place that is largely neglected, unvisited and unrecognised. The first part of the walk was closed for nearly 200 years. It's government land—mainly health; mainly mental health—but you don't have far to reach the Crescent, which is part of Parramatta Park now—the first gazetted public park in the world. It was Governor Macquarie's domain and it was the meeting place of the Dharug people, including the Burramattagal and the Tugagal clan of Toongabbie. The male place on the hill became Old Government House but, across the river on the female sacred site where the birthing stones are, we built the female convict factory and then the mechanical institute for girls and the Parramatta Girls Home, where we incarcerated the stolen generation. It became a place of incarceration of women for over 200 years—a female sacred site. Go a little bit further and you see one of the last remaining colonies of endangered flying foxes, which a lot of people hate, but I kind of like them.
Then there's Little Coogee, where, in early colonial times, people swam. Then you pass the stadium—some of us try not to look—and go under the Bernie Banton Bridge, named for the asbestos campaigner, an extraordinary man. Then you go under the Lennox Bridge, where you find the spot where the Buddhist community celebrates Loy Krathong. They let their flowers and candles float on the river. Loy Krathong is a beautiful festival. If you go 100 metres further, under the oar bridge, you'll find the place where the Hindu community celebrates the Ganesh festival. They're still seeking permission to immerse their clay model of Ganesha in the river. I'm sure they will get that soon.
A little further along, there's the St Ioannis or St John the Baptist Greek Orthodox Church. They're building a new one on the banks of the Parramatta River. Where else would St John the Baptist have his church? A little further along is a place that is sacred to the Maori community of Australia but also incredibly important to the Dharug people, which is Rangihou Reserve, where the children of Maori nobles were buried in colonial times. It's a very sacred site.
If you walk down the Parramatta River as a whole and you don't know about or haven't been to all those events, you don't see it. You don't see this extraordinary history that unravels in that kilometre and a half. From the dispossession of the Indigenous people right through to the arrival of migration, it's all there. So is the first public school. It's all there in that first kilometre and a half.
It's not the only thing that flows through Parramatta. The train lines are pretty cool, too. For food: Auburn, Turkish and Chinese; Granville, Nepalese and Lebanese; Merrylands, increasingly Afghani; Lidcombe, African; Harris Park, Indian in all its variety, including Telugu, Gujarat and Malayali—you name it and it's there; and Wentworthville, Sri Lankan. It's absolutely extraordinary food. Slightly outside of the electorate: Eastwood, Korean; and Cabramatta, Vietnamese. It's an extraordinary trip if you take that train trip and have a look at what is there. It's not just the food. It's the fashion. It's the cultural life. It's extraordinary. We live in this place where these transport lines flow from one community to another in the most extraordinary way. It's a gift.
We also have creeks flowing through our community. In fact, in my first election, I counted them. There were 30. My electorate boundaries have changed, but it's just about back to that now. We have 30 creeks, but we built our cities with our backs to them in colonial times. They were drains. So, unless you go to the north part of the electorate, which was built later, where there are wonderful assets of trees and open space, they're essentially drains. But they flow from Blacktown to Parramatta. Toongabbie Creek flows the whole way. They are amazing assets—overgrown, undervalued and ignored. You can't pass through most of them, but they are still there waiting to turn this section of Western Sydney into the extraordinary green paradise that it actually is. It's just waiting to be done. It's not cheap. It's not easy. It can't be done with a one-off. It's hard. By—my God!—what an asset we have there. It is still there.
We have the wisdom of every religion. On my first day in my new office, my Hindu community representatives came to me and gave me a small statue of Ganesha, which I still have on a table of its own, as it should be. They explained to me that Ganesha was the god for overcoming obstacles. I thought: 'Woohoo! I have a few of those.' They went, 'No, Julie—obstacles within.' I thought, 'Oh, okay.' I keep that Ganesha there to remind me that most of the things that we don't do are actually not because of barriers outside. They are actually choices we make to do one thing and not another. So I keep that.
Not long after that, at the Buddhist temple down in Cowper Street in Granville, the abbess there gave me a small glass lotus flower and she literally said, 'The lotus flower, like politicians, grows in the slime and the mud, but the lotus flower remains pure.' I carried that little lotus flower hanging off my handbag until the string broke for about four years and touched it every now and again and went, 'Stay pure; stay pure.' I hope I did.
I was talking to a Muslim friend of mine at Ramadan. His six-year-old son was learning to delay breakfast. Six-year-old kids don't fast. That would be ridiculous. But he was learning to wait just half an hour for breakfast. He really wanted to fast with his dad, by the way, but no. We were talking about it and he explained to me that the purpose of it and the purpose of Ramadan is to learn restraint. Children, as they get older, learn to say, 'I want that; so what?' They learn restraint. I thought how interesting that was. So I've learned so much.
And it was my Hindu community, again, who talked to me at length about simplifying life. In some cultures, if you want to do better, you do more. In other cultures, religion says if you want to be a better person you do less, you simplify. They were talking to me about the difference between East and West where, if you want to lose weight, you go and do stuff—anyway, you know what I'm saying. So I tried it. And I thank them for it because the thing that I discovered, having spent some time in silence—and this might sound weird—is how extraordinary the floors of Parliament House are. I'm not kidding. You should all do it one time. Meditate and then take a walk around the halls, take a walk from the House of Reps across to the Senate and up the Senate side and down and have a look at the floor. The work that went into it is truly astonishing. In fact, I did that walk several times a day, for a number of weeks, just noticing the variation in it, the care and attention. It is the most extraordinary thing. For 17 years I hadn't noticed—and, suddenly, there I was, noticing that I'd been surrounded by it. That's probably the thing I'm going to most miss about this place—noticing that sometimes there's a bit of brass laid in the floor, sometimes the bricks go this way. It's a truly amazing thing. Have a look. Thank you, Hindu community, for showing me one of the most extraordinary things about this building. If you talk to the cleaners, you'll find the man cleaning the floor in the Great Hall, who has been cleaning the floor since the building opened. It is extraordinary. It is one of those secret things of the parliament that we miss.
Going back briefly to our creeks: if you turn north at the confluence of Darling Mills and Toongabbie and go north about a kilometre, if you walk up Darling Mills and then Hunts Creek you'll arrive at Lake Parramatta. It's a beautiful place with 4½ kilometres of walk and a 25-kilometre-long walk. It's just gorgeous. It wasn't the first water source for the new colony but it was the first substantial one. You can't actually walk up that creek, by the way, because it is overgrown. But it links Parramatta Park, one of our great open spaces, with Lake Parramatta, one of our other great open spaces. In fact, I often wonder why the triathlon doesn't exist. They do biathlons at Parramatta Park and swimming carnivals at Lake Parramatta but the two do not join. There is about a kilometre of missing creek bank, that's all. It's still there, it's just the missing link. The possibilities of being able to walk from one great space to another is just amazing.
We have cultural differences in the perceptions of time. This is a weird thing for me to talk about in this place. But one of the things about being a musician, learning music as I did from the age of three, is that you spend your life learning to manage the process of thought in real time. That's essentially what you do. You figure out what you have to think of and when, what you have to trust your fast brain to do without thinking. You design a process that allows you to play a piece that lasts 45 minutes, that takes a year to learn, in real time. So the process of thinking, and what you think of and when, is absolutely all I do. That is what I learned do when I was three and it is absolutely all I do. Back when I was at university doing my masters I did a paper on cultural differences in perceptions of time. That was about 35 years ago and there was virtually no writing on it at all except for abnormal psychology and perceptions of time among people who had been persecuted and, at the very beginning of perceptions of time, in advertising, on how long it takes a person to respond to an advertisement. But there was virtually nothing. It is an area that has intrigued me since then.
In an electorate like Parramatta, where we have such a diverse range of people that come from different cultures, that come from different geographic areas, the perceptions of time are different and the way they experience time, and value events in time, is different. For me it has been endlessly fascinating. It has been endlessly fascinating in a positive way and also in the less-positive way of meeting people whose lives have been ripped apart so many times that they no longer believe they have power over time. They are no longer going to enrol in a university course that might take them six years to complete because they don't necessarily believe they have the power over their own time line. They expect that the ground will be ripped away at any moment. So they leave school at 15 and take six bucks an hour as a gyprocker—not because they are dumb, not because they are not smart, but because culturally they do not believe they have power over time. They don't believe, as I do, that they can spend 10 years doing something. I can spend 10 years saving. My world won't fall apart. Theirs will.
There are extraordinary differences in the way people think and we as a parliament need to acknowledge that we have in our community people who have different ways of thinking about reward and punishment in real life. They don't have the capacity that most of us in here have, of a believing you can achieve what you want to achieve by working for it. In fact, the early work that I found 35 years ago said that in communities that are extremely persecuted the smarter the person is, the quicker they learn they don't have the power. These are amazingly important things. I've been lucky, being a person who cares about time and perceptions of time, to be surrounded by this amazing difference, but all of us need to understand just what that means.
Western Sydney is by far the biggest food processor in Australia by economic impact. As the supply chains fragment, we know that the big companies are starting to use small businesses. CC doesn't make its own spice blends; it uses small businesses. We have an opportunity, at this point in time, in Western Sydney to become part of the global supply chains because our own sector is making that change, but we don't have temperature controlled warehouses. We have far too many fabulous small businesses that are stuck within their own cultural community. We have some of the best chilli makers, we have some of the best bread in the world—literally. We have idli batter. We have stuff that should be exported to the world because it's clean Australian food, but it's stuck within its own community. We have an extraordinary opportunity to take ourselves to the world, on food alone. It is amazing food—lucky me!
Thanks to all the Indian aunties who gave me all their cheats. I was talking to an Indian chef recently—he was over from India—and he told me the book of recipes is this big and the book of cheats is like this! So thank you for introducing me to the ways to cheat when I'm cooking Indian food, because it's quite fabulous. Pickled beef, chutneys, Filipino milk candy—you name it, we make it. And we make it incredibly well, but we don't have a path to go from the microbusiness to the small business to the giant business, and we need to do that as a community.
I'm going to talk about art, music, literature and poetry—again, my background. I used to manage the music grants program for the Australia Council. I'd go to four to six concerts a week. I've been to some of the best concerts in the world. Some of the best ones, the really extraordinary ones, were in Parramatta. Again, they're concerts that most people wouldn't recognise. In my first weeks in the job there I saw a sign on a lamppost for Sivan Perwer, a Kurdish artist. I went 'wow' and I went to the concert. There were about 2,000 people there. I was the only white girl there. It was entirely within its community. This man is one of the great artists of the world. I've been to see Sufi bands. I've been to Punjabi poetry. I was lucky enough to hear Mohammad Imran Pratapgarhi—a poet that none of you have probably ever heard of—and I could have sat there for days listening to Urdu poetry. Truly, truly amazing stuff.
My community has introduced me to writers that I'd never heard of. We know the great speeches. Well we think we know the great speeches, but we don't know the ones that aren't in English. I've been introduced to the speech of Bangabandhu, for example. Just amazing speeches that the vast majority of people who stay within their own cultural worlds will never hear or see. I've been introduced to the music of Rabindranath Tagor. This is a gift for a person like me, a gift, but it should be a gift for more people. Again, we're staying within our own communities, when I know, from working in that field, that the Sydney Improvised Music Association would probably love to go and hear the improvisation of the Hindu temple that goes on for 12 days—I know I did! They probably would too.
An opposition member interjecting—
Ms OWENS: Yes, I did. So, again, there's this extraordinary capacity we have that we're not really exploiting yet.
Fashion? Parramatta? What can I say! We really do have an amazing group of designers in Parramatta that, again, don't have a pathway from being a microbusiness to a small business. They don't really have a distribution channel. The most common question I get asked is, 'Where did you get that?' And usually I say, 'At a market.' If you don't know the designer, you won't find her work. This jacket, for example, is made from a blanket from Africa. It is made out of a blanket. I've had some extraordinary—the garage sale is going to be enormous after I retire, by the way. Send me an email if you want to go! It will take me days to remove most of the stuff.
We should be a leader of urban agribiz. There is a bit of research that for every car in a city there are about 13 parking spaces usually vacant, waiting for a car to arrive in a street, undercover, at Woolies—you name it. We know that in 10 to 15 years we will not have that many cars; there will be self-driving vehicles. There will be less. We already know that around the world there are countries trying to figure out what to do with their car spaces. It is the perfect opportunity for urban agribiz. In Parramatta it's a question of whether, when we do start our city agribusinesses—and Western Sydney is doing really good work on this—they're companies that come in from outside or whether it's us, whether it's perilla, tulsi, galangal, curry leaves, methi or sukuma wiki—that's the Kenyans' name for kale. The Kenyans will look at you and say 'You do what with kale?' because they've been eating it for years. They have several varieties. We have African heirloom vegetables. The question is whether, in 10 years time, when agribiz is big in Parramatta, it is ours or it is dumped on us from somewhere else. I'm hoping it's ours. Western Sydney is doing incredibly important work for that.
I will briefly refer to solar panels. Parramatta has one of the lowest uptakes of solar panels in the country because it has strata. And what an opportunity that is. Whether it's business strata or house strata, it doesn't have solar because no-one has worked out how to do it. What an opportunity sitting right there in Western Sydney right now. We are at about 12 per cent take-up, by the way, as opposed to 30 per cent—so it's really, really massive.
I'm going to move on, because I'm running out of time and I'm being a bit naughty! I'm going to ask the question of my community of what the system looks like that creates the networks that allow these opportunities to be exploited. How do you create that community brain, with the centres of shared knowledge, that allows communities to think—information flow, linkages, neurons et cetera—particularly in a world where funding support these days is increasingly based on projects piecemeal? Quite often, we still have governments deciding what the answer is and putting out a grant program. If you all fit in that box, it's fine. But we don't have grant programs that ask the big question: what would it look like if? What can you do? What would you do? We don't have those grant programs, and we don't have the coordinators and the people sitting in rooms with the capacity to think it through and make it happen.
Over the decades we have had people in every community in the country lending their capacity to people in crisis. Capacity is one of those interesting things—at the time you most need it is the time you lose it. When you've got friends, money and security, and you need to change something, you can do it. But if you've just been ill or you've lost a family member or you've been wiped out by grief or loss, your capacity to make a difference disappears. At the time you need it most you don't have it. For years and decades we've had people in our communities loaning their capacity to people who need it to help them change their lives. And that is an extraordinary contribution.
Now we need people to loan their capacity to solve some common good, to solve some social good. As the communities have changed, as our economy has changed, we are not all the same anymore. We don't have the same childcare needs. We have people on split shifts who work 16-hour days because of a split shift that are one hour from home. We have all sorts of people living different lives who work from home and who don't. Their needs are not the same anymore. One-size-fits-all solutions from the government down or grant programs do not necessarily deliver the range of answers that sit within communities like mine right now. We don't have enough parking at the stations; you have to get to the station at seven o'clock in order to get a parking space. The government solution is to spend $60,000 per parking space to take 250 cars and maybe save 15 minutes; I think I could do better with that, by the way! I think my community could do better with that. I think my community could find a range of solutions that don't fix the parking problem but make sure there are fewer cars there. The problem isn't that people can't park; the problem is that too many people are trying. We have so many solutions in us to that. We can do that right now. Get together, guys, and lend your capacity to people who are looking for solutions on a community-wide basis.
Leaders are defined by who they empower, and my one hope is that when I leave this place in my community my legacy is that I have left a level of civility, that we don't play politics in Parramatta very hard at all. It's not wise in a marginal seat anyway, but we essentially don't. State matters—out of respect for the people who voted for that state member, I tend to leave the state issues alone. Not out of respect for the state member, by the way, but out of respect for the people of Parramatta who elected him. So there's a level of civility, and I hope that remains when I leave.
I finally want to finish by thanking three groups. All the people in the electorate who've been in touch, and most have, by the way—every now and then I do a search on who hasn't; yes, it's like a KPI, a key performance indicator on how many still haven't!—thank you. It actually keeps me in touch with the things that matter to you on your ordinary day, and we build our lives in our ordinary day. Thank you also to the branch members and volunteers who have been extraordinary. I thanked them in my first valedictory, and I will be around to thank you all personally. I want to thank the staff in this place. Because of the all the places that I've worked, and I've been a manager of sometimes hundreds of people at a time, this is perhaps one of the best managed and staffed places I have ever encountered—really exceptional, exceptional recruitment, exceptional training and exceptional service. Without fail for me, I have to say that I have never been disappointed or dissatisfied with the service I have received from any level, whether it's the cleaner or the clerks, ever in this place. It's truly amazing, and I congratulate every one of the staff of this place and the people who manage them and do so so well.
That's about all I have to say, but I promised a constituent that I'd end this way, so: 'That'll do, little pig. That'll do.'
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (10:04): on indulgence—I congratulate the member for Parramatta on a very fine speech. While I've done so privately, this is my first opportunity in this place to congratulate you on your promotion to high office. I know that you will do all you can to maintain the dignity of this House, a subject you know I'm very interested in. And I thank the whip and the member for Macquarie for allowing me to deliver a few thoughts this morning from this place. Of course, in COVID some of us don't have a permanent home in this chamber. I did contemplate seeking permission to share my thoughts from the dispatch box, where I spent most of my time here—sadly, the one nearer rather to me than the one closer to the member for New England—but then I thought it might be even more appropriate if I deliver my speech from this place where I delivered my first speech almost 26 years ago.
For the interested of—I was going to say younger members—all members, other than a few of us, sitting immediately to my right was the Hon. David Beddall, former member for Rankin, just to my left was Ralph Willis, the former member for Gellibrand and former Treasurer, and directly in front of me was the Hon. Robert McClelland, still a great mate of mine, a former Attorney-General and now, of course, Deputy Chief Justice in the family court—or whatever it's called now after the most recent reforms. The member for Grayndler was roughly where the member for Lingiari was sitting. That's not a reflection of seniority in any sense. I think it's more a reflection of marginality, and, of course, Anthony Albanese had a very safe seat, and I think he delivered his first speech from that place as well. Sitting where he is now, of course, was Kim Beazley, and where the member for New England is was our newly elected Prime Minister, John Howard. It seems an eternity ago, and I suppose it was.
They were very tough and dark days for the Labor Party. We had been reduced at that election to just 49 seats, and to put that into perspective or context for those who might be watching or listening, the Labor Party currently has 68 seats, and you need 76 seats to form that magic majority in this place, so we were a pretty small team. Heads were down and there was a lot of soul-searching going on around the place. But, interestingly, the class of '96 was a large class, numbering 11. I'll note that one of those 11 was our great mate Greg Wilton, who sadly took his own life, I think in 2000 or 2001. We spent a whole day in this place and into the night eulogising Greg's life and expressing deep regret about the loss. We still miss him.
It was a heavy defeat after the long reign of the Hawke and Keating governments. I just want to put on the record that the Hawke and then the Keating governments didn't lose in 1996 because of any of its substantial reforms; rather, it lasted so long so because of the success of its very important and substantial reforms. The fact is that every government runs out of life at some point, at least as long as the other party doesn't gift them government for another term, which the Labor Party has been capable of doing, I have to say, from time to time, but I won't dwell on that point.
Interestingly, while heads were down, the class of 1996—although I probably shouldn't speak for all of them—were feeling pretty happy, because we were here, and it didn't seem to matter who was in government, at least not to me. I was here, and that was pretty exciting. I think the attitude might have been slightly different if (1) we'd known then just how miserable opposition is, and (2) we'd known how long we would be in opposition, which was, in the end, 11½ years, so it was a long time. I think we were also buoyed by the idea that it was a very small caucus and that a lot of experienced people had left—and that a lot of experienced people were likely to leave in the not-too-distant future because most believed we would be in opposition for a period of time with 49 seats—and therefore our prospects of advancement were pretty good, you might have thought.
Some of us didn't have to wait. For example, Martin Ferguson and Jenny Macklin went straight to the front bench. They came straight into the parliament and straight onto the front bench, which is pretty unusual. The only remaining members of the class of 1996 on this side, the member for Grayndler and I, had to be more patient. We had to wait for our genius and talent to be recognised! But we didn't have to wait all that long. In fact, I was surprised that the member for Grayndler didn't join them and go straight to the front bench. He was the only person in the class of 1996 that I knew. I knew many of the existing members, because of my involvement in the party and my associations with them through my father's time here, but I didn't know any of the 11 new members, other than Anthony Albanese.
I first met the Leader of the Opposition in the Balmain Town Hall in 1985, a long time ago. I wasn't much of a participant in Young Labor. Few people from the regions are, in fact; it's very much a city concentrated affair. But I'd been recruited to the annual conference at the Balmain Town Hall by right-wing apparatchiks hoping to wrestle control of New South Wales Young Labor from the Left. I dutifully agreed to turn up, and I did. I spent the weekend there not doing much at all. Certainly I didn't make a contribution to the debate. I was just there to cast my vote in the ballot. That was the first time I saw this young firebrand they called Albo, who was completely dominating the conference with his fiery contributions to the debate. Alas, the Right didn't win the ballot. I was in the pub that night after the count with my newly-found right-wing city mates. Heads were down. Maybe naively and maybe rudely, I said to my new friends, 'You guys were never a chance in that ballot today in the Balmain Town Hall,' and they surprisingly said, 'Why's that?' I said, 'Because they had that bloke they call Albo.' The rest is history. I knew then that that young guy would make his way to Canberra. I thought he was destined to play a major role here—to be a cabinet minister and possibly one day the Prime Minister. Well, he has been the Deputy Prime Minister. He was a cabinet minister for six years, and I predict that his final destiny will be fulfilled in May when he becomes the Prime Minister, and I wish him all the very best. His deputy, Richard Marles, my good friend, and all of the team will make a very fine government, if the good people of Australia come to that conclusion.
It's been a great honour and privilege, of course, to serve in this place, particularly over such a long time and particularly having followed my father. We all leave, I suspect, with a few regrets. I have a few, and I'll return to a couple of them shortly, but I leave here satisfied, content and happy—very happy. I'm very comfortable with my decision. I think it's just time for me. But I leave happy for a number of reasons. First, I leave on my own terms and at a time of my choosing. I can't imagine—well, I probably can imagine—how difficult it is for those who don't have that opportunity and who leave involuntarily. I leave knowing that I couldn't have worked any harder, either in the electorate or here in Canberra. My wife will attest to that. It's been very disruptive for my family, but I've enjoyed the ride and I'm happy to have, I think, achieved a lot while I've been here.
Obviously, I've served in the cabinet, which I think is everyone's aspiration. I've had the great honour of being the country's defence and agriculture minister, albeit for a very short time. The joke works every time in agricultural forums. I describe my 11 or 12 weeks as agriculture minister as the 'golden era in Australian agriculture'! We achieved a lot in those 11 or 12 weeks. But of course the opportunity to be Minister for Defence was an enormous privilege, and to work with the men and women of this country who serve in our uniform is a great privilege and it brings me fond memories, although the workload was somewhat significant. I'm sure the current Minister for Defence understands that.
I leave true to myself. I have been, in my view, enormously consistent in my policy positions. Obviously, we have to be agile, and we adjust with changing community attitudes, but the things that form the foundation of my policy development, my thinking and my conclusions remain the same as they were 26 years ago. Most importantly, I'm able to leave this place still married to the Australian Labor Party. Some people don't go the distance. Sometimes people outgrow their party or their party outgrows them. Happily, that's not the case for me. I remain dedicated to the Australian Labor Party—this country's greatest political party, in my humble opinion. I still share its ideals and its objectives and its aspirations for the Australian people, and I will continue to work with it all of my life. And my father wouldn't have it any other way, I'm sure.
The foundation of Labor values, from my perspective—we all have our own slightly different interpretations, and that is reasonable—is equality of opportunity. It is to make sure that all Australians, regardless of their background, have an opportunity to fully participate in the economy and to fully reach their natural potential. Having people fully participate in the economy is good for them but it is also good the economy. We are a country of limited human, natural and capital resources and we need to be deploying all of them. We can't have people—in particular, young people—standing idle. It's one of the reasons we are so dependent on foreign labour. We must reduce that dependence by deploying all of our own people.
I sought election to Cessnock Council in 1987, 34 years ago, motivated mainly by our bad roads—and kerbing and guttering, drainage and a few other basic services. I think it was Malcolm Fraser who said he wanted to ensure that people had the right to turn on the lights. My father infamously said—I'm pretty sure it was his first speech in here—that he wanted to fight for the right of people to 'pull the chain'! In those days some of the old mining villages around Cessnock still didn't have sewerage, so those basic needs took me to Cessnock Council. I'm happy to say that the roads are much better now—and I'm taking some of the credit, of course. I hope someone in the electorate is listening!
Many things brought me to Canberra. It was an opportunity to do good things for my local electorate at a higher level, on a bigger stage and across a broader range of policy issues. But, more than anything else, what brought me to Canberra was the issue of intergenerational unemployment—those kids who are effectively born to fail; those kids who have never known either their parents or grandparents to have worked; those kids who have never woken up to an alarm clock or known their parents to do so; those kids who often have only one parent; those same kids who often don't have the parent at home. These kids need a hand up. I was so pleased with the Labor government's Gonski reforms because part of that was giving our public schools in particular, where you typically find these children, the resources and the ability to identify these kids at the earliest age, preferably kindergarten, and intervene to give them the assistance they need to join mainstream students. I think we have made enormous gains there in the 26 years I have been here, but there are still far too many of these kids. I appeal to all members of this place, and of the other place, to think of them and make them a priority. It is not only important to them, it is important to our communities. These things lead to antisocial behaviour and all sorts of problems. But it is important to our economy—and I go back to that participation issue.
I have a few regrets. I'm not going to talk about policy today. I went back to my first speech this week. In fact, I watched it on video. Yes, colleagues, we had video in 1996!
They were filming us. The technology wasn't quite the same. Mike Bowers was in the gallery taking photographs then, I think, possibly. He's nodding. He looks exactly the same. He's not dressed up today either, unfortunately, as he is wont to do on ABC some mornings.
In that first speech, I was surprised, actually. I lamented the decline in the standards of behaviour in this place. I also lamented the decline in the power of the legislature vis-a-vis executive government, and I made an appeal to the new Prime Minister, John Howard; I don't think he was in the chamber or listening, of course. Through the Speaker, I offered to support any initiatives he might take as the new Prime Minister to both improve behaviour in this place and redress that power imbalance between the House and the cabinet room. Alas, nothing happened, and I'm sad to report what you already know: despite Speaker Smith's best efforts, it's grown worse—much worse—in the time I've been here. I would be very surprised if the Leader of the Opposition doesn't agree. Yes, he's nodding his head. He knows this very well, as a former Leader of the House over a long period of time. I find that sad. I think it's really important that we all work together here to maintain the dignity of the House and, just as importantly, the respect in which it's held by the broader Australian community. That is so important.
All of us here have lived all of our lives in a world in which representative democracy is the pre-eminent form of government. The rules based order and all those things that go with that have delivered us such great wealth, peace, stability and security—peace for 77 years, by and large. People are losing trust and confidence in it. We shouldn't take it for granted. There are other models around the world. There's been a fair bit of talk about that in this place of late, usually for the wrong reasons, but I won't dwell on that today. But we shouldn't take it for granted.
It's very clear that people are losing confidence in the system. Protests aren't new. I was here in 1996 when the Trots kicked in the front doors of the place. That's another story. I was right there on the inside watching it. Protests aren't new, but they are on the rise, and so too are protest groups—more particularly in the electorate, but not just my electorate. As I move around the country, I feel more and more people are treating us with contempt and losing faith in us. There are many reasons for that, including the rise and rise of social media and other issues, most of which we can't do anything about. But we can change our behaviour in this place and we can change the way we do things in this place.
We need to remember that, first and foremost, we are elected to come here in this chamber as lawmakers. That's our first job. I can't help but feel—it's not meant to be a criticism; it's just a culture—that most people come into this place and see this chamber as a stepping stone to the blue carpet, forgetting that this place in itself is not just a theatre for the media and not just an opportunity for them to spruik their wares in the name of their aspirations. This is a serious place, and we need to all work together to maintain the dignity of this place and, of course, to respect and maintain its traditions and its norms and, of course, its standing orders. Again, it's not meant to be a criticism, but I think far fewer members of this place would have a very comprehensive understanding of the standing orders than was the case when I first arrived here. I just don't think people have the time to bother. Some of them let the Manager of Opposition Business worry about that while they're busy making their way to the blue carpet. No, they should know the standing orders, because you can't understand this place unless you do, and if we don't respect it we can't expect people outside the place to respect it.
I have a couple of ideas which might not be popular. We shall see. Maybe I could just make them predictions rather than requests. It's hard to change the culture in this place, but we must try. One of the things we can do is reform question time. I know this is perennial. I know that we talk about it all the time. I know that we have had a thousand Procedure Committee reports and recommendations, very few of which have been embraced, although we do have time limits now. The Leader of the Opposition likes to remind me that I once took 15 minutes to answer a dorothy dixer. I'd have to check whether that is true.
Honourable members interj ecting—
Mr FITZGIBBON: I'm being told it is true! You can get a little bit carried away on your feet when you are focused and you have people interjecting on the other side. So I apologise for that, after all these years. But at least we do have time restrictions now. That's been a good reform, although I still don't know why the member for Kennedy gets more time than anyone else. I love the member for Kennedy, but I think he should get less time, quite frankly. We'd all be better for it. I'm pretty confident he won't mind me saying that; he'll just be happy he got a mention, I suspect! I had some wonderful times with the member for Kennedy as Chief Government Whip in that hung parliament. Every conversation was a respectful one but an interesting one.
The thing we have to do is get rid of those stupid dorothy dixers. Is there anything else in this place that drags us down out there in the marketplace more than dorothy dixers? They're just ridiculous. It's not how the founding fathers intended it. Of course it's not. Full marks to the first person who does something about that. I know what I would do. You can't deny private members on the government side the right and opportunity to ask questions of the executive. Of course, you can't. But what I would do is give the opposition the first 10 questions and the government the next 10 questions. I'll bet London to a brick that, by the time you get to the 11th question, all those who sit in the press gallery will be back in their offices. No-one is going to stick around to hear dorothy dixers for an hour or half an hour. I think that, in time, dorothy dixers would change. Because what's the point if no-one's listening? If they change, who knows? We might get lucky. Maybe opposition questions would improve in technical quality as well. That would be a big change in this place. I'd like to see it one day. I won't be here to experience it, but I'd like to see it.
There's a power imbalance. I fear the House of Representatives has become not much more than a rubber stamp for executive government, and I think that is a shame and, again, not as the founding fathers intended it. Why is this so? Axiomatically, the government has the numbers in this place, most of the time. We experienced something different with the 44th parliament, the parliament from 2010, in which the Labor government didn't have the majority. But not only do governments typically hold the numbers; they are using them more ruthlessly within their party structures. I might not be popular saying it, but I think party discipline is strangling our democracy in an era when the world is changing so dramatically. I don't think the founding fathers intended that either. I'm not advocating a return to the Second Parliament in 1903, where we had four governments in one term—Deakin, Reid, Watson and then Deakin again. That doesn't serve the Australian people well. I'm not advocating that at all. And yet I have been asked by well-informed schoolchildren who visit this place if I've ever had to vote in a way I didn't actually agree with. I honestly say, 'Yes, I have.' I've told them that the disadvantage that comes from the rare occasion that happens is far outweighed by the capacity as a block to get good things done for the country. In answering that question, I absolutely believed it, but community attitudes are changing so much and the world is changing so much that I think the major parties will be forced to ask themselves whether this strict discipline is sustainable.
I think the Australian Labor Party has possibly the strictest party discipline in the world. They certainly don't have that discipline in the Palace of Westminster. They don't have it on the hill in Washington. I suspect the Liberal Party of Australia has the second strictest party discipline in the world. Those opposite will probably be quick to say—No, I'm not even going to mention the National Party, Barnaby! Sorry; I can see you urging me to do it, but that is just another story. Those on the other side will say, 'We allow our people to freely exercise their conscience,' and we saw that amongst the five only a week ago. But we all saw how traumatic that was for them, and we all know that they'll be reflecting today on whether that's ruined their prospects for advancement in this place. Certainly it would have knocked it around. Everyone knows that. So, yes, they might be a little less strict over that side, but it's pretty hard.
Why did those five people cross the floor? There might have been various reasons, but I think the foundational reason is that they had no choice because the nature of their electorates is changing and to do otherwise probably would have cost them their seats. So it's cross the floor or say goodbye in three months' time—which reminds us that when the Leader of the Opposition and I arrived here there was a general consensus that around 85 per cent of the Australian electorate voted for either one of the major political parties and the other 15 either swung between the two or parked their primary vote with a minor party. Today, I don't know the number, but I suggest it's more like 70 to 30. Seventy per cent of electors are welded to one of the major political parties or coalition parties, and the others either swing or they're going to all these emerging minor parties, both on the right and the left, including those well-funded excessive progressives. I mischievously call them 'Independent candidates', who are so threatening to moderate electorates on the other side. So, we're all under attack, Labor on both the right and the left, and, of course, that's true of the other side too: One Nation is a threat on their right flank and the rise of these Independent progressives are a threat to them on the left as well.
I think the world has changed so quickly that that is going to be unsustainable, and I think the party that moves first in some way will be rewarded and the party that moves second will be forced to follow. I think that will be a very good thing for our democracy. You can formalise it. We all know here that in the Commons they have this concept of one-, two- and three-line whips. You get to do something different when it's not a particularly serious matter, but on the big serious matters you're expected to fall into line. They spend a lot of time there just getting their people to turn up. A lot of people abstain on matters. Goodness gracious me, the chief whip would be pretty distressed about that, I know! But I just think that, if we don't elect to change it, something's going to change it for us. We really won't have a choice. But enough of that.
I need to deliver a few thank yous. My journey here was almost as long as my time here, and I couldn't possibly thank all the people who have assisted me along the way. So my necessarily abbreviated list starts with my parents, and I'll finish with my wife and our children.
My parents gave me every opportunity in life to fulfil my potential, and I thank them for that with all my love in my heart. My father, as I mentioned, is responsible for developing my interest in politics and steering me towards the Labor Party, and I'm forever grateful for that.
Of course, I thank the Labor Party in all of its manifestations, both nationally and locally. I've been supported by a whole army of branch members over 34 years, and my father before that—I was letterbox-dropping when I was about 12 for local government elections—and I'm eternally grateful to all of them at every level. We all know on this side, and it's true of most on the other side, we don't get elected here because we're popular or good-looking or people like us necessarily. I get elected because there's the word 'Labor' after my name, and few of us would be here without the support of our political parties. I'm enormously indebted to the party and everyone in it I've worked with over many years.
I thank colleagues and friends in the trade union movement. The trade union movement is the ballast of the Labor Party. It formed the Labor Party, and it rightly continues to have a say in the Labor Party. That's a good thing because they are close to the coalface and close to the people who rely so much on us here to do the right thing by them.
I thank all of the local communities and everyone in them I've worked with. I thank people for supporting me. Of course, even the people in safer seats get, at best, six in 10 people supporting them. None of us are loved universally in our electorates, but I've been strongly supported, and I've worked with some amazing people at all sorts of levels, and I thank them here.
I thank all those who have worked with me in my various offices. I calculated that I might have had 50 staff members in the time I've been here. That's a rough guess. I have no idea really, but it's a lot. I can't name them all, but in the electorate, I want to thank those who currently work for me: Liz Deloraine, Tara Naysmith, Renae Stevens, Peta Lindsay, Rachel Bailey, Tallen Howson and Summer Johns. I point out to the people listening outside that some of them are part time; we don't have that many staffers at any one time. We all wish we could. I'm going to take a risk and name a couple of staff who recently left my office: Kim Smith and Darrin Gray.
I also thank portfolio staff. I couldn't possibly name even a fraction of them, but I do want to name people who continue to have an influence on my life who worked for me for a long time and who are still in my life in some way. It's not an exhaustive list, but they include Natasa Sikman, my long-term chief of staff. Most people in this place on both sides know her and know of the great job she did. I also thank Brendan Long, Tracey Winters, Christian Taubenschlag and Tyson Sara—all wonderful staffers.
I thank Anna George. Anna George has had more than a couple of mentions in this place throughout the 'valedictory season'. She's been driving what I call the flight deck in the chief whip's office for a long, long time—back to my time in that hung parliament but even before then. I have no idea how the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party is going to function without Anna George. She's totally in control. She's the real boss. Sorry, Chris, but she's the real boss. Yes, he's nodding his head in agreement.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
Mr FITZGIBBON: And the Leader of the Opposition said, 'Did you say she knows or he knows?' He knows. I'm glad I clarified that. I've made many friends and, obviously, I can't name all of them. Happily, I've made lots of friends on both sides of the chamber. I will collectively name my colleagues in the New South Wales Right who I dined with last night at the risk of leaving others out. Obviously, that's been an important group for me all of the time I've been here. I see Senator Don Farrell in the gallery with my good friend Senator Raff Ciccone. I'd be a bit surprised if people don't describe Don and me as a bit of an odd couple, because we're very different in many ways, but ideologically I think we're pretty close. We've done some great things here together. Some might disagree; some might think they were bad things. He and I have become great friends. That's true of Raff too, but Don and I have been great friends for a long time and, like many other friendships in the chamber, I know that it will be a lifelong friendship. I'm leaving this place, but I suspect that, even though he comes from that free settlers state and he's a long away, I'll be seeing a bit of Don.
The bad news is I'll probably be in Canberra for a little while after I leave this particular building. For those of you who thought they'd seen the last of me, I'm sorry; you might be seeing a little bit more of me yet, but nowhere near as much as you have in the years that you've been here. On that question, I always say to new members, when they arrive in this place, three things: be ambitious, but don't be in a hurry; always be true to your values, your ideals and your electorate—and electorate is becoming more and more important, because they're all more contestable now; and don't go out of your way to make enemies because you'll pick up plenty along the way without trying. In other words, make friends wherever you can. You might need them one day. I refer to my relationship with Barnaby Joyce, the member for New England, as an 80/20 arrangement. We spend 80 per cent of our time butting heads and the other 20 per cent of the time drinking beer and collaborating on issues that are really important to rural and regional Australia.
I'm going to dwell on the other side for a bit to make a point for those people listening outside. I want people to understand that we don't just fight like cats and dogs all day. We have relationships. We do things, for example, in the committee system. It would be nice if a government started to take some notice of the recommendations of House committees. There would be a significant change in the power imbalance between the House and the executive. I was outraged when someone decided—I hope it wasn't us; I don't think it was—that the Prime Minister would appoint the committee chair. Let the House appoint the committee chair. What does it have to do with the executive government or the Prime Minister? Nothing. It's almost a privilege issue, from my perspective. Get out of our way! This is our chamber, and we'll decide who chairs the chamber's committees. It would be nice if a government—any government of any political stripe—started to take a little bit of notice of what those committees do. They spend a lot of time and put in a lot of work examining witnesses and coming to conclusions, usually in a bipartisan fashion, which is an important point. They're working together. Wow! The Australian people don't see too much of that, and I wish they could see more of that.
I want to talk about friendship groups. The member for Barker and I are, for example, co-chairs of the forest products and forest industries group. We work overtime trying to produce a bipartisan view of an industry that's so important to the Australian economy. We talk about supply chains and sovereign capability in the COVID environment. There's nothing more important than the supply of our timber products. I know that the member for Corangamite has been very interested in this issue. Housing and construction prices are going to go through the roof, on timber prices alone. We're becoming increasingly import dependent. There's a shortage around the world. So it's going to be harder to get those timber products. We don't want to have a debate today about native forests. That's another issue. However, native forests operate on a sustainable basis, certified by two international bodies. But I'll park that today. We need to get more plantations in the ground, which requires patient capital.
We support industries in all forms. All we need to do is give them full access to our carbon credits under the Emissions Reduction Fund. There has been a bit of movement, but we need to do much more. Of course, those timber products can replace carbon intensive steel and concrete. They are carbon absorbing. They take carbon out of the atmosphere. The member for Barker and I are probably strange bedfellows, but we've done some good work together. There are many examples of that. The member for Leichhardt and I were chief whips together in that crazy hung parliament. We had a great relationship, which continues. There are many examples. I thank them all for their friendship.
I've had many mentors along the way, too many to name. I still regularly dine with Paul Keating and Laurie Brereton. I thank them for their guidance. I still have some long lunches with Graham Richardson, who, of course, was a great character in this place. Of course, there's my father. Reaching right back, I want to quickly mention a guy that not a lot of people would know in this place. Stan Neilly was the state member for Cessnock. The opposition leader knew Stan. He was the member for Cessnock throughout both my time and my father's time. We lost him in January. He was just shy of 80. I want to reflect on that and say that Stan Neilly was classic old school. He was hardworking, intelligent and fiercely loyal. He was one of those guys who never sought any acknowledgement for anything he did, either in his work or on a voluntary basis. I thank all of those people who make this place tick. Mr Speaker, you're the 10th Speaker I've served under. I don't know how many clerks I've served under. It's a lot. I want to thank the clerks and all the Reps team.
Can I say on that point that, if governments of any persuasion keep putting efficiency dividends on efficiency dividends and apply that to a small department like that of the House of Representatives, it'll have an adverse impact on this place. I've seen the deterioration in the resourcing over my time here. Who can forget when they took the pot plants off us? Obviously that's a frivolous issue but, more seriously, there has been a struggle within the department to deliver what we expect to have in terms of support. They can't keep doing it on less money. You can only squeeze so much juice out of a lemon. You can't keep driving efficiencies.
Of course, there's the Library and Aussies Cafe, which keeps us fuelled every day. Where would we be? Gee, some deals have been hatched at Aussies Cafe, I'm sure, since 1988. The attendants, security, and those who keep the place clean for us—I thank them all. Those sporting nice blazers who tuck us in our Comcars safely at night—or they used to tuck us safely in our Comcars. That's not quite the resource or service it used to be. That's not a complaint, I should say, but it's another example of people struggling to do what they always did for us with limited resources.
I thank all the peak industry bodies I've worked with over many years. There are too many to name, but they include the Minerals Council of Australia, APPEA, AFPA, the National Farmers Federation and a whole gamut of peak groups within the agriculture sector—CropLife, ALEC and the Cattle Council. The list is very, very long. I thank the many companies. Obviously, as frontbenchers we engage a lot with corporations with policy interests, and I've made lifelong friendships there too. I thank all those I've worked with.
Finally, and most importantly, I thank my wife, Dianne, and our three children. Dianne wanted to be here today. I discouraged it; I think it's a long way to come for a speech. But I know that she's watching, and so too are at least some of the kids. Grace, Jack and Caitlin were four, five and six when I came here, and that's pretty tough. Dianne raised those kids effectively on her own, and for all that they've achieved she takes the credit, or most of it. And they have achieved, and we're very proud of them. So, for all I didn't do or did badly or did wrong, I say sorry, and I thank her for her enormous contribution and her forbearance. She did all of that, the whole time, while concurrently pursuing her own professional life, which is pretty extraordinary. I thank her and extend my love to her.
Finally, I just want to say, on a lighter note, that I don't want anyone to applaud yet but very soon there'll be no-one in this place with the surname Fitzgibbon. It's been 38 years. But the good news is that I fully expect—I'm not going to use this piece to promote a candidate—that you will be joined, I think, by a guy by the name of Dan Repacholi, who's the candidate in Hunter. At six foot eight and 130 kilos, he's pretty imposing. He's not particularly overweight, I have to say. I hope to see him soon, and look forward to seeing him, at that dispatch box. I say to the whips, or whoever makes the decisions about who stands next to whom at the table when we're being sworn in, that I'd be very selective when planning that arrangement. But, while Dan Repacholi is a big man, he's a gentle giant. I don't really know what it is about him, but everyone seems to love him, and I know everyone here will love him too. I wish him the best and I wish all of you the best. And from me now it's goodbye. I thank the House.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (10:49): on indulgence—I know that member for New England is going to speak on behalf of government members. Firstly, I want to congratulate my friend Joel Fitzgibbon on an outstanding farewell speech. I was here for his first speech, and we are one half each of all that's left of the class of '96. The class of '96 has always had dinners each year. So I have spent more of my birthdays with Joel Fitzgibbon than, possibly, just about anyone who is still alive on the planet, because we were both elected on my birthday, 2 March.
Joel Fitzgibbon and I haven't always been completely in sync. What we have been, always, is mates. Joel Fitzgibbon is Labor to his core. He is a loyalist. He is someone who says what he thinks, and when he tells you something he means it and he sticks to it. I won't talk about the conversation that took place at my house after the 2019 electoral defeat, but Joel Fitzgibbon has also always been a very strong personal supporter of mine, and I thank him for it.
Joel showed his loyalty as well when he discussed with me, very early on—we kept it to ourselves—the fact that he had made the decision to leave this place. A lot of people leave and don't worry about who will replace them. Joel came to me and he had this fellow called Dan Repacholi who he wanted to replace him. It says a lot about Joel's character that—with a bit of opposition, it must be said—and with my support he ensured that Dan, an outstanding candidate, would replace him as the member for Hunter. It said a lot about Joel's views.
I want to tell one little anecdote. When I became the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport after the election of the Labor government in 2007, I hadn't been the shadow minister for transport. Joel came to see me and said, 'I did mention the Hunter Expressway during the election campaign.' Joel Fitzgibbon gave a commitment with zero authorisation for a $1.7 billion road in his electorate—the Hunter Expressway. I said to him: 'Mate, I've looked at the words you said at that press conference. It looks to me like a pretty strong commitment. Did anyone else at all know that you had done that?' He said, 'Oh, well, it was just something that's really important.' I said to him: 'Here's what we'll do. We're setting up Infrastructure Australia, and it's going to look at things objectively.' And it did look at the Hunter Expressway objectively. With the benefit-cost ratio, it was about $3 benefit for every dollar invested in it. Why hadn't it happened? Often one of the things that happens in this place is that safe Labor seats, safe Liberal seats and safe Nationals seats miss out on investment. That's a bad thing. It is a bad thing that that occurs across the board. So I say to Joel that, every time he drives home on the Hunter Expressway, it would not have happened without him. That has made a difference to development, it has made a difference to productivity, but, most importantly, it has saved lives. It has saved lives, on that road that goes up to the member for New England's electorate. It has saved many, many lives, and will into the future as well. It's quite extraordinary infrastructure. It's an elevated roadway for a long distance of it.
That's just one of the things that this bloke has done. He has made a difference in this place. He has made a difference each and every day that he's here. He spoke about when we met, way back in 1985. What he didn't say is that at state conferences he and I used to slip out and pair ourselves to go for a beer, because it was often pretty boring at the Sydney Town Hall each year. We would have a regular gathering across the spectrum that is the Labor Party—you knew where to find us on a Saturday afternoon every June long weekend. I've been to the footie with him to watch Souths beat the Knights—regularly!—over the years. It's true; every time we've gone it hasn't worked out well for the Knights. He is very much a loyalist to Newcastle and a great son of the Hunter.
One of the things about this place is that you have lots of contact with people, and the people who are friends that will last are the people that I have in my mind that I'll have a beer with when I leave here, who I'll go out of my way to have a beer with. Joel Fitzgibbon I will always have a beer with. He leaves as my parliamentary comrade, but we will be mates forever, and I thank him for that.
Mr JOYCE (New England—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development and Leader of the Nationals) (10:55): on indulgence—As you walk up the hill in this place you are an idealist, and as you walk down the hill you are a realist, and, ultimately, after a time you become a statesman, but that's really up to you. Joel's one of the hardest players on the ball in this chamber. With his interjections he tries to get under your skin. In the corridor during my interviews he would accost me; he would know where I was doing an interview and wait for me at the door, and we would both make an absolute disgrace of ourselves, on media issues most of the time. He was certainly a worthy adversary.
People who have been here for a while know you don't play footy in the change rooms. There's no point to it. You just make a fool of yourself. When we're off the ball, we'd go and have a beer—you don't give away the secrets of your side—and that's a sign of maturity of a person who has such a history and a pedigree from this place. Because of the Fitzgibbon's legacy, Joel was able to come here with a sense of how you treat people with respect. He knows that you don't become completely and utterly tribal. That's not how our nation works; it's inoperable like that. There have to be times when you talk to one another and work things out.
I won't keep the chamber too long, but I'll give you an understanding of how we, on this side, see Joel. Obviously, when a leader steps down, when the member for Maribyrnong stepped aside, we had a discussion about who the next leader may be and what they meant to us. I won't go through and say everybody else; that's not respectful, but when we got to Joel we said, 'What happens if Joel Fitzgibbon becomes the leader?' A number of my colleagues said: 'We'll lose the next election. That's what happens.' We know that he cut through in our electorate. He's one we worry about turning up in our electorate because they like him, and that is a big problem for us. Thankfully, he's retiring! So we've dealt with that issue.
The final thing I would say is how the Australian people see him. As you would know, Joel and I have a slot on a television station early on Monday mornings. There was a time when, for some unknown reason, they thought we were going to another television station, and we were both getting these calls saying, 'Why are you leaving us?' We were going, 'We're not.' They said, 'But we're the highest rating show in morning television.' We said, 'We're not leaving you.' They said: 'And your slot is probably one of the highest rating slots in that section. It's vital that you stay.' We went, 'We're not leaving.' But why was that? Because the Australian people also look to this guy and go: 'I get him. I relate to him.' That's because he's not an automaton; he's not a machine. He doesn't, like so many of us in this chamber, blurt out the lines so that people listening to him go: 'That's not what you believe, mate. You just said anything and I don't believe you. It's not authentic.'
Joel, I hope that we remain good mates. We're both supporters of Newcastle Knights. I look forward to getting down there, I hope, and seeing a few games. We're very hard from Tamworth and very hard for here. On State of Origin we're on different sides of the field, because I'm loyal to the first place where I played senior league, and that was Queensland. All the best, mate. We are going to miss you.
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Defence and Leader of the House) (10:59): on indulgence—I want to say just a couple of words in relation to the honourable member for Hunter. He spoke before about respect within this place, and the respect that we have for him has been demonstrated by the words of the Deputy Prime Minister. But I want to pay tribute to his service as Minister for Defence. It was too short a time. He was well-respected by our troops. I evidenced that in Gallipoli in 2008. I had the honour of going there with my father after we'd lost the election in 2007. Joel was there and he represented our country with great distinction. I remember how proud I felt when he gave his speech and when he interacted with the men and women in uniform there. Joel and his brother come from great stock. I knew his brother well when I was health minister. Your parents did something right, as you alluded to before—two fine men. The honour that has been served your way today, through Anthony's speech and others, speaks a lot to the person you are and to the honour and distinction you have brought to your role.
I sincerely thank you for the work you did in the Defence portfolio. We were pretty tough on you, as we were on most people during the course of that period in this place, but you did a great job. You can leave this place with your head held high, which is something not every member can lay claim to. I pay respect and honour you today.
Mr MARLES (Corio—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11:01): on indulgence—I won't detain the House for long in speaking about the member for Hunter, but to do proper justice to him would actually take a significant amount of time. I acknowledge his speech and also the words of the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence. You are hearing words from across the chamber, and that speaks a lot to the impact the member for Hunter has had on this place.
When you're young, you perceive the world as a land of giants. One of the thrills of first coming to this place as a younger member of parliament is that, for some time, you get to walk alongside some of those giants. Today, one of those giants, an absolute giant, has given his last contribution to this place. For me, it's hard to imagine the House of Representatives—in fact, it's hard to imagine politics—without the member for Hunter being central to it. His impact, which has been spoken of, is absolutely profound.
Speaking personally, Joel has been a mentor to me. More significantly, though, he has been a really close friend. You can't say this about many people, but for all that Joel does and says, and for all that's said about him, I can honestly say that, in the 14 or so years that I've been here, in the many interactions I've had with Joel, in very difficult circumstances at times, he has always kept his word, he has always maintained trust, he has always treated me with complete dignity and respect, and he is as solid as a rock. I cannot tell you how much I appreciate that. But, more than that, he's been, for me, an enormous source of encouragement and support.
This place, without the member for Hunter, will have less colour and it will have less gravitas. As I say, it is hard to imagine the place without him. He's taught me how important it is to be connected to the people you represent, how important it is to be truthful to yourself in the way you present yourself here. The perspective Joel brings to our party is profoundly important and I really hope his successor will continue to give that voice within our party room. I think I speak on behalf of all of us in saying that we are losing a really wonderful friend. All the best, Joel. I hope the future is as successful for you as your time here has been.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
BILLS
Transport Security Amendment (Critical Infrastructure) Bill 2022
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Tim Wilson, for Mrs Andrews.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein—Assistant Minister to the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction) (11:06): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Australian government is committed to ensuring the safety and security of Australians and the infrastructure that they rely upon. This includes Australia's critical aviation and maritime infrastructure, which plays a key role in ensuring the continued economic prosperity, national security and defence of Australia and its citizens.
Our aviation and maritime sectors are an intrinsic part of our national identity. They connect us to the rest of the world and underpin our prosperity as a trading nation. Australians, rightly, expect to be able to travel safely and securely. The transport security regulatory framework has been in place for 17 years, and has served us well, enabling cooperation between government and industry to mitigate the risks of terrorism in the aviation and maritime sectors. But we cannot afford to be complacent.
The risk of terrorism has not diminished. While government and industry must continue to work together to protect aviation and maritime assets from those who would do us physical harm, the threat environment continues to evolve with a broader range of threats, including non-physical threats, emerging. We must respond.
Threats ranging from natural hazards (such as extreme weather events) through to human induced threats (like foreign interference, cyberattacks, and trusted insiders) all have the potential to significantly disrupt aviation and maritime critical infrastructure. Internationally, we have seen cyberattacks on airports and the shipping supply chain. A prolonged and widespread failure in the infrastructure or supporting systems for the aviation or maritime transport sectors would have catastrophic and far-reaching consequences.
The Transport Security Amendment (Critical Infrastructure) Bill 2022 will build upon the aviation and maritime regulatory frameworks and close relationships with industry which have developed over the past 17 years to address the rapidly evolving threat environment facing our critical infrastructure today.
While increased security and resilience will ensure the continued safe and prosperous operation of these key sectors, and by extension the Australian economy, increased protection cannot come at the cost of unwieldy administrative burden. This is why the aviation and maritime critical infrastructure reforms are being progressed through specific amendments separate from the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018—to reduce duplication and administrative burden, and allow industry to focus on their business.
This bill will:
require all regulated entities to actively identify, mitigate against, and report cybersecurity incidents.
greater awareness will enable both government and industry to observe malicious trends and campaigns which would not be apparent to an individual victim of the attack.
introduce powers to enable me (the Minister for Home Affairs) to declare a smaller subset of regulated entities as 'critical' to Australia's economic and social wellbeing, national security and defence. This will ensure that additional regulatory requirements reflect the level of risk to, and importance of, individual entities.
introduce a new purpose requiring those entities classified as 'critical' to identify, mitigate against, and report all threats and hazards that could impact the ability of the entity or its assets to operate.
modernise the compliance framework to bring it in line with Australian government best practice, through triggering parts of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014; and
expand existing regulatory practices to minimise additional burden as much as possible.
To maintain the outcomes based framework that provides industry with as much flexibility as possible to account for their individual operating environments, the government will work closely with industry to ensure that existing practices can be recognised, once again keeping administrative burden down.
This bill demonstrates the government's commitment to the continued protection of Australia's aviation and maritime transport infrastructure. It provides the strong support needed to allow Australian industry to grow and compete in the global market. It allows Australians to have uninterrupted access to essential services and ensures that our society and living standard continue to be the envy of the world. It ensures that Australia continues to be a safe, prosperous and wealthy nation.
I commend this bill.
Debate adjourned.
Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Corrective Services Authorities) Bill 2022
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr T Wilson, for Mrs K Andrews.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein—Assistant Minister to the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction) (11:11): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today, I'm introducing the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Corrective Services Authorities) Bill 2022 to provide corrective services authorities the ability to access telecommunications data under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979, otherwise know as the T(IA) Act.
Illicit mobile phones pose a serious threat within correctional facilities. They are used to organise escape attempts, threaten the safety of victims and witnesses, organise trafficking of contraband, as well as facilitate behaviour contrary to national security interests. Telecommunications data is especially vital in establishing the ownership or location of mobile phones used to commit offences within correctional facilities.
Access to telecommunications data will assist corrective services authorities to better identify, investigate and prevent illicit mobile phone related crime in correctional facilities. This will aid the detection and prosecution of criminal offences, mitigating the risk posed to national security and public order.
The bill implements the government's response to the Comprehensive review of the legal framework of the national intelligence community. The government agreed with the comprehensive review's recommendation that corrective services authorities should have the ability to access telecommunications data under the T(IA) Act, where the relevant state or territory has requested it.
It is necessary and appropriate to make these amendments ahead of the broader holistic electronic surveillance reforms recommended by the comprehensive review. Operation Ironside has already resulted in more than 350 individuals being charged who, if convicted, will spend time in correctional facilities around Australia. The ability of corrective services authorities to access telecommunications data is now vital to combat transnational, serious and organised crime, to ensure the safety and security of both the correctional environment and the wider community.
In anticipation of these reforms, the New South Wales government has requested that Corrective Services NSW be given immediate access to telecommunications data. Following extensive preparatory work, including development of policies and procedures and review of its privacy settings, and consultation with the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Privacy Commissioner, the Commonwealth government has determined it is in the national interest for Corrective Services NSW to be able to access telecommunications data ahead of the passage of this bill.
Accordingly, a temporary declaration under section 176A of the T(IA) Act has been made giving Corrective Services NSW access to telecommunications data ahead of parliamentary consideration of this bill. That declaration is subject to parliamentary scrutiny and disallowance, and can only be in force for 40 sitting days. This recognises the temporary nature of that declaration, and why this bill is being introduced today to provide access to this valuable data on an ongoing basis.
Overview of Bill
The bill provides that state and territory corrective services authorities are enforcement agencies for the purposes of access to telecommunications data once individually declared by the minister. The declaration can only be made if requested by the relevant state or territory corrective services minister.
This will ensure only those states and territories which want this power will be able to use it and also that the Commonwealth minister can ensure corrective services authorities can only access data once they have demonstrated their readiness to do so. This could include the Commonwealth minister having regard to the authority's privacy arrangements, the policies and procedures it has in place to govern access to data and the arrangements for the Commonwealth Ombudsman to conduct oversight, including any financial implications.
To assist in this consideration, the bill makes it clear the Commonwealth minister is able to consult such persons as the minister sees fit, such as the Commonwealth Ombudsman or the Privacy Commissioner.
The existing declaration power in the T(IA) Act is temporary and declarations expire after 40 sitting days. It is designed to be used while substantive legislative change is considered by the parliament.
In contrast, the new declaration power is not temporary in nature but a mechanism to ensure legislative change is not required each time a new state or territory corrective services authority requests the power and is ready to use it.
Declarations for corrective services authorities may be subject to conditions. For example, a declaration could provide that a corrective services authority is not able to apply for journalist information warrants.
Corrective services authorities declared under the new powers will be subject to the same level of oversight by the Commonwealth Ombudsman as existing enforcement agencies. Further, a declaration must be revoked by the Commonwealth minister if the relevant state or territory minister of a corrective services authority requests the Commonwealth minister to do so. The Commonwealth minister may also revoke a declaration if satisfied that compliance by the authority with the T(IA) Act has been unsatisfactory.
This provides accountability and oversight to ensure authorities access and use telecommunications data in an appropriate manner.
Conclusion
This bill will provide corrective services authorities access to telecommunications data which is vital to ensuring the safety and security of both the correctional environment and the community.
It reflects the government's commitment to keeping Australians safe and secure.
I commend this bill to the chamber.
Debate adjourned.
Crimes Legislation Amendment (Ransomware Action Plan) Bill 2022
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Wilson, for Mrs Andrews.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein—Assistant Minister to the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction) (11:18): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ransomware
Australians have never been more connected than they are today. Digital connectivity has enabled the sharing of ideas to maximise innovation and offered businesses opportunities to grow on a global scale. Throughout the pandemic, these digital and cyber enabled systems have been critical to keeping our country running, delivering many of our daily essential services, from health care to our children's' education, and allowing many of us to continue in our jobs working from home.
The promise of this technologically driven connectivity is one of increased productivity and prosperity for all.
But this promise is threatened by a rapidly evolving strategic environment, punctuated by increasing cybercrime. Cybercrime—and, ransomware, in particular—threatens all Australian businesses and individuals that seek to benefit from our modern digital economy.
Industry and the Australian government are fighting a daily battle against sophisticated and persistent ransomware gangs. Ransomware costs victims time and money, interrupts the operations of businesses and—in the worst cases—threatens the lives and livelihoods of Australians.
Ransomware gangs use malware to hack their victim's computers or devices, and encrypt electronic folders and files to render their systems inaccessible. Once files are encrypted, criminals demand a ransom from the system owner in return for decryption keys. Ransom payments are often made in the form of hard-to-trace cryptocurrencies. If a victim refuses to pay the demanded ransom, they may find their sensitive data destroyed, sold or released online.
Australia's wealth, high levels of online connectivity and increasing reliance on digital services make it an attractive target for ransomware gangs.
The rise in ransomware-as-a-service, or use of ransomware on commission, represents the increasing commercialisation and sophistication of the ransomware business model. As new entrants to the criminal marketplace gain access to ransomware, the threat to Australia will only grow.
Ransomware Action Plan
On 13 October 2021, the government released the Ransomware Action Plan, which sets out Australia's policy, operational, and legislative response to ransomware.
The Ransomware Action Plan's criminal law reform package seeks to ensure that law enforcement is better able to pursue and prosecute ransomware gangs targeting Australians and Australian businesses. This complements the action plan's ransomware reporting obligation for business and the Australian Federal Police led, multiagency Operation Orcus, which seeks to disrupt ransomware gangs.
Today, the government introduces the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Ransomware Action Plan) Bill as a critical step to deter ransomware gangs, enable a more effective law enforcement response, and halt the flow of cryptocurrencies that reflect the ransomware business model.
Outline of measures in the bill
Criminal Code Act 1995 reforms
This bill modernises Australia's computer offences to ensure ransomware gangs face criminal liability for each aspect of their business model and increases penalties for their egregious conduct.
Firstly, the bill extends the jurisdictional limits applicable to these offences. This will provide the Australian government clear legal authority to investigate and prosecute cybercriminals targeting Australians and Australian businesses regardless of their location.
The bill introduces a standalone offence to target the central component of ransomware—the act of cyberextortion. Extortion is not a new concept to criminals, however cyberextortion is rising in prevalence because it is financially effective and perpetuated by readily available ransomware. Successful cyberextortion has significant impacts on victims, including financial, reputational and psychological damage.
The bill will also introduce an aggravated offence for cybercriminals seeking to target Australian critical infrastructure. The government recently passed the Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure) Act 2021 to recognise the catastrophic risks associated with disruption to critical infrastructure. Disruption to critical systems caused by a cyberattack could cause widespread damage to our businesses, national security, and community. To complement these reforms, this offence will target those who deliberately launch a cyberattack against Australia's critical infrastructure assets and carry a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment.
The bill will introduce a standalone offence for dealing with data stolen through ransomware, cyberextortion or other cybercrime—further protecting individuals and businesses whose data and commercially sensitive information is often targeted and exploited by cybercriminals.
The bill will introduce an aggravated offence for buyers and sellers of ransomware to ensure that those profiting from the development and sale of ransomware, including ransomware-as-a-service, are deterred from contributing to the threat and endangerment of Australians.
Finally, the bill increases maximum penalties for a number of other computer offences in recognition of the increasingly disruptive impact of cybercrime on our digitally-enabled society.
Proceeds of Crimes Act 2002 and Crimes Act 1914 reforms
Successful ransomware attacks almost exclusively rely on digital currency as a payment mechanism. Digital currency provides opportunities to move funds in ways that challenge law enforcement detection and disruption. The scale and speed with which digital currencies are adopted necessitates the continual review of our proceeds of crime legislation. We need to ensure that law enforcement agencies have the capabilities to identify where digital currency is used in criminal offending and to freeze or seize that digital currency to prevent its dissipation and reinvestment in criminal activities.
The bill will also ensure that law enforcement agencies can seize digital assets (including cryptocurrency) where it is discovered during the execution of a warrant (and suspected to be proceeds of crime). This measure reflects changes in the way criminals are using cryptocurrency as part of their criminal activities. As criminals change the way they do things, it is vital that our law enforcement agencies are able to continue to effectively detect, disrupt and deter activities harmful to Australians.
Conclusion
This bill demonstrates the government's commitment to deterring and disrupting cybercriminals who target Australians and use ransomware to lock their systems and extort them for financial gain.
Supported by a broad suite of legislative, policy and operational reforms, this bill helps make Australia a harder target for ransomware gangs. By protecting Australians and Australian businesses from cyberthreats, the government is safeguarding the nation's connectivity and promise of our digital future.
I commend this bill to the House.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (11:25): I move:
That the debate be adjourned.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ): The question is that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Question agreed to.
Debate adjourned.
Treasury Laws Amendment (Modernising Business Communications) Bill 2022
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Sukkar.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Treasurer, Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness, Social and Community Housing) (11:26): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Treasury Laws Amendment (Modernising Business Communications) Bill 2022 (the bill) modernises several Treasury portfolio laws to improve technology neutrality across a range of business communications. The reforms will reduce business costs and better reflect the way Australians want to engage and communicate.
These reforms are part of the government's commitment to modernise business communications as part of our broader Deregulation Agenda. It builds on the recently passed reforms to the Corporations Act 2001 (the Corporations Act) in respect of meetings, meeting related materials and document execution.
The bill expands these reforms so that documents required or permitted to be signed by the Corporations Act can be signed in a technology-neutral manner. The bill expands the range of documents that can be communicated in either electronic or physical form to more chapters in the Corporations Act, including non-meeting materials to members, and takeovers and compulsory acquisitions. The bill ensures that members can choose to receive the documents in whichever way they prefer.
The bill legislates and expands the existing relief provided by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission to entities for sending documents to 'lost members', expanding the relief to cover all documents sent to members. The bill also proposes that entities will not have to send documents to a member whose contact details are known to be wrong and where the entity is unable to ascertain the new address of that respective member.
The bill also amends the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 and the National Credit Code to give more flexibility to consumers and credit providers to communicate in ways that best suit their own circumstances.
The bill more closely aligns the electronic communication requirements under the National Credit Code with the communications regime established in the Corporations Act. Credit providers can send documents physically, electronically as an attachment or by providing customers with enough information to access the document electronically. Where a customer has not nominated an address for communication, a credit provider will be able to send documents required under the National Credit Code to either the last known physical or electronic address of the consumer, with safeguards for existing customers.
Consumers remain able to specify their communication preferences and will be able to let credit providers know of their preferences in any appropriate manner, whether or not in writing. Credit providers will also be able to specify the groups of documents for these nominations.
Amendments are also made to several Treasury portfolio laws that make it clear that electronic payment options can be used.
Existing requirements to publish notices only in newspapers will be amended to provide greater flexibility and use of more modern communication methods. Advances in technology and changes in public engagement with the news mean that notices published in newspapers may no longer reach the intended audience in the most effective way.
Notices will need to be published in a manner which results in them being accessible to the intended audience, be it the public or customers, and be reasonably prominent. Entities can continue to publish their notices in newspapers where appropriate.
The government will continue to ensure that regulatory settings are fit for purpose by improving the technology-neutrality of Treasury laws. This, ultimately, makes it easier for businesses to benefit from new technologies, invest and create jobs, both now and into the future.
Finally, I might add, the Legislative and Governance Forum for Corporations was consulted in relation to the bill and has approved it as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002. Full details of all of these measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
Treasury Laws Amendment (Streamlining and Improving Economic Outcomes for Australians) Bill 2022
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Sukkar.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Treasurer, Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness, Social and Community Housing) (11:31): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Schedule 1 to the bill implements the government's 2021-22 budget commitment to restore previously well-established licensing relief for foreign financial service providers to ensure continued access to foreign financial service providers for Australian investors.
Access to foreign financial service providers enhances market competition, lowers costs and increases the diversity of investments and sources of financing available for Australians.
The previously well-established relief is substantially restored through the introduction of new legislated exemptions, while improving regulatory safeguard mechanisms to address Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) concerns with the previous relief.
Schedule 1 introduces the comparable regulator exemption,whichexempts foreign financial service providers from the requirement to be licensed when dealing with Australian wholesale clients. The exemption applies to foreign financial service providers that are authorised to provide financial services in a comparable regulatory regime.
Schedule 1 to the bill also introduces the professional investor exemption which is targeted to foreign financial service providers who provide financial services from outside Australia to professional investors.
Lastly, the fit-and-proper person assessment exemption fast-tracks the licensing requirements for foreign financial service providers by exempting certain providers from the fit-and-proper person assessment when applying for a standard financial services licence in Australia if they wish to do so.
This government continually supports the reduction of regulatory barriers across financial services when it makes sense to do so. Regulatory safeguard mechanisms have been enhanced in the restored relief, including the ability for ASIC to add new conditions to providers relying on the exemptions. Further, oversight has been improved by adding a requirement to notify ASIC of any reliance on the relief.
The Legislative and Governance Forum for Corporations was notified of these changes as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002.
Schedule 2 to the bill extends and adapts the financial reporting and auditing requirements in chapter 2M of the Corporations Act 2001 to apply to registrable superannuation entities. This will improve the quality and transparency of financial reports that are prepared by super funds.
Superannuation funds with more than four members currently have a combined value of $2.3 trillion, almost the same value as all listed companies in Australia.
Given the importance of the super sector and the need for trust and transparency, it's appropriate that superannuation funds are subject to similar financial reporting obligations as public companies.
Importantly, the new financial reporting requirements will require registrable superannuation entities to lodge financial reports on the public record with the ASIC.
Requiring registrable superannuation entities to lodge financial reports with ASIC will, obviously, increase the consistency and transparency of financial information that's publicly available and complement APRA's regulation of super funds by enabling stronger enforcement action to be taken to ensure compliance with the financial reporting requirements.
The new requirements will impose stricter rules for auditors of registrable superannuation entities which includes additional reporting and independence obligations for audit firms and audit companies.
The government has carefully examined the issues raised by stakeholders during consultation on the exposure draft legislation and the subsequent changes to the bill are therefore aimed at reducing the regulatory burden on the superannuation and auditing sector while maintaining appropriate transparency.
These changes complement the government's suite of reforms to improve the transparency and accountability of the superannuation system, including the recent Your Future, Your Super changes.
Finally, schedule 3 to the bill allows small businesses to seek orders from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal that stay, or otherwise affect, ATO debt recovery actions while the small business is disputing the underlying tax assessment in the Small Business Taxation Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
These amendments implement the 2021-22 budget measure 'Increased powers for the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in relation to small business taxation decisions'.
Small businesses will save in court and legal fees and as much as 60 days waiting for a decision, as compared to the current process of applying to a state or federal court for a stay on debt recovery.
These orders will be subject to integrity checks intended to prevent aggressive taxpayers without genuine disputes from receiving stay orders sought with the intention of frustrating the recovery of genuine tax debts.
As always, full details of these measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
Public Sector Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2022
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Sukkar.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Treasurer, Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness, Social and Community Housing) (11:37): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Public Sector Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2022 makes consequential amendments to a number of public sector superannuation acts as a result of the parliament's enactment last year of the Your Future, Your Super reforms. This bill ensures that relevant Commonwealth public sector superannuation arrangements are treated consistent with those sector-wide reforms that apply to other Australians.
Because of the unique complexities inherent in some of these Commonwealth arrangements, that don't exist for other MySuper products, these consequential reforms have necessarily been drafted after the enactment of last year's legislation. In the 2020-21 federal budget, the government announced the Your Future, Your Super suite of superannuation reforms. These reforms made the superannuation system better for members in four primary ways:
Your superannuation now follows you as you move jobs, preventing the creation of unintended multiple superannuation accounts with duplicative fees.
The reforms empowered members, by making it easier for people to compare products and choose a well-performing product that meets their needs.
Funds are now held to account for underperformance, protecting members from poor outcomes and encouraging funds to lower costs and fees, ultimately to boost Australians' retirement incomes.
There is also now increased transparency and accountability around how superannuation funds use members' savings.
The Public Sector Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2022 makes consequential amendments to the Parliamentary Superannuation Act 2004, the Superannuation Act 2005 (which establishes the Public Sector Superannuation Accumulation Plan known as PSSap) and the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021, to apply the relevant Your Future, Your Super reforms.
The consequential amendments to the Parliamentary Superannuation Act 2004 and the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 will enable an existing superannuation account of a new parliamentarian, and division 2 judge of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia to follow them as they change jobs, consistent with the treatment of other Australians.
This 'stapling' reform reduces account fees, avoiding new super accounts being opened every time a person starts a new job.
The consequential amendments bring these superannuation arrangements into line with the general choice of fund requirements set out under the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992.
Included in the consequential amendments are updated arrangements to select a default fund in instances where a fund has failed the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority annual performance test for MySuper products in two consecutive years. In such circumstances, the fund is required to notify its members that it failed the test and is unable to accept new members into the product. The bill includes consequential amendments providing arrangements to then determine a well-performing new default fund for new parliamentarians and APS employees.
I now turn to the detail of the bill.
Part 1 of schedule 1 to the bill amends the Parliamentary Superannuation Act 2004 and the Superannuation Act 2005.
The Parliamentary Superannuation Act 2004 sets out the superannuation arrangements for persons who first become members of the federal parliament, or return to the parliament after a previous period in parliament, at or after the 9 October 2004 election. The amendments have, therefore, no impact on the Commonwealth's pre-2004 closed parliamentary scheme.
Part 1 of schedule 1 to the bill amends the Parliamentary Superannuation Act 2004 to allow Commonwealth employer contributions for new parliamentarians covered by the act to be paid to a parliamentarian's pre-existing fund, that is, their stapled fund, except where another fund is expressly chosen by that person.
Currently Commonwealth employer contributions for the parliamentarians covered by the Parliamentary Superannuation Act 2004 can only be paid to a fund chosen by the parliamentarian or to a default fund selected by the Minister for Finance.
Part 1 of schedule 1 to the bill also amends the Parliamentary Superannuation Act 2004 to put in place new arrangements for the determination of a default fund for new parliamentarians if an existing default fund cannot accept new members because of not meeting for two consecutive years the annual performance test as is required for MySuper products. The bill specifies the objective requirements of, and a disallowable instrument for, that determination.
The Superannuation Act 2005 established the Public Sector Superannuation Accumulation Plan (PSSAP) on 1 July 2005. PSSAP is the default fund for new APS employees.
Where a new APS employee does not choose a superannuation fund and has no stapled fund, the person becomes a member of the PSSAP and employer contributions in respect of them are paid to the PSSAP (MySuper product).
Part 1 of schedule 1 to the bill amends the Superannuation Act 2005 to allow an alternative default fund to be put in place if the PSSAP (MySuper product) cannot accept new members because of not meeting for two consecutive years the annual performance test for MySuper products. PSSAP continues to perform well compared to the market, I might add, but it is appropriate that there is a transparent approach provided, as a contingency, in case of an underperformance scenario.
The changes to the Parliamentary Superannuation Act 2004 and the Superannuation Act 2005 ensure that, if ever a scenario was to arise where the existing default fund for parliamentarians or APS employees could not accept new members, the Commonwealth can continue to meet its default fund obligations that are required under the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992.
A new default fund can only be determined transparently in accordance with a methodological approach prescribed by the Minister for Finance in a disallowable legislative instrument.
The prescribed method must include a requirement that the fund be a complying superannuation fund; and involve either an assessment of funds according to fees and costs and investment returns, or a comparison of one or more publicly available rankings of funds that take account of fees and costs and, of course, investment returns. In other words the test requires an objective comparison based on the performance of alternative funds.
The amendments to the Superannuation Act 2005 will also allow the minister to determine, through a disallowable legislative instrument, administration matters related to an alternative default fund. This is to ensure alignment and continuation of employer contribution arrangements for the alternative default fund, with those that apply in relation to PSSAP.
Part 2 of schedule 1 to the bill makes consequential amendments to the Governance of Australian Government Superannuation Schemes Act 2011 and the Parliamentary Business Resources Act 2017.
Part 3 of schedule 1 to the bill amends the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021.
Currently under that act, the Commonwealth superannuation contributions for Division 2 judges of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia can only be paid to a fund chosen by a judge.
Part 3 of schedule 1 to the bill amends the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 to allow Commonwealth superannuation contributions to also be paid to a stapled fund where the judge has not chosen a fund.
The bill will also allow Commonwealth superannuation contributions to be paid to a default fund if the judge has not chosen a fund and has no stapled fund.
Part 4 of schedule 1 to the bill puts in place transitional arrangements related to the amendments to the Parliamentary Superannuation Act 2004.
I commend this bill.
Debate adjourned.
Education Legislation Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr T.R. Wilson, for Mr Robert.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein—Assistant Minister to the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction) (11:48): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Education Legislation Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022 provides assistance to the higher education sector through the COVID-19 pandemic, supports the national priority of building a highly skilled workforce through access to education, and builds on the government's commitment to support access to health services in rural, remote and very remote Australia.
Schedule 3 of the bill amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to extend the FEE-HELP loan fee exemption for a further 12 months. This exemption originally commenced on 1 April 2020 as a COVID-19 financial relief measure, and will now continue through to 31 December 2022. This will assist approximately 30,000 full-fee paying undergraduate students accessing FEE-HELP to study in 2022, as well as supporting the mostly private higher education providers at which these students are enrolled.
Schedule 4 of the bill allows students to access FEE-HELP loans to study microcredential courses delivered as part of the Australian government's microcredentials pilot. The larger microcredential pilot program encourages universities to develop and deliver new microcredential programs, supporting the national priority to build a highly skilled workforce through more flexible and industry focused models of higher education.
Schedule 5 of the bill amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003to encourage employment and increase retention of doctors and nurse practitioners in rural, remote and very remote regions of Australia. The new measures will reduce outstanding HELP debts for eligible doctors and nurse practitioners who work in these locations for a required amount of time, and will also allow for the waiver of the indexation of their HELP debts.
The government is committed to improving services in regional and remote Australia. These measures incentivise doctors and nurses to relocate to rural, remote and very remote Australia, improving health services in those areas by ensuring those areas are able to attract and retain health practitioners.
Measures in schedules 3, 4, and 5 of the bill implement or support policies included in the government's 2021-22 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook budget announcement.
Schedules 1 and 2 of the bill make minor changes to improve the operation of the Higher Education Support Act 2003byaligning the citizenship and residency requirements for New Zealand citizens accessing HELP loans with other eligible non-Australian citizens, and clarifying student and provider obligations relating to the Unique Student Identifier.
Other measures in the bill make minor and technical amendments to improve the operation of the Higher Education Support Act 2003 and the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011.
These amendments support the government's commitment to supporting higher education and skilling Australia's workforce, and to improving health services in rural, remote and regional Australia.
I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Higher Education Support Amendment (Australia’s Economic Accelerator) Bill 2022
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr T Wilson, for Mr Robert.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein—Assistant Minister to the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction) (11:52): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Higher Education Support Amendment (Australia's Economic Accelerator) Bill 2022 amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (HESA) to provide increased support for the translation and commercialisation of the world-leading research undertaken at our universities.
Investment in research commercialisation will drive economic growth. The development of new technology and knowledge improves production processes, reduces costs and creates better and innovative new products for export. The benefits are shared through the economy as these new innovations are applied across industry and consumers reap the benefits of new and better products.
Australia produces world-leading foundational research but underperforms on commercialisation outcomes. This limits the economic impact of our universities and shrinks the return on the government's substantial research investment. Research breakthroughs are too often left on the shelf rather than taken down the innovation pipeline, which would create new jobs and lift productivity.
For Australia to realise new opportunities we need a well-functioning research ecosystem where our world-class research is translated into real-world innovations and productivity gains.
This bill will create a new set of arrangements aimed squarely at crossing the so-called valley of death between research outcomes and commercialisation. The bill will amend the Higher Education Support Act to provide for a new pathway of investments to assist eligible higher education providers to develop research in areas of national priority and progress new technologies and services to a state of commercial investor readiness.
This bill is a key milestone in the continued rollout of the government's university research commercialisation agenda, providing the legislative authority to establish the government's flagship research commercialisation program, Australia's Economic Accelerator, in the Other Grants Guidelines.
The AEA will accelerate reform in the higher education sector for translation and commercialisation research capacity by establishing an innovative funding program to invest initially in six priority driven objectives aligned with the National Manufacturing Priorities.
The AEA will feature a fast-fail model designed to attract projects with high commercialisation potential at the proof of concept or proof of scale level of commercial readiness. Projects will progress through the program based on continued success and achievement of milestones. To incentivise ongoing excellence, program funding will increase as projects mature towards at-scale commercialisation.
To support this new grant opportunity and ensure its success, the bill also establishes an innovative governance framework, including the new 'Australia's Economic Accelerator Advisory Board'. The board, which will have up to eight expert representatives from government, industry, business, and research sectors, will oversee the program and will draw upon their collective experience to drive the translation and commercialisation of university research.
Supporting the board, the bill also provides for specialist 'priority managers' to provide expert knowledge and skills to support funded projects.
Further amendments in this bill will also establish a range of new industry-led study and postgraduate research programs, building stronger linkages between industry and universities by creating a clear and structured research career pathway in innovation and commercialisation focused research.
Scholarships will support PhD students to demonstrate the value of their research to industry partners, or demonstrate their research capability against tangible, real-world challenges with industry for outcomes that have commercial and financial benefits. Scholarships will also support researchers employed at research and development active businesses to undertake a PhD whilst maintaining employment in a relevant industry.
Together, these scholarship programs will recognise and reward commercially focused research by supporting workforce mobility between industry and academia though elevated career pathways. Recipients will be supported to foster networks and linkages between university and industry, developing long-term partnerships and building a culture of collaboration.
These scholarships provide the foundation for a career in innovation—and further reforms to fellowship schemes administered by the Australian Research Council will build these career pathways in our universities.
It should no longer be the case that a researcher wanting to pursue the application of their research has to take time out from their academic career to do so.
The new innovation fellowships will ensure that time spent working with industry or in a start-up business is part of an academic career, with just as much value and recognition as the career pathways focused on teaching and research.
In summary, measures contained in this bill will make it easier for universities and businesses to work together to commercialise research that will build our sovereign capability and grow the economy.
By building on the government's earlier Job-ready Graduates reforms to higher education, this bill further recalibrates our world-class higher education system to ensure closer linkages and partnerships with industry, creating new jobs, lifting productivity and driving economic growth.
Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
COMMITTEES
Public Works Joint Committee
Reference
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein—Assistant Minister to the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction) (11:58): On behalf of the Minister for the Public Service, I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications—(Infrastructure)—Cocos (Keeling) Islands West Island—Seawater Reserve Osmosis plant and Wastewater Treatment plant upgrade.
The work will involve the construction of a new seawater reserve and osmosis plant and a capacity upgrade of the existing wastewater treatment plant. The proposed works will generate multiple benefits by protecting water security through a sustainable water source, ensuring safer, more livable communities and the continuity of economic activity. The estimated cost of the works is $18.4 million, excluding GST. The work must be referred to, considered by and reported on by, both houses of parliament by the Public Works Committee before work can commence. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction activities are expected to commence in April 2023 and be completed by January 2024.
I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
Reference
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein—Assistant Minister to the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction) (12:00): On behalf of the Minister for the Public Service, I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority—Douglas Shoal Environmental Remediation.
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is proposing to undertake environmental remediation of the Douglas Shoal area within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. The remediation works will address extensive damage caused by the coal carrier Shen Neng 1 which ran aground in 2010, causing contamination of an area of more than 40 hectares. The proposed environmental remediation will involve the removal of rubble and contaminants that are impeding natural recovery and management and disposal of these onshore.
The estimated cost of remediation works is $19.4 million, excluding GST. The works will be funded from an out-of-court settlement negotiated by the Commonwealth with the ship's owners and insurers. The works must be referred to, considered by, and reported on by, both houses of parliament by the Public Works Committee before works can commence. Subject to parliamentary approval, works are expected to commence from mid-2022 and be completed by early 2024.
I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
Commonwealth Integrity Commission
Dr HAINES (Indi) (12:02): I may not be a career politician, but I know when I'm being taken for a ride. The Prime Minister's laughable excuse that he cannot legislate his dud integrity commission proposal because the opposition won't support it is totally absurd. He's never applied that standard to any other legislation. The Prime Minister has taken me, the crossbench, the opposition and his own backbench for a ride when he said that he wanted to work on a bill in a bipartisan way. The facts are clear. He had no intention on working on this in a bipartisan way.
The Prime Minister has also taken for a ride hundreds of Australians who gave feedback on his dud proposal. There has been over a year of what is now clearly fake consultation, and not one change has been made. He played the public for a patsy, but they are smarter than that. Make no mistake: this is a deliberate decision by the Prime Minister to avoid accountability. Make no mistake: this Prime Minister doesn't want a cop on the beat at this forthcoming election, when he's about to pork-barrel and rort with total abandon. There will be no consequences for that while this Prime Minister is in charge.
Don't think you can fool me. This is not respectable leadership. MPs on both sides think that—not just the crossbench and the opposition. Strong leadership creates bipartisanship, and, as it stands, that has not been achieved. The majority of MPs right here right now support my gold standard Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill. It's sitting here right on the Notice Paper. I say to this government: what has all this lording over us with punitive standing orders achieved? You should show up and face the music. Have a debate. Support a bill that can bring to fruition legislation that all the nation wants.
The 46th Parliament is coming to a close, and this government has failed the nation. It has failed the nation on integrity. I will never stop bringing this to the attention of this House, even in the dying days of this parliament. Our nation deserves so much better than this. The legislating of a federal integrity commission was a character test for this Prime Minister and his government, and I stand here today saying he has failed that character test. And it's not just me who knows it; the nation knows it.
Mrs ARCHER (Bass) (12:05): I want to again thank the member for Indi for the work she has done in continuing to bring attention to this issue. When I stood last year to support her efforts to have this bill debated, I said then it was one of the most important things, or the most important thing, that we come here to do. And I still maintain that. I believe that this issue needs to be debated. It is also clear that this parliament is running out of time to legislate an integrity bill.
The important thing I would like to note today is that we must have a multipartisan approach to this issue. We must not allow this issue to be lost in the politics and in the tribalism of the politics that can go on in this place and outside it. This is such an important issue. It's fundamental to the trust and confidence that we need from the Australian people to do our jobs. I would urge cooperation and collaboration from all parties on all sides to take this forward in the next parliament. It simply will not happen, and it will not create the institution that is necessary, if there is a 'my idea is better than your idea' approach. We really need to find a way to come together and collaborate on this in the best interests of all Australians.
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (12:07): I thank the member for Indi for bringing this forward and my colleague. A properly working parliament requires trust, honesty and integrity. It is clear that our standing in the public has taken a bashing, because these key attributes are in question. Between the scandals that have plagued all governments over the past few decades and the chaos that people see in question time and on the news, public faith in our parliamentary institutions is very low. We need a federal ICAC so we can take action, take the first step, to regain the respect of Australians, who need to have confidence that we are all acting with the integrity and honesty that they rightly expect of us.
This sitting fortnight we have seen many members give their valedictory speeches, and a common theme has been the need for bipartisanship. Bipartisanship is necessary for many of our dealings but it is especially important on this issue. We need our leaders and parties to come together on this issue, because a solution will need to outlive a three-year parliament and will need to outlive governments. For too long this has been a political football, each side happier to score political points than to get the job done. The government has proposed a bill but has not accepted debate on it. The opposition hasn't even offered its own version or been willing to do anything constructive, relying simply on criticising the government's bill. None of this is productive.
This needs goodwill between the two parties. We must stop bashing heads and instead put our heads together to work our way forward. This is too important to play politics with, because we've seen what happens around the world when people lose trust in their elected representatives. So let's form a team. A team is a group of people who come together with a common goal. Let's form a team to represent Australians, to ensure honesty and integrity as the foundations for those who represent us and those who seek to lead.
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (12:10): I would like to commend the comments made by the member for Bennelong and the member for Bass. When we stand here, we all stand here representing our electorates, and our communities collectively across Australia want to think that the decisions that are made in this place are made in the national interest, not in the interests of mates or in self-interest. Unfortunately, I think we've lost our way in this place. I think that there is a growing feeling across the community that those of us in here are just in it for ourselves. We can fix that with a federal ICAC. We really can. We need to be able to show the Australian community that the decisions we make in here are transparent and they're made with good governance.
We are not our best selves in this place. This is my second term. We are in the last days of this parliament. Many of us have been talking for years—it's been six years for me—about the need for a federal ICAC. It hasn't happened, and what a wasted opportunity for us as a parliament and for our nation that we haven't acted on what was an election promise prior to the last election. I'm deeply disappointed that this hasn't happened. We've had ample time. We could sit next week and the week after. This should be done by the government and I would urge this government to be its best self and allow all of us to be our best selves. Let's work together to get a federal ICAC happening.
Mr WILKIE (Clark) (12:12): Can I observe that trust in politics and politicians in this country right now is at rock bottom. That's no wonder, because of all the scandals and the suspicions of scandals, but also because of the complete absence of a regulatory framework to protect the country from misconduct and because of the continuing refusal of the government to put in place that framework. For as long as I've been in this place, I, too, have argued for some sort of federal integrity agency with teeth. That could be easily achieved with bipartisan support in this place, and it will be a priority for the next government, whoever that is, to move in that direction quickly after the next election.
I'll take this opportunity to also say that an appropriate regulatory framework will not be just a federal integrity agency. We also need better whistleblower protection, so witnesses to misconduct can speak up and are protected. We also need media freedom laws, so the media can publicise that misconduct. We also need truth in political advertising laws, and we need political donation reform so we know exactly who is donating to who and who has the real power in this country. That's what's required. It's all easily achieved, and it must be a priority for the next government after the election. The Labor Party has said that they will pursue a federal integrity agency. I applaud them for that. And I say to the current government that, if they should be returned, they must finally get into step with the community.
In closing, I offer congratulations to my fellow Tasmanian, the member for Bass. The member for Bass has been outspoken and strong on this for a long time, and she's taken a very brave leadership position. I say to the member for Bass: when you crossed the floor late last year in our unsuccessful attempt to bring on the member for Indi's private member's bill, that was the single bravest thing I've seen any member do in this place in my 12 years. Thank you.
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (12:14): Of all the people in Australia, I probably am the most qualified to speak on this. I don't say that out of some vain hubris. A group of policemen in Queensland murdered 42 people. That's a matter of public record. For twenty-one of them, in the Whisky Au Go Go fire, it wasn't intentional, but they still murdered them, Forty-two people were murdered. We had no integrity commission. I tried to do something by myself, and I'm sure other members did; at least one ALP member did. And it was terrifying, absolutely terrifying. We had no integrity commission and nothing of that nature, and it led to the most dreadful of outcomes. The Fitzgerald inquiry had nothing to do with government corruption. It was about the police force murdering people. It was discovered that the commissioner of police himself had been providing protection—I don't think he had any idea of the extent to which the thing had gone. But, regardless of that, here's the thing: if you don't have an integrity body, then this can happen. And when you do have it, it can terrify people who should be terrified.
In Queensland, we have the most extraordinary situation where the Premier raided the Integrity Commissioner's office when she wasn't there, took all the files, and then closed down the Integrity Commissioner's office by taking all the staff away. She has precedent for that. She ordered Robbie Katter, the leader of our party in the state parliament, to publicly state something, and, 'if you don't, I'm going to punish you'—flagrantly illegal, threatening a member of parliament to force him to do something that he didn't want to do and hadn't intended to do. A clear breach of the section in the crimes act. Now, two bodies looked at it and neither of them would go there: they wouldn't say she had been right, but they wouldn't say any action should be taken. Now, if it's a parliamentary committee of integrity, the two major parties get together and they have a little tete-a-tete, and, 'I won't pick on you if you won't pick on me'. That's what happened in the Robbie Katter case.
The second case is far, far more troubling—that a government closes down the Integrity Commissioner—but it proves the necessity for an Integrity Commissioner, because if the Premier could go to such lengths, clearly there is something bloody awful in the Integrity Commissioner's files—something that no-one has now. The files have been taken by a government department and they have vanished. With the heroism of this lady sitting here in front of me, the member for Indi, maybe we will never have a situation in the federal parliament where 42 human beings get murdered by a group of corrupt policemen. And, far from saying that the Queensland Integrity Commissioner does not have teeth, what this actually proves is that they have very, very real teeth, so much so that a government has moved to completely destroy the Integrity Commissioner.
I don't think any decent people on either side of this parliament would say that we don't need something. There are grave dangers. There were so many innocent people hurt in the Fitzgerald inquiry. I can get physically sick even thinking about the wonderful, heroic coppers that had child pornography put on their computers. Judge Vasta was hung, drawn and quartered without the slightest bit of evidence ever being produced, and he has gone to his grave now. So there is a terrible downside. But if you add to the downside and have a look at what was happening in Queensland then, and is happening again now, my point about the Integrity Commissioner in Queensland is that whatever was in those files was so damaging and so serious that the government would take the most incredible action to close it down. And that is proof positive of why you need an Integrity Commissioner. They have got onto stuff that needed to be put on the public record and was so serious for the government that they would take this measure to close it down. So I applaud the member for Indi and her statement on the need for a federal integrity commission, and I'm proud to be in her little group of crossbenchers and proud to be with Andrew Wilkie and all the others who have been pushing for this. Even though I know the terrible downside to this sort of initiative, clearly we must go with it.
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs) (12:20): The government has broken the promise that it made to the Australian people before the last election. The Prime Minister has failed to deliver a national anticorruption commission. I'm very heartened to hear all of the members of the crossbench and two government backbenchers express their concern about the failure on the part of this government. The Prime Minister stood up on 13 December 2018 and made this commitment to the Australian people. Since then, all that we have had from this Prime Minister is a sham consultation, a fake process and hundreds of submissions, many of them expressing deep criticisms about the government's model—and every single one of those comments has been ignored. By contrast with the government's position, Labor, if elected, will establish a powerful, transparent and independent national anticorruption commission. We will make it a priority if we are elected to government.
COMMITTEES
Parliamentary Standards
Membership
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Andrews ) (12:21): I have received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip nominating members to be members of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards.
Ms LEY (Farrer—Minister for the Environment) (12:22): by leave—I move:
That Ms Claydon and Ms Wells be appointed members of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards.
Debate interrupted.
Environment and Energy Committee
Report
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (12:22): On behalf of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, I present the committee's advice and report, incorporating dissenting reports, on the inquiry into the Australian Local Power Agency Bill 2021 and the Australian Local Power Agency (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021, together with the minutes of the proceedings.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr TED O'BRIEN: by leave—Australia's regional communities want access to affordable, reliable and secure energy. As Australia's electricity generation mix changes and the grid transitions to a less carbonised future, consumers across Australia, not just in metropolitan areas, should have the opportunity to benefit from improvements to the electricity system. Regional and rural communities are keen to be involved in their cleaner energy future and have indicated that smaller scale energy projects, up to 10 megawatts, can struggle to attract development and progression.
The bills before the committee were introduced by the member for Indi and follow her own consultative process to address these perceived gaps in regional energy investment and supply. The bills are intended to give effect to the Local Power Plan, the LPP, to promote renewable energy generation and community power projects in regional, rural and remote Australia. The bills would establish the Australian Local Power Agency, the ALPA, as a new corporate Commonwealth entity responsible for driving investment in community energy projects and supporting regional communities in sharing the benefits of renewable energy.
The committee called for submissions on the bills in February 2021. The committee received 71 submissions and 13 supplementary submissions. The inquiry was also the subject of two email campaigns, yielding 1,001 contributions. The committee held a public hearing in August 2021, taking further evidence from 30 interested stakeholders, including from regional communities. Ultimately, based on the evidence received in the inquiry, the committee considers that the creation of another bureaucratic agency with all the costs and administration that entails would not be of benefit to Australia. In the committee's view, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation are the appropriate agencies to undertake the work of providing support to renewable energy projects in Australia, including regional communities. For these reasons, the committee has recommended that the bills not be passed.
I thank my colleagues on the committee who actively participated in and brought their perspectives to this inquiry, in particular I acknowledge the work of the member for Indi in bringing these bills forward and participating as a supplementary member on the inquiry. I thank the secretariat for, again, their diligence and good work, and, finally, I thank all the individuals and organisations that contributed to the committee's inquiry through submissions and participation in public hearings. I commend the report to the House.
Dr HAINES (Indi) (12:26): by leave—I wish to thank the member for Fairfax for tabling the report on my Australian Local Power Agency Bill. I'd also like to recognise the dedicated and fair-minded approach that the member for Fairfax has brought to this role in overseeing the committee work and inquiry into my bill.
The Australian Local Power Agency Bill 2021 was born in Indi, and my electorate is leading the nation in the renewable energy transition. We have around a dozen community energy groups already, and, in fact, this Saturday I'll formally be launching the new Myrtleford community power group. These groups, led by hardworking volunteers, have installed solar power on CFA's, health centres, hospitals, low-income housing and kindergartens. They've built community batteries and they've built mini grids, and in doing so they strengthen their communities. They're not waiting for the government to fix their problems. They're not waiting for big companies to come in and build things for them. They're everyday regional people getting on with it and building renewables themselves.
Throughout 2020 I met with these groups right across my electorate and invited submissions from all across the country. Our goal was simple: we wished to design a policy framework at the federal level to support the incredible work in community renewables that was already taking place right across regional Australia, and the outcome of that process was the Local Power Plan. The Local Power Plan sketched out an ambitious vision to make regional Australia home to the best renewable energy industry and to harness the power that industry has to deliver a generation of prosperity for everyday regional Australian people. To do that, the Local Power Plan proposed three things.
First, the Local Power Plan proposed a new program of funding and technical support to help communities to develop their own projects. It's abundantly clear that, if we want all our regional sporting clubs and hospitals and community organisations to access the benefits of cheap, clean, reliable renewables, we need more funding and we need technical support on the ground to help make these projects happen. Second, the Local Power Plan proposed a mechanism to attract investment. Many communities around the country want to develop their own locally owned midscale solar farms and batteries, but to do that they need to attract investment. The government already has a scheme to underwrite investment in commercial projects. Community projects deserve the same treatment. Third, the Local Power Plan said we need a way for regional communities to share in the economic benefits of large-scale renewable projects. Too often we see these large-scale commercial projects being built without delivering their full potential to regional Australia. We need to be seeing more local jobs and new sources of income for local people, and the profits shouldn't just flow to the cities or offshore.
While it stops short of recommending the establishment of a new agency for regional Australia, this committee report, tabled today, recognises that regional Australia needs these three things. On funding and technical support, the committee report finds:
… that existing grant and investment mechanisms do not adequately support projects in regional Australia …
and that the government should look at how it can provide:
… properly resourced technical assistance, delivered through ARENA, for community groups in regional Australia that wish to develop their own community energy projects.
On investment, the committee report finds the government should look to:
… establish a dedicated mechanism for small communities and community energy organisations—
to attract investment. And on large-scale benefits sharing, the committee:
… acknowledges a desire in regional communities to see more local benefits from large scale energy projects.
This is the first time that an Australian government has recognised the need for serious reform to put proper investment behind community energy. Now, certainly there are gaps. The committee report accepts that stronger support for community energy would deliver real benefits for regional Australia and that reform is needed, but the road map to reform is now in the hands of the government. The government's response to this report should implement the three core planks of the Local Power Plan. The government should commit $300 million to set up a dedicated local power fund within ARENA to support these community energy projects, and couple that financial support with a nationwide system of community power hubs to provide that on-the-ground technical support. The government should set up a dedicated mechanism to attract private sector investment into locally owned renewables projects. And the government should develop, and publish, its own proposal to enhance local benefit sharing from large-scale renewable energy projects. To get all of this done, we need a top to bottom review of ARENA to identify the best way to place regional Australia at the centre of its remit, not as an afterthought.
When I first came to parliament just a few years ago, I committed to fighting for policies that will back the regions to seize the opportunities of renewable energy, and as long as I'm here I'll continue to fight for these recommendations to be delivered because the regions simply cannot, and must not, be left behind in the renewable energy transition. We need a plan to make renewable energy the next wool boom, the next gold rush. I've got such a plan. A cross-party committee has endorsed its fundamental elements. Now it's on the government to take it up, and I truly, truly encourage them to do so.
Mr TED O ' BRIEN (Fairfax) (12:33): I move:
That the House take note of the report.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr TED O ' BRIEN (Fairfax) (12:33): I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
Parliamentary Standards
Membership
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Andrews ) (12:33): There is a matter that needs to be completed. The motion that Ms Claydon and Ms Wells be appointed members of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards wasn't actually put. I put that motion now.
Question agreed to.
BUSINESS
Suspension Of Standing And Sessional Orders
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (12:33): I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent government business order of the day No. 45 being called on for debate immediately.
The government have said that they want this debated. Well, bring the debate on and let's have it now!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Is the motion seconded?
Mr BRENDAN O ' CONNOR (Gorton) (12:34): I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Andrews ): The question is that the motion for the suspension of standing orders be disagreed to.
A division having been called and the bells having been rung—
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business?
Mr Burke: On a point of order, under standing orders, the people who called for a division, if they then don't vote the way they called, are named. Otherwise we end up with a ridiculous situation with people calling divisions just for sport or out of habit.
The SPEAKER: Order! Manager of Opposition Business, would you like to take me to that particular provision, please—and in the Practice, if you've got it?
Mr Burke interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The simple way of dealing with this is—I wasn't here in the chamber when a division was called for. Ordinarily, when there's an insufficient number of people—namely, four or fewer people—the division is not actually continued with.
Mr Albanese: On the point of order—
The SPEAKER: Yes, the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Albanese: Thanks, Mr Speaker. If it helps as well, page 280 of House of Representatives Practice says, under 'Requirement to vote a certain way':
Members calling for a division must not leave the area of Members' seats and must vote with those Members who, in the Speaker's opinion, were in a minority when the Members called 'Aye' or 'No'.
It makes it very clear.
T he SPEAKER: Well, page 280 of Practice also requires me to have called for tellers, which I hadn't done yet. But standing order 128 also states:
Members calling for a division must not leave the area of Members' seats—
it doesn't say which seats—
and they must vote with those—
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lingiari?
Mr Snowdon interjecting—
The SPEAKER: No? It's very hard to tell. I thank the member for Lingiari, and I thank those members opposite for their support of the member for Lingiari. But this goes to a broader point. When I am, as the Speaker, ruling on an issue like this, it is reflecting on the chair when I get smart-alec comments or—
Mr Snowdon: I didn't rise, Mr Speaker.
The SPEAKER: Well, I'll try and direct my eyes more broadly when I'm saying this, then. There's so much I could say. You're reflecting on the chair. Members are reflecting on the chair when they are calling into doubt or question any considerations that I'm making, so I'd ask members to be mindful of that, please. Now, returning to standing order 128, it says:
Members calling for a division must not leave the area of Members' seats and they must vote with those Members who, in the Speaker's opinion, were in the minority when the Members called 'Aye' or 'No'.
The simple fact of the matter is that I, as the Speaker, am not in the chair all the time. As we know, we have deputy chairs and deputy speakers and Speaker's panel members. I couldn't possibly know who called for the division. In any event, we've wasted enough of colleagues' time. There is no-one voting for the ayes. Under standing order 126, if only one member calls for a division, the division does not proceed. Clearly, this division does not proceed when there is no-one on the ayes.
Mr Burke: Mr Speaker, on a point of order. On other occasions, where you haven't been able to hear who made an objection on something like that, you have asked people to come forward if they were the person. There are two people, at least, who called for a division, and I would be surprised if, at the very least, the Leader of the House does not answer the question as to who called the division if you asked, which is what the ordinary process has been.
The SPEAKER: I'm not going to detain the House any longer, Manager of Opposition Business.
BILLS
Criminal Code Amendment (Firearms Trafficking) Bill 2022
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr BRENDAN O ' CONNOR (Gorton) (12:48): I rise to speak to the Criminal Code Amendment (Firearms Trafficking) Bill 2022. Late last night, the government introduced this proposed legislation into the parliament. Clearly, there's a pressing need to increase penalties for firearm trafficking. What is interesting, though, is that, although the government introduced this bill into the parliament last night, there are no members of the government, it would appear, willing to speak to this bill, and, indeed, there's been no process engaging with stakeholders, there's been no referral to any parliamentary committee—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House. The member for Gorton will resume his seat.
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Defence and Leader of the House) (12:48): I move:
That the question be put.
The SPEAKER: The motion is that the question be put.
Question agreed to.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Defence and Leader of the House) (12:50): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
The SPEAKER: The question is that this bill be now read a third time—
Mr Brendan O'Connor: Mr Speaker, now that the motion has been procedurally moved, I'd like to speak to the substance of the bill—
Hon ourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: You don't have the call yet, Member for Gorton.
Mr Brendan O'Connor: Mr Speaker, I do have the call.
The SPEAKER: No, I haven't given you the call.
Mr Brendan O'Connor: Mr Speaker, I'm ready—
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! Look, the interjections on both sides of the House are too high. It's not helpful to the chair. The member for Gorton has the call.
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (12:51): I would like to go to some of the provisions of the bill because, clearly, the government think it's urgent, because they introduced the bill into the House last night, and yet they have not had one speaker to contribute to this important debate about firearm trafficking—
The SPEAKER: The member for Gorton will resume his seat. The Leader of the House?
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Defence and Leader of the House) (12:51): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I move that the third reading be put and that it be dealt with immediately.
The SPEAKER: I'll just get you to—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Gorton does not have the call yet. The Leader of the House.
Mr DUTTON: Mr Speaker, I move:
That the question be now put.
The SPEAKER: The motion is that the question be put.
Question agreed to.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
STATEMENTS
Personal Explanation
The SPEAKER (12:52): The Leader of the Opposition?
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (12:53): I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the Leader of the Opposition member claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr ALBANESE: I do.
The SPEAKER: Please proceed.
Mr ALBANESE : I claim to have been misrepresented, by the Australian newspaper in its editorial today and by a number of members opposite, regarding my statements at a press conference in Moruya held on 27 January. They have selectively quoted my words in order to misrepresent my answer about sanctions that are taking place from China against Australia. I said this:
That's not in China's interest and it's not in Australia's interests. And China should, and I hope that the Ambassador would, support the withdrawal of those effective sanctions which are in place, whether it be for our natural resources or our products such as wine and agricultural products as well.
Mr Speaker, my statement in response to a question from a journalist was very clear. It went to the entirety of the sanctions that have been placed on Australia. Those opposite know it, and so does any journalist worth their salt.
Personal Explanation
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (12:54): I am, Mr Speaker. It's been a bad week for misrepresentations.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition has the call.
Mr ALBANESE: A number of newspaper reports have referred to my attendance for the opening of the museum at the University of Sydney. That museum was opened by the Governor of New South Wales. I attend a number of events at the University of Sydney as a former graduate of economics at the university.
I also want to put on the record, somewhat unusually, that today I met with the Director-General of ASIO, which I do regularly, and I sought his permission to state to the parliament that I consulted the Director-General of ASIO before accepting that invitation. I did that, and I do regularly consult with our national security agencies, because I take their role seriously as Leader of the Opposition and the abuse of national security provisions has been quite a disgrace and is undermining Australia's national interests.
COMMITTEES
Privileges and Members' Interests Committee
Report
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (12:56): In accordance with standing order 216, on behalf of the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests I present Report concerning the registration and declaration of members' interests during 2021.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Law Enforcement Joint Committee
Report
Mr SIMMONDS (Ryan) (12:56): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, I present the committee's report entitled Vaccinerelated fraud and security risks.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr SIMMONDS: by leave—I present the final report of the Joint Committee on Law Enforcement's inquiry into COVID-19 Vaccine related fraud and security risks. The report builds on the committee's interim report for this inquiry, which was tabled in August 2021.
This inquiry was conducted in response to concerns that as part of the COVID-19 pandemic and as part of the vaccine rollout and the rollout of vaccine certificates that this may be open to individuals or organised crime gangs to perpetrate fraud against the Australian populous or to otherwise coerce individuals by means of corruption or crime. The interim report last year found that, due to the early, strong and coordinated action from law enforcement agencies across all jurisdictions, Australia, pleasingly, did not experience the anticipated levels of scam or fraud activity related to the COVID-19 vaccination rollout. In particular, the government's decision to make the vaccine available for free in a timely manner to all Australians limited the ability of fraud or coercion to take place.
The interim report also highlighted concerns vaccination status fraud could manifest in the future as we move past the initial vaccination stage and as individuals sought to avoid, potentially, the consequences of not being vaccinated. So the final report contains the committee's considerations, particularly on this matter and its investigations as such.
I'm pleased report to the House that the committee has found that although there have been some instances—widely reported in the media—of fraud, these are extremely limited and the total amount of vaccination related fraud conducted has been extremely small.
I am further pleased to report that although Australia's vaccination registration system was tested during the rollout the existing integrity mechanisms were found to be fit for purpose and robust in protecting the health and welfare of Australians. They've held up extremely well. This success is not just due to those government service agencies who have rolled out these robust systems that have prevented fraud; it's also due to our law enforcement agencies, particularly Border Force and the AFP, who have done an outstanding job in being proactive in tackling any fraud related risks.
It's also through the great support of the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency and the work of our medical institutions and all of our frontline doctors, nurses and pharmacists, who, every day, are making sure that the safety of the Australian public is front of mind and, in particular, that the consistency of the systems and preventing any fraud related activity is safeguarded at the frontline level. With that, I would like to thank very much the deputy chair, Dr Anne Aly, for her support. As part of the report, I'd like to thank all committee members, all witnesses and, of course, the secretariat for their outstanding work.
BILLS
Treasury Laws Amendment (Cyclone and Flood Damage Reinsurance Pool) Bill 2022
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (13:00): Labor supports the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cyclone and Flood Damage Reinsurance Pool) Bill 2022. Home and contents, small business and strata insurance has become more expensive and unaffordable in parts of Australia, particularly in areas that are at risk of damage from cyclones and flooding associated with the increasing risk of climate change. That's putting pressure on household budgets and is leading to underinsurance in certain regions within Australia.
There have been several inquiries and reports into the affordability of insurance in the north of Australia. There was the Productivity Commission inquiry into Natural Disaster Funding Arrangements, the Northern Australia Insurance Premiums Taskforce and the Senate's inquiry into Australia's general insurance industry. Most recently the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission Northern Australia Insurance Inquiry was conducted over three years and found that the average premium for combined home and contents insurance across northern Australia was almost double that of the rest of Australia. Between 2007 and 2019, average home insurance premiums rose in real terms by 178 per cent in northern Australia, and combined home and contents rose by 122 per cent. Average contents insurance premiums increased by 33 per cent in northern Australia, but decreased by three per cent in real terms in the rest of Australia.
These increases are due to climate change. Insurers are pricing their premiums based on the risk of damage from cyclones and other severe weather events in the north of Australia. Because some insurers don't want exposure to risk levels, they simply don't operate in the area. In fact, there are only around eight insurers who offer insurance in Australia's north, with that lack of competition adding to price increases. The ACCC recommended a number of measures to improve insurance affordability but pointed out that the cost of insurance reflects the risk of damage due to climate change and that governments must find ways to reduce that risk through better building codes and mitigation infrastructure.
It's important to note that the ACCC did argue against the creation of a reinsurance pool. After three reports over three long years, the Morrison government has ignored that ACCC report and refused to respond to its recommendations. Many of those recommendations would have made a difference to insurance premiums, and it goes to the fact that the government has had nine years and has done very little on this issue. After nine years, they have left it until the dying days of this parliament to try and ram through this legislation. Nonetheless Labor will be supporting the bill.
The bill creates a reinsurance pool which will be administered by the Australian Reinsurance Pool Corporation and will commence on 1 July 2022. Large insurers have until 31 December 2023 to join the scheme, and small insurers have until 31 December 2024. The scheme is compulsory for insurers that offer cyclone risk policies. All eligible cyclone risks are covered under the scheme. However, insurers will need to obtain additional reinsurance from the private market for any of their retained risk. For insurers who participate in the scheme, it's mandatory. Nonparticipation will see a fine of up to 1,000 penalty units. The pool will apply to Australia and its external territories.
Basically, the way the pool will work is that it will be compulsory for insurers to take out their insurance with the Reinsurance Pool Corporation. The Reinsurance Pool Corporation won't charge the typical profit margin that insurers would face in the private sector, thereby making a cost saving on the cost of reinsurance in the north of Australia on cyclone coverage. It's hoped that they will pass that saving on to their customers and, of course, that that will increase competition.
Over the last couple of week, the government has been claiming in the media that this change will produce savings for households on insurance in the magnitude of 46 per cent for home and contents and of 58 per cent for strata developments on their insurance premiums. Labor has simply been asking the government to release the modelling. We know they have done modelling on this issue, and we believe that the people of the north of Australia—households, businesses and consumers—have the right to know what these claims are based upon. When the scheme was originally launched, the minister said it would provide savings of up to 10 per cent. Now the minister is saying it will provide savings of up to 46 and 58 per cent. How was that determined? There is an actuarial study somewhere behind that, and I thank the public deserve to know whether or not those savings will be real and what the veracity of those figures is. We have asked in estimates and we've asked through Senate processes, yet the government is claiming public interest immunity and refusing to release those details. I say to those opposite: just release the details, so the people of northern Australia can have a look at them. They've been through enough when it comes to insurance. The government has waited nine years to do something. Nothing has happened. Insurance premiums have been going through the roof. The people of northern Australia have been suffering. They deserve to know whether or not this scheme's going to work—and, indeed, whether or not it's going to get through the parliament.
The pool will cover claims from damage caused by a cyclone that commences during a declared cyclone event. That will be determined by the Bureau of Meteorology; they will form a view as to when a cyclone starts and ends, and that will be declared publicly. The coverage lasts 48 hours after that declaration is made that the cyclone has ended. Importantly, this means that some damage in the wake of many cyclone events that have occurred in Queensland over the past couple of decades would not have been covered by the pool. For example, most of the damage that occurred during Cyclone Debbie in 2017 happened well after the cyclone had hit, with the subsequent flood damage. That would not be covered by this part of the scheme, and that's going to mean that those insurers are going to have to take out two policies of reinsurance for periods where damage occurs after the 48 hours. It's not ideal, but those are the facts that they will have to work around.
The pool covers policies that provide for loss or damage to eligible properties associated with business interruption, a consequential loss and those prescribed by the regulations. An eligible insurance contract must provide for household, strata, small business or charity and not-for-profit property. Government owned properties, where they are insured as a government entity, are not eligible for coverage. Marine will be included, up to a certain limit that is yet to be determined in the regulations. The scheme covers policies for eligible risks up to a threshold of $5 million, and that threshold does not apply to eligible household property policies.
The scheme will be cost neutral to the government over time, and ARPC will be pricing cyclone and flood damage risk to meet the cost-neutral objective. Before setting these premiums, the ARPC must have regard to several factors to ensure that the reinsurance pool can achieve its objective of lowering insurance premiums for households and small businesses in cyclone prone areas. In addition, the reviewing actuary must review the premiums before they are set. The pool will cover all eligible claims above the policyholders excess for cyclone events in the first three years. Thereafter, the pool will operate on a risk-sharing arrangement with insurers to allow the staged transition to a limited level of risk retention by insurers.
The bill provides for cyclone reinsurance to be backed by an annual reinstated $10 billion Commonwealth guarantee, and the guarantee is supported by a special appropriation. If, unfortunately, we do see cyclones that are of a large magnitude in the first few years that draw on the pool's reserves, it is the government that will have to step in and provide that additional backing for this scheme, if it runs out of funds in those early years. The decision to draw on the Commonwealth guarantee must be made if funds from the reinsurance pool are insufficient to meet those claim costs.
As the bill introduces a new Commonwealth guarantee for the cyclone reinsurance scheme, it also makes amendments to ensure that the Commonwealth guarantee for the cyclone reinsurance scheme is separated from the guarantee of the existing terrorism reinsurance scheme. The minister must also provide a report, as soon as practicable, that reviews both the cyclone and terrorism reinsurance schemes three years after the pool starts. The bill also expands the ARPC's board by adding two additional part-time members. It's hoped that they will have experience in this area of cyclone insurance.
In the long run, if we're serious about making insurance costs affordable and sustainable in areas prone to extreme weather, we need to reduce that risk, and that's something that I think the people of northern Australia are acutely aware of now. The premiums are increasing because the risk associated with extreme weather and climate change is increasing. All of the expert evidence is not only that climate change is going to make the cyclone zone move further south but that the severity of weather events is going to increase. That is why insurers are pricing in that risk. That is the cost of climate change. It is being priced into the risk of damage because of extreme weather. It's been pointed out on several occasions that, if you're going to reduce that risk, you need to invest in mitigation infrastructure. We need to invest in flood levees. We need to invest in resilience for households and businesses in this area, through programs such as the Queensland government's Household Resilience Program, which has been oversubscribed on many occasions and is currently in the market.
New figures have been revealed in estimates, showing that the government hasn't been using the Emergency Response Fund to build that mitigation infrastructure. The government established the fund specifically to do that, but it's been uncovered at estimates that the fund hasn't spent any of its available funding, nor has it completed a single disaster mitigation project, and it's pocketed about $836 million in interest. So, instead of using this fund to build mitigation infrastructure to reduce that risk for the people of northern Australia and ultimately bring their insurance premiums down, the government's established the fund, used it to make money by pocketing the interest and ignored the people of northern Australia. That is unconscionable, and that is why, after nine years, people are still facing large increases in their insurance premiums and are saying, 'Why has the government had nine years and done nothing?' They've done nothing.
If Labor is elected, not only will we ensure that the reinsurance pool is put in place but we will make sure that priority is given to the north of Australia in investing in mitigation infrastructure projects. Labor is putting its money where its mouth is, because we've already announced that we will revamp the government's failed emergency Response Fund and create a new Disaster Ready Fund. It will have up to $200 million per year invested in disaster prevention and resilience to protect the lives and livelihoods of Australians, particularly those in the north of Australia, and hopefully bring down their insurance premiums. We've already allocated some of that funding if we're elected. Five million dollars has been allocated to build a flood levee in Mackay, for which the people of Mackay have been asking this government for many, many years now. The government is all talk. Labor will, if we are elected, deliver when it comes to producing mitigation infrastructure that will reduce the cost of insurance premiums for people in the north of Australia. Not only will they get the reinsurance pool but they'll get the additional important investment in mitigation infrastructure that will help bring down that risk as well. I commend the bill to the House and I move:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that this Government have had almost nine years to take action on the skyrocketing cost of insurance in northern Australia and have failed to deliver anything to the long-suffering households and small businesses who have seen their premiums on average almost double in that time".
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Dick ): Is the amendment seconded?
Mr Husic: I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (13:15): I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cyclone and Flood Damage Reinsurance Pool) Bill 2022. I have to say, before the member for Kingsford Smith leaves the chamber: this hasn't been a nine-year journey. The first time we had the opportunity of fixing this catastrophe was back when I approached his Treasurer, Wayne Swan, 11 years ago, pleading with him to establish a reinsurance pool. So let's not come here and suggest this is something that has been ignored by this government. It goes way back, 11 years ago, to when we first approached Wayne Swan, as the Treasurer, and he rejected that claim at that time.
At the time the argument was that there was no market failure and that governments could only intervene if there was market failure. Because the insurance companies were vehemently opposed to it the Insurance Council of Australia wanted nothing to do with it, so they refused to cooperate—in spite of the fact that I was getting calls like the one from Mark Cromwell, from the Ferntree Rainforest hotel, located in Cape Tribulation. In 2018 it was $10,000 for their insurance. In 2019 it was $100,000 for their insurance. In 2021 it was $200,000 for their insurance. When you've got 27 staff, there is no point in trading anymore with the risk versus profit. I got a call from Christine Walker, from North Shore Towers. Their premium was $350,000 this year, with a $200,000 excess for named cyclones.
The good thing about this, of course, is that these people were still able to get insurance. I have to pay tribute to one of them—Margaret Shaw, who provided information to me. She said that insurance is being charged at horrendous rates. Prior to the GFC $800 to $900 per unit per year was the norm. It has gone to $4,000 to $5,000 per unit, which is not uncommon, and $5,000 to $6,000 is not unusual. For two complexes, one in Townsville and the other in Mackay, it has gone to $7,000 to $8,000 per unit. One complex in Airlie Beach is currently paying $11,000 per year per unit, and another one on Hamilton Island is reportedly paying $38,000 per unit per year for insurance alone. This is where they started to get the problems coming in. It was after that that we started to see an absolute failure in strata insurance.
So don't come in here with this nonsense that this was a coalition problem; the coalition has actually solved this problem. I see Minister Sukkar here; thank you very much indeed. I would also like to thank the Prime Minister and the Treasurer for the outstanding job they have done and for listening. I'd also like to acknowledge my colleagues. We have the member for Herbert here. The member for Dawson was another one I worked with very closely on this.
I have some reports here. The Pivot north report, from 2014, recommended that we move on insurance in northern Australia because it was looking like the market was going to fail. The Unleashing our tourism potential report, from 2018, called on government to deal with the problem. So this is not a new problem, but this is a problem we needed to have. I was desperate, over the 11 years of this journey I have been on, to make this happen.
This is a new thing that we are doing now for Australia. I appreciate what we've done. I appreciate the fact we've extended it to marine assets as well, which will come in 12 months later. While there is a review in three years time, I really appreciated the minister's commitment to do a review in 12 months. That is absolutely critical, because that will see whether or not it is working and whether we need to make adjustments on who needs it one way or another. I thank the minister for his commitment to do that. At this stage there are commitments there for very significant savings. We've got to make sure that these companies come back into the market. Up until recently, a lot of people could get no access to insurance at all. Another thing in this legislation is that for the first time ever insurance cover is being offered to the Indian Ocean territories. Cocos and Christmas islands have had no cover ever. This gives them cover for the first time. They are part of northern Australia and they should be treated as such.
I've been asked to keep this quite brief, and I'm happy to do so, but this is something that has been an 11-year journey for myself. There's been a lot of pain over those years. This is a commonsense solution. I'm not going to guarantee that everything will work 100 per cent as this rolls out, but I can tell you that despite criticism from the other side there has been no contribution whatsoever to solving this. I welcome the fact that we have bipartisan support on it now. Let's stop throwing barbs. Let's start working together and making sure we get the best possible outcome for this so that we can roll this out. Maybe we'll see something here that can go out to other communities as well. I commend the bill to the House.
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (13:21): I rise to support the amendment moved by the member for Kingsford Smith to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cyclone and Flood Damage Reinsurance Pool) Bill 2022. We recognise that there have been significant rises in the cost of insurance for homes and small businesses, particularly in northern Australia, but what I want to draw the attention of the House to is the very thing that my colleague just mentioned, and that is that hopefully this is just the start of tackling insurance problems for places outside northern Australia.
The Hawkesbury and Blue Mountains residents are facing extraordinary increases in insurance costs, to a point that many cannot afford it, because of the increasing frequency and severity of fires and floods. I want to talk about this sort of scheme, if it's implemented effectively, if it proves to achieve the objectives that are held with it, and I have to say that I don't think it is the only step that needs to be taken to help people manage insurance. We focus a lot on the cleaning up after a disaster but not as much on the planning and preparation for it.
In terms of floods, many insurers in the country do not insure people in the Hawkesbury. They're sitting on the Hawkesbury River on one of the plains most likely to flood. It always has flooded and always will flood. Either insurers don't offer insurance or, if they do, they price it so that people simply cannot afford it. During the floods last year I spoke to a lot of people about this, and some had seen the payments jump from $3,000 a year to $30,000 a year for a typical suburban home. That's a tenfold increase in insurance. When that happens, people have to make a choice. When they bought these houses they could afford insurance, but as the years and decades have gone on those prices have gone up, and they are being priced out of the market. I'd heard people say, 'Why do they live there if they can't buy insurance?' Well, they could buy insurance when they moved there. For many people that is the case.
The historical homes on the Hawkesbury, which were built in the 1800s, have survived many floods. The stone buildings can be hosed down, but the internals do have to be replaced. Residents have asked me why they can't have flood insurance that doesn't cover the replacement of the entire house, because they're confident their house is going to stand. What they do want to see is something that they can afford which will help cover the cost of the internals. It might be $50,000 or it might be $70,000, but for that they can get a new kitchen put in, they can replace the flooded gyprock, they can get the carpets done—all the things that they couldn't remove when the flood was coming. A small insurance package would give them the opportunity to do that.
As it stands, people have had to save up and use their savings or extend mortgages on homes to do it. It's been an expensive business. What they are doing, though, is making themselves more resilient, and they could do with help to achieve that. They're putting kitchens on wheels so that they can wheel them out. They're doing light fittings that are easily removed. They're not using timber or gyprock on the walls; they're using modular blocks with render or other alternatives that are a lot easier to hose out as the floodwaters recede.
What we need on top of talking about reinsurance is a place where people can go to find out how to do this. We need to empower people to be more resilient to these floods, and that also applies to fires and to storms, including cyclones. It applies to any of the natural disasters that our communities across the country face—greater access to information for people who want to retrofit their home for flood or bushfire, and greater access to information for people who are constructing.
The residents of homes that are more modern are feeling pressure. They're concerned that no-one tells them that they're not going to be able to get insurance when they're buying a house. Funnily enough, some real-estate agents just neglect to mention that bit. It's not until people are talking to mortgage lenders that they start to see some of the complication, and even then it often isn't apparent to people until it's too late. Not being able to get flood insurance of any type understandably makes people worry about the resale value of their homes, and they do deserve some sense of hope. This parliament should be working not just for northern Australia but for those living in the flood plains of the Hawkesbury and across the country.
More than anything, it needs to be a government-led conversation with the insurers about this. My community is very keen to have that. We have started discussions with the Insurance Council about what it could look like and how it could work, using our region as a model. Where will those discussions get? I can't predict, but what I do know is that people want to live in the Hawkesbury. People have lived there for thousands of years, and settlement has been there since the 1800s. People know that there needs to be a way to help them to help themselves to be more resilient. I'll continue to work with my community to do this. I live in one of the most disaster-prone places in the country. Floods, fires, storms—we get all three with regular monotony, and it always does damage.
In terms of the fire issues, I don't know if reinsurance is going to be the answer there, but I think that's another aspect we absolutely have to look at. In the Blue Mountains, people have been through a number of fires in the last few years, including the huge fires in 2013, when my house burnt down and 200 of us in a room were told, 'You are pretty much all underinsured to rebuild your homes to the new standards.' The insurers knew a couple of days after the fires that we were underinsured. We didn't know it until we were told and people started talking to builders about the cost of rebuilding to the new bushfire standards.
So it isn't enough just to say northern Australia needs a reinsurance pool, although we'll be supporting that. What we need to see is a much more continent-wide approach to this. Every single bushfire community is going to find itself underinsured to rebuild homes because of the standards that have come in following the Canberra bushfires. Homes cost hundreds of thousands of dollars more depending on your bushfire attack level rating. This is not something you can change. But what happens is that, even though you build a more resilient home, the insurers don't recognise that you've built in resilience, and they just charge you based on the cost of your home. So people are not getting recognised for the work that they're doing, whether it's putting in sprinkler systems, putting in shutters or, in my case, having a roof which looks like anybody else's corrugated roof but actually has six or seven layers to reduce the chance of any embers getting inside.
These are the things on which, as a parliament, we need to have a conversation with insurers so that the investment people are making to protect themselves better is reflected in the insurance that they pay. That's the only way that communities like mine in the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury, in bushfire areas, are going to be able to afford insurance. If they can't, it's this place that will be asked to solve the problem. So let's get on the front foot. Don't wait until we have another 10 bushfires where people are underinsured. Let's take steps to make sure that we are ahead of this and working with communities but, more importantly, working with insurers so that we can help our communities to help themselves.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Zimmerman ): Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the member for Macquarie will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Indigenous Health
Waminda
Mrs PHILLIPS (Gilmore) (13:30): As a mum of four, I understand that holistic health care and support is absolutely critical from pregnancy right through to the early days of welcoming a new, tiny person into your family. But there is a huge gap in Australia in the maternity services available. The mortality gap for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and babies is double that of non-Indigenous women. There has not been a true commitment to closing the gap for pregnant Aboriginal women in this country. Ensuring culturally and medically safe maternity services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women has been proven to improve premature birth outcomes and the health of women.
I share with the House the leadership in this space in Gilmore by Waminda, the South Coast Women's Health and Welfare Aboriginal Corporation. They are seeking federal funding towards a birthing on country centre of excellence, building on thousands of years of knowledge and practice—an Aboriginal women led maternity service providing care that embeds cultural integrity and safety during pregnancy, labour, birth and the post-natal period; making women feel strong in themselves; and providing a beautiful, wraparound holistic service. That's why I'm supporting Waminda in their efforts to bring national attention to this issue.
Ukraine
Mr SHARMA (Wentworth) (13:31): The risk of Russian aggression and conflict in Ukraine is now, unfortunately, very real. There are about 150,000 Russian troops across Ukraine's borders in Belarus and on the Crimean peninsula. This should be of deep concern to us in Australia because we live and we prosper in a global rules based order, and a threat to this order anywhere is a threat to it everywhere. Some of the principles that underpin this order are the sovereign equality of all nations, the settlement of disputes by peaceful means and the prohibition on the use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of another member state.
These are all articles encapsulated in the UN Charter which helped usher in a new era of peace and prosperity at the end of the Second World War and they remain fundamental to the period of unparalleled peace and prosperity we've enjoyed in the world since. But Russia's aggression towards Ukraine—and let's be clear: this aggression is happening right now, even before they've set a foot across borders—and their demands towards NATO are a clear violation of each of these principles. If we allow this to stand or if we humour these demands, then the whole international system is at risk. The sovereignty of smaller nations and their freedom to take decisions and form relationships in their own national interest will be at risk.
This is why the fate of Ukraine matters to Australia, this is why we should join our allies and friends in condemning Russian aggression and this is why we must ensure that Russia's destabilising actions are met with a substantive response.
Tilley, Ms Gina
Mr GORMAN (Perth) (13:33): I rise to pay tribute to Gina Tilley. Gina passed away on Sunday 13 February. She was known to many in this place for her work with former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. She was one of Kevin's most trusted staff members and was a key member of his rise to the prime ministership of Australia. This is a very sad week for everyone who worked with her and Kevin.
Gina featured in many election night speeches, and you couldn't miss her—big, bright red hair, tattoos everywhere, and a great sense of humour. She always called me 'poss' no matter what the occasion, where we were or who we were with. It was Gina who recommended that Kevin hire a young woman called Jess Bukowski, who would become my wife. She was a proud and active feminist. She was a mentor to many women who worked in this place. One of Gina's lasting achievements was helping Foreign Minister Rudd introduce gender diverse passports. She was loved by the Griffith community for her work on the Griffith Australia Day Awards, the Morningside Festival and many other events.
I'll finish with the words of her friend Fleur Foster:
Gina was the 2nd longest serving staff member for Kevin Rudd AC, who clocked up 9.5 years or service with him before heading to Micah Projects.
She loved unconditionally, she exuded empathy and lived her all too short life with wild passion and creativity.
She leaves behind her beloved daughter Afrique and her mother Nellie.
Vale, Gina Tilley.
The DEPUTY SPEAKE R ( Mr Zimmerman ): I thank the member for Perth for that tribute.
Forde Electorate: Child Care
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Chief Government Whip) (13:34): I recently had the opportunity to visit a new childcare facility in my electorate of Forde—Happy Hearts Child Care and Kindergarten at Park Ridge. Happy Hearts offers childcare for children aged six years old until kindergarten. Their ethos is founded on developing the children's independence and confidence through belonging, being and becoming—belonging to a community, being of the world, and becoming a healthy, responsible and contributing adult. From the nursery, Happy Hearts offers a warm, safe, nurturing environment to strive to create trusting relationships and friendships. The toddler curriculum offers a combination of play and interaction in a fantastic playground with all sorts of great things to do. The junior and senior toddler programs at the facility allow the children to be challenged and inspired through taking chances and opportunities and developing their skills and abilities. The kindergarten at Happy Hearts was established on the foundation of children formally entering school by providing a safe and supportive environment for the pupils to develop self-confidence, social skills and emotional self-regulation, including early literacy and numeracy skills. To the team at Happy Hearts Child Care and Kindergarten, I wish you every success for the future. Thank you for the great job you are doing to ensure that our kids have a bright and positive start to their life.
Asylum Seekers
Ms KEARNEY (Cooper) (13:36): The media is buzzing today about national security. Remarkably, the ASIO director last night criticised those opposite for weaponising national security. which he said was not helpful. But let me tell you one thing the media is not saying and nor can those opposite. No-one can say the men held in detention in the Park Hotel are a security threat. The 28 refugees and asylum seekers being detained are not a risk to anyone. This was confirmed a few days ago in Senate estimate hearings. These men have gone through so much already, and those opposite seem to forget that seeking asylum is not a crime.
If there are no character or national security concerns then these men should be living in the community. If Labor were elected we would ensure that happens quickly. Not only is this the more-humane way to treat people; it is also the most financially sensible approach. A few days ago Senate estimates heard that taxpayers are spending more than $56,000 per night to detain these people. We could redirect $19 million to address issues like aged care if the men were in the community while waiting for the outcome of their applications. The men held there have for years complained of appalling conditions like mouldy food, maggots, medical neglect and a lack of hygiene . Tragically this only made headlines when Novak Djokovic was in the hotel for a few nights. There is not one notable security threat that the Australian people should be aware of. (Time expired)
Renewable Energy
Mr Tony SMITH (Casey) (13:37): We all know the benefits of solar panels, backed by batteries, in reducing power bills and emissions. But I want to talk about another benefit, in the Casey electorate, where federal funding has committed to three solar resilient recovery centres. In times of storms, when there are power outages, which are quite regular in the Yarra Valley and the Dandenong Ranges, it is very difficult to find a place where you can access power. I was pleased, at the last election, to pledge the funds to provide battery backup for the Healesville Memorial Hall, the funds to install solar panels and batteries at the Yarra Glen Memorial Hall and the funds to install the battery to link with the solar at the Yarra Centre in Yarra Junction. These places are now fully solar resilient recovery centres. They're places where people in need can go to recharge their phones, to have a meal and to use the facilities that are there, from the battery backup, for that short period of time that the power might be off. I wanted to raise that today in the House for the wider benefits that are there, and I'd like to see that extension happen in many communities that are similarly affected when the power goes off.
Cook, Mr Allan
Ms McBRIDE (Dobell) (13:39): Today I rise to pay tribute to the late Allan Cook, an outstanding member of our local community who was taken far too soon. Coasties love the beach and, while the rest of us relax on the sand or go for a swim, dozens of local lifeguards stand on duty to make sure we're all safe. One of those lifeguards in our community was local legend Allan Cook. Allan was a dedicated lifeguard on the Central Coast for over 40 years, mostly based at Toowoon Bay. During his time in the blue and white uniform, Allan contributed so much to our community. Allan was a champion for the introduction of female lifeguards and, thanks to him, Wyong Shire Council became the first council in Australia to employ a professional female lifeguard. Allan also advocated for the Disabled Surfers Association, and he was widely recognised to be the driving force behind the establishment of lifeguard towers on patrolled beaches throughout the Wyong Shire.
Allan, sadly, passed away in July 2019, a loss to his family—his wife, Shayne, and his children, Daniel and Hayley, and their partners—and to our whole community. It was only right that we honoured him in the way that he deserved. Last month—after calls from locals, with an application made by his good friend Stephen Prince and with support from Toowoon Bay Surf Life Saving Club, from state MPs David Harris and David Mehan and from me—it was decided that the lifeguard tower at Toowoon Bay would officially be renamed in Allan's honour. That is the same tower where he spent 34 years of his lifeguard career. It's a fitting tribute to local legend and true Coastie Allan Cook. Vale Allan.
South Australia: Film Industry
Mr STEVENS (Sturt) (13:40): I rise to congratulate local Adelaide actress Sarah Snook on being a recipient of a Golden Globe award at the recent 2022 ceremony. Of course, she is in the television series Succession. She is a Hollywood star but, more importantly, a very proud Adelaide local. All of us from Adelaide are very proud of what she's achieved and the success that she has in her future.
She is one of the more recent examples—out of so many, going back many decades—of people in Adelaide who have found opportunity in the global screen industry, because in Adelaide, of course, we have such a mature, impressive screen industry. I am particularly proud to have the South Australian Film Corporation located in my electorate of Sturt. They have been associated for many decades with hundreds if not thousands of impressive productions made in Australia, and not just in the past; they have some exciting ones into the future. Two years ago, of course, they did Mortal Kombat, the largest-value production ever undertaken in South Australia, but that's just the beginning. Sarah Snook is a great example of what Adelaide produces in the film sector. It's not just people on the screen, though; it's all those who work in the sector behind the scenes as well. I'm great supporter of the creative industries, particularly in Adelaide. I congratulate her and the whole industry for this extremely significant achievement.
Mayo Electorate: Australia Day Awards
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (13:42): I'd like to congratulate all the 2022 recipients of Order of Australia Medals from around our nation and note my gratitude for all they have done for our community. In particular, I would like to mention the six recipients from Mayo who have been recognised for their long and valued service: Valda Finn for service to the community of Goolwa—she is an active contributor to the Lions Club; Mr Philip Goode for services to the community in a range of roles, including being on the Victor Harbor private hospital board since 1998 and being president since 2014; Marija Perejma, for service to the Latvian committee of South Australia; Adrian Pobke, for service to tennis and to the community; and the late Mr David Stacey, for service to veterans and to the community of Strathalbyn—Mr Stacey was a member of the South Australian branch of the 9th Battalion Royal Australian Regiment Association, the Australian infantry, the Strathalbyn RSL, the Strathalbyn Boy Scout club association, so many dairy groups and the Uniting Church, and he is greatly missed by our community; and Dr John Wamsley, for service to conservation and the environment. He is a passionate environmentalist and a recipient of the Prime Minister's Environmentalist of the Year award in 2003. We are so fortunate in our community to have so many leaders, and I thank each and every of you on behalf of our community.
Herbert Electorate: Crime
Mr THOMPSON (Herbert) (13:43): Townsville has the most useless state MPs in the country: Labor's Aaron Harper, Les Walker and Scott Stewart. Our city is being kept hostage by the high crime rate that plagues our city, and these three Labor state MPs are nowhere to be seen. They are quiet on crime. They don't speak up. They don't represent their community. In the small time for which you may get them on a question about crime, they say, 'Our policies are working.' Well, the community doesn't think so. People are being pulled out of their cars at knifepoint. Cars are being jacked. We have people whose houses are being broken into every night. People feel like prisoners in their own home. This simply isn't good enough, and we need state MPs that stand up and put their community first. But at the moment that's not what we see.
What we'd like to see is the state Labor government introduce breach of bail as an offence, because, right now, a young criminal breaks into someone's house and gets arrested, and in the morning breaks into someone else's house and gets arrested, and there's no punishment for this bad behaviour. They reward bad behaviour. These young criminals are terrorising the streets of Townsville. People are fearful. These young criminals are getting more brazen, more violent—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr THOMPSON: and the interjections from Labor just show how little they care about people's safety in the region of Townsville. I would expect better from the Labor members across— (Time expired)
Aged Care
Ms McBAIN (Eden-Monaro) (13:45): I rise today on behalf of the Bombala community who are hurt, angry and frustrated. We've heard recently that we have an aged-care crisis and that the Defence Force has been deployed to help centres get through the pandemic, but the aged-care system has been in crisis for a lot longer than that and this government needs to do more. You've ignored the sector for years, and now this is having real-world consequences, consequences that are disproportionately felt in regional communities like Bombala.
Yesterday, Southern Cross Care announced they'll be closing Currawarna Residential Aged Care in Bombala. I know they didn't make this decision lightly, but due to staff shortages they felt that they could no longer provide the level of care that our residents need and deserve. Residents have been told they're losing their homes. Staff are wondering how they will provide for their families without an income. Family members and the broader community are devastated. The land was gifted by a local family, and the centre was fundraised by local people. Bombala residents choose to live there so they can be close to their families, their loved ones and the community.
Our elders deserve to age with dignity, with respect and in communities that they know and love. I spoke with the aged-care minister today, and I've raised this with our shadow minister. I'll continue to work with all levels of government to find a better solution. The one thing that I know about regional and rural communities is that they are not going to give up without a fight, and I'll be there with them every step of the way.
Bonner Electorate: Ocean Crusaders
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (13:47): Over the last three years 120 tonnes of rubbish has been picked up by hand from Brisbane waterways by the incredible volunteers of Ocean Crusaders. Based in Hemmant, Ocean Crusaders specialise in waterway cleaning on a large scale.
I recently met up with Ian and the team at Ocean Crusaders to hear how the federal government support has enabled them to keep expanding their operations and is helping them achieve their vision for a cleaner Brisbane River. Ian, the founder of Ocean Crusaders, is exceptionally grateful for the ongoing support and has expressed to me how federal government programs have backed his team to enact meaningful, practical and innovative solutions to local environmental issues.
Most recently, I was happy to advocate on behalf of Ocean Crusaders to receive a federal government volunteers grant, which allowed the group to expand their volunteer capacity, making our oceans, waterways and beaches cleaner and safer.
I was also pleased to support Ocean Crusaders with funding for new solar panels through the Powering Communities Program for their innovative automatic river cleaner that they affectionately call Geoff. Geoff is an impressive waterway cleaning system, and I was lucky enough to see it in action alongside Lord Mayor Adrian Schrinner earlier this month. Geoff has the capacity to work 24/7 removing rubbish from our waterways and was developed by Ocean Crusaders. Geoff is completely powered by solar— (Time expired)
National Security
Mr BURNS (Macnamara) (13:48): I would hope that each and every member of this place would always put our country ahead of our party interests, to put the safety and security of the Australian people, who we are all privileged to represent in this great place, ahead of our own partisan alliances. And, at a time of global challenges and instability in our region and beyond, Labor has worked, each and every day, to put our national interest first, because unity is what this nation needs right now.
I can say without hesitation the Australian Labor Party has worked with this government to constructively do the right thing and keep the Australian people safe and secure. We have worked in the national interest in all forums, in this place and others and in the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. We have done it, because we understand that working together is in the national interests. But this government is terrified that the Australian people have finally started to work them out. They see an incompetent government with no vision or agenda for our country.
We are witnessing the Morrison government, scared of what the Australian people might decide, now putting their own partisan interests before the national interest. When John Curtin was facing World War II, he sought to unify. He said:
Australians must be perpetually on guard …
… … …
All Australia is the stake in this war. All Australia must stand together to hold that stake.
A couple of bad polls is not an excuse to put your party alliances before the interests of this great country. (Time expired)
Mr Thompson interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Zimmerman ): I remind the member for Herbert that it is disorderly to interject but particularly from outside your chair, and it's even more disorderly to take your mask off to do it.
Mallee Electorate: Australia Day Awards
Dr WEBSTER (Mallee) (13:50): This year's Australia Day Awards pay tribute to some outstanding citizens in our local community. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate some of these incredible people in my electorate of Mallee. In the Robinvale community, Tom Lister was the recipient of the Australia Day special achiever of the year award. Tom has been an outstanding advocate of community sport, particularly for young kids. His passion for cricket and his desire to serve his local community went hand in hand when he resurrected the Robinvale Euston cricket team. The cricket team are having great success and are currently sitting equal-first on the ladder. Young citizen of the year went to Isla Taylor, who is serving as school captain this year at Euston Public School and has proudly represented her school at important occasions such as Anzac Day and Remembrance Day. She has excelled at her studies, receiving multiple awards, and she is also known as an exceptional sportswoman in swimming, athletics and netball. The young sportsperson of the year is Matthew. In 2021 Matthew competed well in the Euston Public School swimming carnival, claiming first place in four events. He now works to improve on his personal best times. In athletics and football, Matthew continues to excel. I warmly congratulate all these outstanding recipients in Robinvale.
Aged Care
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (13:51): Seven hundred and forty-three deaths this year, with people going without enough food or water, people with wounds not being tended, people not receiving basic medical care and half of the workforce not there—this is the catastrophe in aged care that the Morrison government is presiding over right now. Despite this seeping, festering catastrophe, Minister Colbeck still has his job. That's despite no plan for COVID in aged care in wave one of the pandemic, no plan in wave two and no plan in wave three. As of today, the booster program has vaccinated only 58 per cent of aged-care residents, less than three in five.
The Morrison government has known about this aged-care crisis for years. Remember that royal commission report entitled Neglect? Despite ongoing workforce issues, it took until last week for the Morrison government to make the extraordinary decision to send in the Army. That's how bad this crisis is. It's not Cyclone Tracy or Cyclone Yasi; it's the aged-care home down the road in your suburb. We were told 1,700 Defence Force personnel would be sent in to battle this crisis, but yesterday we learnt that only 106 have hit the ground. One hundred and forty thousand shifts are going unfilled and less than 10 per cent have been sent in to help. Seriously, I have seen wet cardboard with more structural integrity than this government. We have a hapless defence minister, and we have a Morrison government that is big on announcements but does little when it comes to delivery. Older Australians deserve a government that cares.
Queen Elizabeth II: Platinum Jubilee
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (13:53): I'm encouraging community organisation, schools and environment groups across the Central Coast to mark the Queen's Jubilee by planting trees in our region. The Planting Trees for The Queen's Jubilee program recognises the legacy of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and her 70 years of service to the Commonwealth and to Australia. During this time, the Queen has visited Australia on 16 occasions. On many of these visits, Her Majesty chose to plant a tree at community events and ceremonies, leaving a long-lasting reminder of the special occasion. This initiative continues this tradition while also helping to improve our local environment.
There are a number of active bush care and environment groups across the Central Coast, and I am certainly hopeful that these groups will consider applying, groups such as Grow Urban Shade Trees in Umina Beach, the Pearl Beach Arboretum, Allagai Bushcare at MacMasters Beach, Avoca Beach bush care and the East Gosford Community Garden.
The program will be community led, giving local groups the option of planting large shade trees at a school, commencing a greening project or enhancing a local park. Grants from $2,500 to $20,000 will be available, with funding for up to 10 projects in each electorate. Eligible organisations should contact my office or other local members' offices to obtain an expression-of-interest form. I look forward to the rollout of this initiative.
Bendigo Electorate: Disability Care
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (13:55): A few of my colleagues have talked about the crisis in aged care. I am here to talk about the crisis we are currently facing in disability. It frustrates me that here at we are at the end of a sitting fortnight and the government has been focused on almost everything but the impact the pandemic is having on our sectors most in need of support—aged care and disability.
To sum up the experience of disability, I will highlight one of the experiences of one of the providers in my area. The NDIS model means they have a high proportion of casual staff that are going without pay because services are cancelled on a daily basis, because of the impact of the pandemic. Only one box of RATs arrived from this government last week—no idea when the next will arrive. As a result, staff are having to source their own—tough in a regional town, and tough when you're a casual having to pay high prices. It means that staff can't go to work. Therefore, they are missing out on pay and clients are missing out on support.
There is a lack of PPE; they don't get access to the national stockpile. When they put the order in it takes weeks and weeks for it to arrive. There is little financial support for staff trying to jump over hurdles of safety and wellbeing of clients, and they are struggling. They are likely to make a half-a-million-dollar loss this year because of the impact of the pandemic, yet they have not received a return phone call from anyone in the agency or the department— (Time expired)
O'Connor Electorate: Shark Attacks
Mr RICK WILSON (O'Connor) (13:56): Firstly I extend my condolences to the family and friends, and to the first responders and the witnesses to yesterday's horrific fatal shark attack in Little Bay, off New South Wales.
Esperance, on the southern coast of my electorate, famous for its award-winning white beaches and crystal-clear waters, has been experiencing an increasing number of white shark attacks in recent years. Today I recognise Jacquelin Morley, who survived an attack at the notorious Kelp Beds of Wylie Bay on 6 February. I commend the actions of nearby beachgoers and the Esperance Health Campus in managing her injuries. But I call out the WA Labor government and three successive fisheries ministers for ignoring pleas to adopt an imminent danger and shark attack response plan to protect ocean users.
Since 2017 the Esperance Ocean Safety and Support group has repeatedly called on the Department of Fisheries to adopt a 'catch, tag, relocate and release' policy, designed to deter as well as monitor problem sharks. Following the white shark attack on Sean Pollard in 2014, drum lines were deployed and two white sharks were caught, giving the community confidence to return to the water. After three fatal shark attacks from 2017 to 2020, no action was taken against the problem sharks. After the attack on Jacquelin Morley, drone footage showed a white shark still in the area, but nothing was done to mitigate further risk. The Esperance community deserves assurances that the WA government will keep our ocean users safe while building on the science and behaviour of white sharks to mitigate future injury and loss of life.
Macquarie Electorate: headspace
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (13:58): This is the last chance I'm going to have before budget week to plead with this government to put a headspace in the Hawkesbury. Every budget I have hoped the government would listen to the thousands of people who have said, 'We want a place where our kids can go to get help for their mental health.' Every budget where there has been investment in mental health I have scoured the papers for a mention of the Hawkesbury, and every budget I am disappointed. More than that, every budget the Morrison government shows the contempt it has for the people of the Hawkesbury—that they, for some reason, don't deserve the access to early intervention and help that other communities get. Lithgow gets it. The Blue Mountains gets it. Penrith gets it. But the Hawkesbury is completely and maybe deliberately ignored.
I don't care if announcements on a Hawkesbury headspace come coincidentally within weeks of an election. I will be welcoming it; in fact I will probably be crying with joy. Right now there are kids and families going without the support they need, and there are families dealing with grief and loss because the mental health needs of the Hawkesbury have been ignored by the Liberals. A headspace won't be the answer for all of them, but, finally, we can have a start, so that we can build on it, and all young people can access the mental health support that they deserve.
The SPEAKER: It being very close to 2 pm, in accordance with standing order 43 the time for members' statements has concluded.
MINISTRY
Temporary Arrangements
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (14:00): I inform the House that the Treasurer will be absent from question time today. I'll answer questions on his behalf. He's gone to Indonesia for the G20, Mr Speaker.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
COVID-19: Aged Care
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:00): My question is to the Prime Minister. More than 700 people have died of COVID in aged care this year alone, more than twice the number for the whole of last year. Tens of thousands of residents are not getting the care they deserve, because of staff shortages. Aged-care homes are closing, and aged-care workers and nurses are exhausted. Why won't the Prime Minister stop playing political games, do his job, and fix this crisis?
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Aged Care) (14:00): I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. One of the most significant things which this government has done during the course of the pandemic is to focus on protections in aged care. As I said yesterday, we recognise that each loss in this pandemic is a tragic loss for those that are affected. We are, however, in the position where, thankfully, due to the work of our nurses and our carers, and of all of those involved, we have one of the lowest rates of loss of life in residential aged care in the world—a rate which, when we look at the United Kingdom and the United States, is multiple times higher in those countries. And, unfortunately, many countries that have been affected during the pandemic were not able to count and chronicle all those whose lives were affected by COVID. We, by contrast, have been able to ensure that we have been able not just to take care of and treat but also to ensure that we have a comprehensive accounting of all of those that have, sadly, been lost. In particular, in terms of our actions, what we have done is lay down a series of things. Firstly, in relation to the PPE, this year, for example, we have provided over 50 million units of PPE within the aged-care sector. That includes now over 14 million rapid antigen tests. That includes approaching 20 million masks, a similar number of gowns and significant numbers of goggles—practical action. That then comes on top of that which is being done in relation to boosters. We have an 86.4 per cent—
Ms O'Neil interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Hotham.
Mr HUNT: Actually, sorry; I apologise, we have 86.6 per cent rate of boosters amongst the eligible population, and a 92 per cent rate of take-up for first doses amongst those. And 100 per cent of facilities across Australia have had first-, second- and third-dose visits, with now well over 300 having had a fourth visit, as a minimum, so far.
What all of that does is then combines with the work which has been put in place to help protect and support the workforce. And, as part of that, we've been able to assist in their retention with, at this point in time, over $600 million provided through four retention bonus payments. These payments are about not just recognising and rewarding the workers—rightly—but ensuring that there are incentives to enter and incentives to remain in the system. All of these actions in the context of a global pandemic have come together to ensure that Australia was—
The SPEAKER: The minister's time has expired. The member for Lindsay has the call.
COVID-19: Economy
Mrs McINTOSH (Lindsay) (14:04): My question is to the Prime Minister: will the Prime Minister please update the House on how the Morrison government is delivering on its strong economic plan to secure our recovery?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (14:04): I thank the member for Lindsay, who is seeing the strong resurgence of our economy through the pandemic, in Western Sydney in particular. The risks to our economic and national security are, of course, increasing with the uncertainties we're seeing all around the world. I had the opportunity to speak to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Boris Johnson, this morning, and this is one of the many issues we discussed, particularly in relation to Ukraine.
But a strong economy means a stronger future for Australians. As we've been coming through this pandemic with one of the strongest advanced economies in the world, that gives us great optimism for the year ahead. I welcome the decision made by the premiers in New South Wales and Victoria today, a further sign that Australia is pushing through and coming out the other side in relation to this pandemic.
But a strong economy as we come through this pandemic into the future depends on strong financial management and a strong economic plan. That strong financial management has been demonstrated in Australia retaining our AAA credit rating—one of only nine countries around the world, from all the key ratings agencies, to be able to maintain that strong record of financial management, despite the incredible pressures of this pandemic.
And our strong economic plan is delivering on the ground. It is a plan that is cutting taxes and lowering regulation and cutting red tape to drive investment. It is a plan that is ensuring that we are investing in the infrastructure and the skills development that has seen the highest level of trade apprentices and trade trainees today—220,000—than at any other time since the Leader of the Opposition was born in 1963. We are working to deliver reliable, affordable energy, despite the pressures, with sensible and balanced targets for emissions reduction and investing in a gas-fired recovery to keep electricity prices down. Our data and digital plan will see us become a top-10 digital and data economy by the year 2030. And our plan for sustainable and advanced manufacturing with sovereign capability is delivering on the ground through our Modern Manufacturing Initiative.
Today, there were 12,900 more jobs in the month of January. There is the highest level of Australians of working-age employment in Australia's recorded history, at 76.3 per cent. The unemployment rate for women has fallen to four per cent, the lowest number since monthly records began in 1978. Under our government, there are a million more women in work than there were before we came to government. The unemployment rate is at 4.2 per cent and it's heading to below four per cent. Youth unemployment is at nine per cent, a fall again. That is down from 12.7 per cent when those opposite last sat on the Treasury benches. Jobs, jobs, jobs— (Time expired)
Aged Care
Ms McBAIN (Eden-Monaro) (14:07): Is the Prime Minister aware that in Bombala in my electorate an aged-care home has announced it will be forced to close? This is on top of another closure in Eden in December last year. The aged-care provider says it is not sustainable nor responsible to have existing staff working double shifts with no respite or reserves on stand-by. The health department says six other aged-care facilities are in the process of closing their doors. When will the Prime Minister stop playing political games, do his job and fix this crisis?
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Aged Care) (14:08): I thank the member for Eden-Monaro for her question. I am aware of the facilities in question, in particular the Currawarna Residential Aged Care facility in Bombala as well as the Swansea Tenison Residential Aged Care facility, both of which are operated by Southern Cross Care. At my request, the Department of Health is today meeting with the council, with representatives of the state government and with representatives of the community. They are examining options to deal with this particular facility. We have, to date, already provided $808,000 in the Business Improvement Fund to the Snowy Monaro Regional Council and an additional $80,000 to the Bombala MultiPurpose Service for capital upgrades to improve that service. Whilst this is a particular decision of a particular provider, we have stepped in to intervene immediately.
The other thing to note, though—and I want to respond specifically to the member's point—is that, contrary to that which was set out, the number of new services opening over the last five years, and in the last year, has vastly outnumbered the number of closures. There are facilities that open and facilities that close. There are six times as many homes that have opened over the last five years—288, on the advice I have from the department—as opposed to those that have closed, which number 48. That is a very different position from that which was presented during the course of the question.
The second thing is that even last year, during the course of the pandemic, during one of the most difficult and challenging years that facilities have faced, in that 2020-21 financial year almost four times as many homes opened as closed. There were 46 new residential aged-care facilities that opened around Australia, and the advice I have is that there were 12 facilities that closed during the course of that time. What does that mean? That means that there are facilities in the natural course of events that will commence, and there are those facilities which will close and which will ensure that those residents are placed in a care situation. That's what we're doing here.
We recognise that these two facilities are of real importance to the community. That's why we've stepped in with the $808,000 Business Improvement Fund. That's also why we have stepped in with an absolute requirement that the facilities remain operating until each resident is taken care of. That is also why we have stepped in, at my specific request, with the very meeting which is occurring today involving the health department, the council, state government representatives and the community. It is my hope that, working together, we'll be able to provide additional support for families, residents and an ongoing program of assistance.
Economy
Mr HAMILTON (Groom) (14:11): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister please inform the House how strong economic management helps to create jobs and opportunities for Australians, and is the Prime Minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (14:11): I thank the member for Groom. He understands that a strong economy is the basis for everything else that you hope to achieve as a government. It's a strong economy that guarantees the essentials that Australians rely on, whether that's the pension, whether that is aged-care funding—at record levels under this government—whether it's the National Disability Insurance Scheme. It all depends on the economic and financial management that is necessary to ensure a strong economy. A strong economy means a stronger future.
I'm asked about the uncertainty of the times and what is necessary. What you need is strong economic leadership and strong leadership on national security. There needs to be strength in your decisions, and there is no room for weakness.
I've been asked about alternative approaches. It is true: I've answered the member for Lindsay about the government's strong economic plan, but there is an alternative approach that we know that comes from the Labor Party. It was the shadow Treasurer who was asked, by David Speers: 'Would you increase taxes for ordinary Australians at all?' His answer: he said, 'We haven't finalised our full suite of policies.' As you'd appreciate, Mr Speaker, there are still two budget updates between now and the next election. There was a simple answer: 'No. No, we're not going to increase taxes,' but the shadow Treasurer couldn't answer it that way. We know the Labor Party, and the Labor leader in particular, have always been for higher taxes, as the Treasurer has been reminding the House. He's been for a mining tax. He's been for a carbon tax. He's been for a congestion tax. He's been for a retirees' tax. He's been for inheritance taxes.
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order?
Mr Marles: On relevance: the Prime Minister was unable to sustain an answer about the government's actions for a minute.
The SPEAKER: No.
Mr Marles: Literally less than a minute.
The SPEAKER: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is in order.
Mr MORRISON: There will be a choice made by Australians this year at the election, and they will be weighing up the choice, and economic management will be a key factor in that choice because of the uncertain times which we face. The leader of the Labor Party has supported higher taxes all his life. To think he wouldn't do so when push comes to shove at the behest of the member for Melbourne and the Greens is pure fantasy. Weak financial management: they would have spent $81 billion more during the pandemic from the very policies they enunciated during the time. Their climate policies will only put electricity prices up, because they don't strike the right balance. And small business will face a rejuvenated militant union movement, whether on the waterfront or in the supply chain, choking up their supply chains. This is the Leader of the Opposition who wanted the government to buy an airline in the middle of the pandemic, but when he was transport minister he couldn't even build an airport. (Time expired)
The SPEAKER: Before I call the member for Hotham, I want to remind members what standing order 65(b) says. I'll read it out to you. It's very short. I won't detain the House very long. It says:
When a Member is speaking, no Member may converse aloud or make any noise or disturbance to interrupt the Member.
It's pretty straightforward really. I don't expect everyone to be silent, but the level of interjections is far too high. I'd ask members on all sides of the House to please keep it down. The member for Hotham has the call.
Aged Care
Ms O'NEIL (Hotham) (14:15): Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Prime Minister. Quality aged care needs a properly supported workforce. The aged-care workforce is highly casualised and low paid. Why won't the Prime Minister support a permanent wage increase for these exhausted workers to help relieve critical workforce shortages affecting the care of vulnerable residents?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (14:16): I thank the member for the question. Soon after becoming Prime Minister, one of the first things I did was to call the royal commission into aged care. That royal commission was called, as the Minister for Health and Aged Care has reminded the House, and it followed the Oakton crisis—the state-run aged-care facility in South Australia run by the former Labor government. That royal commission has highlighted so many important issues. When we received the response to that royal commission, in last year's budget we supported a detailed plan to address the recommendations of the royal commission totalling more than $17 billion in investment to address the many issues in aged care. No other government has done that before. No government other than the government that I have led has been prepared to call a royal commission into this issue and then announce a record investment of over $17 billion to address the many issues, including the ones which the member highlights when it comes to workforce. And the workforce issues—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for Hotham.
Ms O'Neil: Mr Speaker, on relevance. The question was about aged care but it was very specifically targeted at the crucial question of aged-care wages. I wonder if the Prime Minister could go to that point, please. It wasn't a general question about aged care. The question is entirely about the crucial issue of the pay of aged-care workers. The Prime Minister is more than a minute in and has not touched on that topic at all.
The SPEAKER: I thank the member for Hotham for that clarification. The question did go to the quality of aged care and its workforce. So it wasn't purely confined to the issue of wage increases. The Prime Minister has the call.
Mr MORRISON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The royal commission did address issues of workforce, and, in the more than $17 billion of response that we've provided to the royal commission, those recommendations do address that in the funding commitments that are in the budget. The particular issue the member has raised, as she will know, is actually before the Fair Work Commission. And I'm not aware of a difference in policy between the government and the opposition. Whatever the Fair Work Commission decides on this matter, the government will support those arrangements, as the opposition would. So I'm not quite sure what difference the member opposite is seeking to suggest here. The Fair Work Commission is addressing this issue—that's where it should be addressed—and we will work with the outcome that comes from the Fair Work Commission.
The SPEAKER: The Minister for Health and Aged Care has the call.
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Aged Care) (14:19): The specific measures the government has undertaken in response to the royal commission with over $17 billion of funding, as part of the Respect, Care and Dignity national plan, include the growing of a skilled and high-quality workforce to care for senior Australians and payments to registered nurses of $216 million over seven years. In addition to that, there is $3.9 billion for mandatory care time standards, which is the payment, for the average of 200 minutes per day, of registered nursing staff. In addition to that, we have engaged with the Fair Work Commission. I would note, however, that when the Leader of the Opposition was asked about the very question which was put to the Prime Minister, his response was: 'It's up to the Fair Work Commission to determine what they want to do.' Utter hypocrisy!
Asylum Seekers
Ms SHARKIE ( Mayo ) ( 14:19 ): My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Minister, in Senate estimates, the Department of Home Affairs confirmed that there were no security concerns for the asylum seekers currently detained in the Park Hotel. Why, then, is the government continuing to detain these people?
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson—Minister for Home Affairs) (14:20): I thank the member for her question and her very genuine interest in these matters. What I can say is that we have had to deal with the legacy of the Labor government, which has resulted in 50,000 people arriving in over 800 boats and 1,200 people tragically dying at sea. It has taken us a considerable amount of time to deal with that legacy—and we are continuing to deal with it— because that is a lot of people that were in held detention; 10,000, in fact, were in held detention as the legacy of Labor.
What we have committed to as a government is to work to make sure that as many of those people are resettled as we can possibly manage in the shortest possible amount of time. We are working with the United States on the resettlement program so that as many people can transfer to the United States and be resettled as soon as possible. It's on the public record now that we are working with New Zealand to look at resettlement options so that as many people as possible can resettle as soon as there is an arrangement that is in place.
I thank the New Zealand government for the high level of cooperation that they have given. There are people who are in detention now who cannot be released into community detention for a number of reasons. Some of those are because of character grounds, some of those are because of quite considerable health issues related to those individuals. But what I can assure the member is that we are working to have those people resettled as soon as we possibly can, and we will continue to do that.
Regional Australia
Mr THOMPSON (Herbert) (14:22): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. The coalition government is committed to supporting rural and regional communities, which remain a core strength of Australia's economy and identity. Will the Deputy Prime Minister outline to the House the government's support for regional economies, and are there any threats or uncertainty posed to their prosperity?
Mr JOYCE (New England—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development and Leader of the Nationals) (14:22): I thank the honourable member for his question. As always, I note his service to our nation and thank him for his service to our nation, and his service goes on. I also thank him for his support of the CopperString project, which is so vitally important for our nation. It's vitally important to make our nation as strong as possible as quickly as possible.
It's also noted that many of our major exports, in fact, eight out of 10, come from regional Australia, whether it's iron ore, coal, gas, bauxite, gold, cattle or sheep. These things are incredibly important because they give value to our currency. Value to our currency allows us to import products and get the terms of trade in place to support our standard of living, which is vitally important. If we lost those major exports, that, of course, would have major inflationary effects on our imports and would affect our standard of living. Things would become more expensive, and people would become poorer. That's why this side of the House believes so strongly that we maintain our standard of living by maintaining a strong balance of payments and strong terms of trade through our exports. But look at the other side. I had a look, and Mark Butler says—
Honourable members interjecting —
The SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Prime Minister will use the correct names in the chamber.
Mr JOYCE: The member for Hindmarsh says there's no room for gas in Australia's prosperity—no room for gas. That's going to make things rather difficult for us in the future, isn't it?
The deputy leader of the Labor Party—and this is the best one—said: 'The global market for thermal coal has collapsed, and at one level that’s a good thing …'. Hear that, Central Queensland? Hear that, Hunter Valley? He thinks you losing your job is a good thing. That is going to be very interesting. I went back to the member for Hindmarsh, and I just put in his name—which I can't mention—and coal. The first thing that comes up—five words—'Labor say no to coal.' So things aren't looking good for the Hunter Valley. They're not looking good for Central Queensland. And the reason is the Greens-Labor alliance. The galahs over there on that side are going to put at risk the people of Central Queensland. They are doing it at this very moment. They are in coalition in the ACT. We live in an area of a Greens-Labor alliance. They were in coalition in Tasmania, and they have been in coalition federally. And we remember the wedding photo: the Prime Minister, the Greens and the 'Independents'—
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! When the interjections have ceased, I will call the member for Corangamite.
COVID-19: Morrison Government
Ms COKER (Corangamite) (14:26): My question is to the Prime Minister: how can the government give 20 billion to businesses with rising earnings but not support a permanent pay increase to aged-care workers, which would help address chronic work shortages?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (14:26): On the matter that was raised in the question, the JobKeeper program saved 700,000 jobs. And they won't put it in the question that that's what they're referring to. They'll sneakily not mention that what they're referring to is the JobKeeper program, that saved 700,000 jobs at a time when the Australian people were looking into the abyss of a pandemic nobody understood or had any idea about what would occur, this government stood up and we put JobKeeper in place. And the very next morning, when hundreds of thousands of Australians were going to lose their jobs and not know how they were going to put food on the table for their families, and businesses who had worked for decades to put their businesses in place were fearing that their businesses were going to fall over, this government stood up. This government stood up with the single-largest income support program—
Ms Chesters interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Bendigo.
Mr MORRISON: as a partnership between business, the government and the financial sector to save this country's economy.
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Gorton.
Mr MORRISON: Now, those opposite like to pretend to bipartisanship on many issues. They like to pretend to it, and they'll try to do it before this year's election. But what I know is they talk out both sides of their mouth. They say they support JobKeeper, but they come in here and they bag it. They say they support us on national security, but then they speak out the other side of their mouth. You can't have an each-way bet on Australia's economy. You can't have an each-way bet on national security. And there's no safety in anyone taking a one-way bet on this leader of the Labor Party.
A government member interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Nice try! The member for Ryan.
Defence
National Security
Mr SIMMONDS (Ryan) (14:28): My question is to the Minister for Defence: Will the minister please inform the House how the Morrison government's strong and certain record on defence and national security keeps Australia and Australians safe and secure, and is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Defence and Leader of the House) (14:28): I thank the honourable member for Ryan for his question and also acknowledge the great work that he does with his defence community, not just through Gallipoli Barracks but for many of the not-for-profit organisations, the organisations that are helping veterans' groups. He goes above and beyond to help those groups, and we really should acknowledge that, Mr Speaker.
We know that we live in an incredibly uncertain time and that that uncertainty is only going to increase into the future. We're watching as circumstances unfold in the Ukraine at the moment, and in the Indo-Pacific we are very concerned about the build-up of nuclear weapons and the build-up of missiles, and we are worried about making sure that we can keep peace and security at the forefront in our own region.
That's why we have invested a record amount in relation to defence. It's why we've increased spending by over 60 per cent. It's why we've met and exceeded our commitment to raise defence spending above two per cent of GDP. We are investing more than $270 billion in defence capability. We're acquiring nuclear powered submarines, and we're undertaking the most significant renewal of the Navy since the Second World War.
That contrasts to that which we inherited when we came into government. Defence was a mess—let's be very frank about it. The money that Labor had ripped out of defence meant that they had cancelled, cut or delayed over 160 projects. They hadn't ordered a submarine. They hadn't ordered a ship. They had not invested properly in our people. They took money out of ASIO, which meant that our effort to counter foreign interference and counter terrorism was put at risk. They took money out of the ACIC. They took money out of the Australian Federal Police. They took money out the Australian Border Force. That's because they prioritised other issues above our national security.
So if you're asking yourself, 'What would Labor look like if they won the next election when it comes to defence?' don't look at what they're saying now. Don't look at the rhetoric that's being pumped out by the backroom bullies of the Labor Party. Look at what they did when they were in government. That is your best guide to understanding what they would do if they were in government again. This Leader of the Opposition, as the Deputy Prime Minister, sat with Mr Rudd and with Ms Gillard and made the decision to cut spending to the bone when it came to defence. The men and women of the Australian Defence Force were those who suffered most, but ultimately Labor in charge of national security means that all Australians pay the price. (Time expired)
COVID-19: Aged Care
Mr MARLES (Corio—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:32): My question is to the Prime Minister. At the heart of the bushfire crisis, Gladys Berejiklian said the Prime Minister was 'more concerned with politics than people'. More than 700 people have died of COVID in aged care this year, but the Prime Minister has seemed, this past fortnight, focused on a desperate, untrue scare campaign. Wasn't Gladys Berejiklian right? Why won't the Prime Minister just do his job?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (14:32): The premise of the question put forward by the deputy leader of the Labor Party is false. The premise is false. But I'm asked about the job of the Prime Minister. I'm asked about that job on a day when we can say that youth unemployment in this country is at nine per cent. That's my job—keeping Australians in jobs. Under this government and our economic policies, more than a million women are in work today that weren't in work under the Labor Party. Youth unemployment is at one of the lowest levels we've seen for more than a decade. Women's unemployment is at four per cent. You've got to go back to the seventies when they started doing records on those issues to see that number. That's my job—to get Australians into work, to ensure they have the hope of a stronger future because they're living in a strong economy that's getting stronger as we come out of this pandemic.
It's my job to keep Australians safe. It's my job to ensure that we continue to fund our Defence Force and that we put the laws in place that will support our intelligence agencies to keep Australians safe. It's my job to stand up for the liberal democratic values that a country like Australia has always stood up for. If there's any country out there, including in our region, who thinks they can bully and coerce Australia, they won't find a preferred candidate in this Prime Minister. They might find one on the other side, and they certainly seem to have picked one. But they won't find one in this Prime Minister, because our government have stood up for Australian values. We have stood up to the bullies. We have stood up to those who would seek to coerce.
That includes an agreement we formed with the United Kingdom and the United States. I had the great pleasure of speaking to Prime Minister Johnson this morning to ensure we are keeping the pedal down on proceeding with our AUKUS agreement, which is so important. Last Friday I sat with the Quad members. This government has re-energised working with the governments of India, Japan and the United States. We have concluded the defence agreement, the reciprocal access agreement, with Japan. These are the jobs of a Prime Minister. You cannot be a weak reed if you want to do that sort of a job.
Strength in this job is what this job is all about. The leader of the Labor Party likes to think he's a small target. That's his plan. All he is is small, and he's diminishing by the day. He is diminishing by the day. He comes in here and he tables essays from 1981—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.
Mr Burke: On a point of order: you made a ruling, under standing order 90—I think it was at the beginning of this week—which the comments just then from the Prime Minister directly flouted.
Th e SPEAKER: I'm not going to ask anyone to repeat it, but—
Mr Burke interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Do you want to repeat it?
Mr Burke interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Look, if it's what I thought I heard over the noise, the Practice does talk about the political sensitivities of members in this House. If it was what I thought it was, I think there's a big difference between what I've previously picked the Treasurer up on and what was just said. I'll let it go through, but I'll listen very carefully to the Prime Minister. But it doesn't help, once again, when the noise is so loud. The Prime Minister has the call.
Mr MORRISON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This job is all about strength. This job is all about strength, and this is a very weak leader of the Labor Party.
National Security
Mr PEARCE (Braddon) (14:37): My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison government continues to improve community safety and national security in a strong and certain way by tackling head-on the threat posed to Australia by serious organised crime? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson—Minister for Home Affairs) (14:37): I thank the member for his question. Like everyone on this side of the House, he knows that the safety and security of our local communities relies on the strong approach that this government has taken on a whole range of issues. Strong borders, a strong stand against those who commit crimes, a tougher approach to sentencing: these are the things that Australians know they can rely on a coalition government to deliver.
It's in stark contrast to those opposite. Frankly, it's quite disturbing that they don't want us to be here talking about national security or community safety. Australians clearly want to feel safe and secure in their communities. They want their government to be out there every single day doing everything they can to ensure that they are safe and secure. Unfortunately, Labor seems to be very focused on being a small target—a teeny target, in fact. It's very focused on trying to slide in—
The SPEAKER: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.
Mr Marles: It's relevance, Mr Speaker. We get 30 seconds. All we hear are the words 'strong' and 'tough'. There's no substantive answer to any question, and then we enter into a spray on the opposition.
The SPEAKER: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.
Mr Marles: Mr Speaker, question time is—
The SPEAKER: The microphone is off. The Minister for Home Affairs was asked about alternative approaches. This is probably a good opportunity to touch on this issue, as I have done previously, in relation to times. Three-minute answers are provided under the standing orders. There's no set ratio of how much a minister should—
Mr Dutton interjecting—
The SPEAKER: That's not very helpful, Minister for Defence. There's no set ratio as to how much time a minister needs to provide on certain aspects of a question. Having said that, I would remind ministers that there needs to be a reasonable attempt at looking at one's own government's policies, for example. I would ask ministers to reflect on that. The Minister has the call.
Mrs ANDREWS: I think it's very fair for the Australian people to be able to have the opportunity to witness the very stark contrast between the Morrison government and those opposite, who have been reasonably silent on a range of issues but particularly on community safety and national security matters.
People in Australia will soon be making a choice. On this side of the House, they have a government that has a very strong track record of being strong on national security matters. Particularly I would go to our track record on border security. Earlier today, I indicated once again the track record that Labor, those opposite, have and the mess that we were left to clean up on this side of the House. We have done that. We have demonstrated time and time again that, on matters of border security, community safety and national security, the track record and the record of delivery sits with the coalition government.
We have had some significant legislation before the House this week. I speak specifically about the legislation in relation to firearms and to trafficking. It's very interesting the positions that have been taken by Labor. I do say 'positions' quite deliberately, because we had the opposition spokesperson saying earlier today that she hadn't read the legislation and she wasn't aware of it being introduced—but it was introduced yesterday. So it really is time for Labor to wake up. (Time expired)
Economy
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (14:42): My question is to the Prime Minister. Treasury has revealed more than $3.3 million was spent on economic comeback ads which had to be paused after the Prime Minister's failures on vaccines and quarantine locked down the economy last year. Shouldn't the government's priority have been actually securing the recovery instead of claiming credit for it prematurely with taxpayer funded marketing and spin that had to be canned?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (14:43): I thank the shadow Treasurer for his dixer because it gives me the opportunity to talk about the economic recovery which is underway. Today more than 13,000 jobs have been added to the record of this economy.
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
Mr MORRISON: He can bellow all he likes, but he knows. He put it to this government. The shadow Treasurer put it to this government that the test of economic management of the government and how we were managing this pandemic would be jobs.
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat for one moment. The member for Rankin asked a question. I would have thought he'd want to hear the answer. He may not like to hear the answer, but he should hear the answer. The member for Rankin will keep his noise down, please. The Prime Minister has the call.
Mr MORRISON: Jobs have been our response to this pandemic. We have seen the labour force continue to grow. We have a million more women in work. We have the lowest rate of unemployment amongst women, at four per cent, that we've seen in a generation. We have unemployment for those young Australian down to nine per cent. Jobs and jobs and jobs—that is the answer to the question put by the shadow Treasurer. He set the mark, and this government just didn't meet that mark, it exceeded it. So, if you like people getting into jobs, vote Liberal and vote National, because that is the challenge that the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer have put to this government. If this government can generate the jobs through the pandemic, then this government should be returned. This is exactly what this government is doing. We have more trade apprentices in training today—220,000 of them—than at any other time in economic history.
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for Rankin, on a point of order?
Dr Chalmers: On relevance: he's had a couple of minutes to refer to the $3.3 million he wasted on taxpayer funded ads.
The SPEAKER: The member for Rankin will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is relevant to the question. It was a very broad question. The Prime Minister has the call.
Mr MORRISON: I only regret that there's not more opportunity for us to tell Australians about the strong economic recovery that's happening. We wouldn't be able to fill the air time with the number of jobs that are being created in this Australian economy, because our plan to get us through the pandemic was about backing Australian small and medium-sized businesses, to back them through the pandemic with the JobKeeper record investment to support businesses through this pandemic, a JobKeeper program that this opposition, this Labor Party, said they support—but then they bag it at every opportunity. Australians will know that it was this government who stood up for them in the course of the pandemic.
We now have one of the strongest advanced economies coming through this pandemic of any advanced economy in the world. On top of that, we have one of the lowest death rates from COVID of any country in the world and one of the highest vaccination rates. So if I'm asked to say what the government has been able to achieve: a stronger economy, a stronger response to the pandemic with one of the lowest death rates in the world, and we are ranked number 2 on pandemic preparedness of all countries around the world. So, when it comes to how Australia has performed against the rest of the world in the pandemic, that is what we've delivered. Most importantly, we are getting Australians into work.
Energy
Ms BELL (Moncrieff) (14:47): My question is to the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction. Will the minister update the House on the importance of the Morrison government ensuring we have adequate and certain dispatchable capacity to keep the lights on and power prices down, and is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr TAYLOR (Hume—Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction) (14:47): I thank the member for Moncrieff for her question and her resolute focus on affordable, reliable energy for the households and 34,000 businesses in her electorate. She knows that we need adequate dispatchable capacity balancing the record levels of investment we're seeing in renewables and record levels of solar on people's roofs. With that dispatchable capacity from energy sources like hydro and gas, balance is the key. As old generators retire, they need to be replaced with appropriate like-for-like generation.
That's why, today, we saw a disappointing decision from Origin, particularly for the workers in the Lake Macquarie region. But it also means that that focus on dispatchable generation is more important than ever. We'll work with the New South Wales government and the private sector to make sure that balance remains in the market and that affordable, reliable energy is there. We're already getting on with it. We're delivering the Hunter Valley's Kurri Kurri project. We're delivering Snowy 2. We're supporting Tallawarra B in the Illawarra. We're supporting the Port Kembla gas generator. We're supporting all the major transmission projects across the national electricity market, with $500 million of investment. We're supporting a new dispatchable capacity mechanism into the national supporting electricity market. But I am asked about alternatives.
We have a plan to deliver affordable, reliable power. Those opposite don't. They are more interested in their own ideology than the interests of Australians. When they were last in government they teamed up with the Greens, put in place a carbon tax and doubled electricity prices. We've seen in the last couple of years an eight per cent reduction in household bills, a 10 per cent reduction in small-business bills and a 12 per cent reduction in industry bills, while those opposite doubled them.
The member for McMahon doesn't know the difference between a retail price and a wholesale price. At the end of last year he put his modelling out and assumed every coal-fired generator was going to stay on until their previously announced closure dates. It's all bunkum from those opposite! There's no plan for dispatchable power. They opposed the Kurri Kurri generator, and then backflipped and doubled the costs. They've opposed the billion-dollar Grid Reliability Fund. They plan to vote against the Underwriting New Generation Investments program, which was recommended by the ACCC. And we know they're prepared to team up with the Greens to make sure there are no new gas projects in this country. They are happy to keep people hot in summer and cold in winter. We'll get on with the focus on affordable reliable energy for all Australians.
Economy
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:50): My question is to the Prime Minister. The Reserve Bank predicts real wages will continue to drop through to mid-2023. Doesn't this show low wages are and have always been a deliberate design feature of the economic strategy of this almost-decade-old government?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (14:51): No, it doesn't. What supports higher wages and higher real wages is a strong economy. If you want a stronger future, you need a stronger economy. And you're not going to get a stronger economy with the policies that have been supported by the Labor Party—particularly this Leader of the Labor Party over his entire political life. You're not going to get higher wages with higher taxes. You're not going to get higher wages with militant unions running rampant.
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order?
Mr Burke: On direct relevance. First of all, the question doesn't ask about alternatives; the question asks about government policy. The Prime Minister was able to talk about government policy for all of 19 seconds before he felt a need to talk about alternatives, which aren't in the question.
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business is correct. There was no reference in the question to alternatives. The Prime Minister will return to the question.
Mr MORRISON: I repeat what I said when I came to the dispatch box, in direct response to the member's question: no, that is not what it means. I think I've addressed the member's question very clearly. What I'm saying is: if you want higher wages in this country you need a strong economy and strong businesses. You need a strong economy which has strong trading arrangements with the rest of the world, which we've been able to secure; some 76.1 per cent of our trade is supported by the strong trade policies this government has been able to put in place. You get higher wages when you invest in the skills development of Australians, and we have record levels of trade apprentices and trade training—220,000 of them getting better skills, which means they can get better jobs and better wages. That's what we're investing in.
You get a stronger economy when you invest $110 billion in building the infrastructure that Australia needs. The Leader of the Opposition likes to talk a lot about his time as transport minister. He couldn't even build an airport he said he wanted to build. He wants to buy an airline but he doesn't want to build an airport.
The SPEAKER: No, no. Manager of Opposition Business, I appreciate that you've jumped up on what was essentially one line of the Prime Minister on this point. I've asked the Prime Minister to remain relevant to the question. There was nothing about alternatives in there. The Prime Minister is able to comment about government policy, but the Prime Minister can't go towards any opposition policies or any attacks on opposition policies. The Prime Minister has the call.
Mr MORRISON: There is our strong policy of lower taxes. We are cutting red tape for business, as we've sought to do—particularly with the EPBC Act, which has been stymied by those opposite. We remain committed to that. They are adding cost to every major investment in this country, and we are not doing that. We've been seeking to cut red tape for business, which can actually drive greater investment in this country. We have invested in the skills. We have invested in the infrastructure.
We have a clear, balanced plan to ensure that we can deliver reliable, affordable energy, which has seen electricity prices fall by eight per cent over the last two years and five per cent in the last year. That compares to a 101 per cent increase under the Labor Party when they were last in office, which shows that our policies are delivering the reliable, affordable energy that is necessary for businesses to be able to create jobs and get their costs down so they can actually support the labour force and the wages of workers with those higher skills.
The data and digital economy plan will see Australia be a top 10 data and digital economy by 2030. That was backed up by a billion-dollar investment by Google to put in place a research hub in Sydney, one of only five such cities in the world, backing our plan. (Time expired)
Mining
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn—Deputy Nationals Whip) (14:55): My question is to the Minister for Resources and Water. Will the minister provide an update on the strength of our resources sector under the management of the Morrison-Joyce government and what this means to regional communities like mine? Is the minister aware of alternative and uncertain policy approaches that may put local jobs in the regional communities at risk?
Mr PITT (Hinkler—Minister for Resources and Water) (14:56): I thank the honourable member for Flynn for his question. The member for Flynn does a lot of kays—tens of thousands of kilometres every single year. He goes to places like Tieri, Moura, Blackwater, Rolleston, Springsure and Emerald. All of those places know that it is the powerhouse of the Australian economy, the resources sector and agriculture, that provides them with jobs and economic security. In an uncertain world, that certainty is something which is valued by the Australian people, and we support it wholeheartedly.
For those individuals, we know that there is a pipeline of projects out there, some $500 billion worth of investment in this country at various stages. It will deliver over 80,000 jobs. In fact, out in the member for Flynn's electorate we know there are a number of projects. There's one at Comet Ridge, near Comet, would you believe, Mr Speaker? There are projects at Springsure Creek; at Walton, near Bluff; and at North Surat, in Taroom, which happens to be the home of Colin Boyce, the state member for Callide, another great supporter. Those jobs are incredibly important for the people of regional Australia.
In Queensland alone, it's 52,000 jobs and $85 billion worth of investment that is potentially at risk. It is potentially at risk because the uncertainty being provided by those opposite, in alliance with the Greens, is bad for this country's national investment risk, for this country's national economic strength and for this nation's jobs, right into the future. We need to make sure that that gets nipped in the bud. The people of Australia need to know what the risk is.
We've seen the member for Melbourne out again, out on Sky News with Tom Connell this morning. We know that he was part of and a signatory to former Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Bob Brown's Labor-Green alliance in 2010. How do we know that there is a risk in providing uncertainty? How do we know that this is likely to happen? The member for Melbourne said in that interview, 'We're coming back now to finish the job.' I know what jobs they want to get rid of: it is the jobs of the people in the resources sector—$500 billion worth of investment and 80,000-plus jobs. Labor, in alliance with the Greens, would destroy certainty of investment in this country. That is not in our national interest.
At a time of significant insecurity and uncertainty right around the world, we need the money that gets put forward by the Australian resources sector. We know they're on track to break all records: $379 billion. We know that they provide 300,000 direct jobs, particularly in regional Australia. And what do we see from those opposite? We know that city Labor, in combination with the Leader of the Opposition, are like a ping-pong ball in the surf. They're up; they're down; they're left. They keep going left. It's as if they're caught in a rip tide. We want to see certainty for the resources sector. It is deals like those between the Greens and the Labor Party that will destroy the resources sector in this country. We want more jobs, not fewer. We want a stronger economy. That's in our national interest. (Time expired)
National Security
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (14:59): My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree with Dennis Richardson, who John Howard trusted and appointed as director general of ASIO and ambassador to the United States and who said today:
… the government is seeking to create the perception of a difference between it and the opposition on a critical national security issue, that is China—seeking to create the perception of a difference when none in practice exists.
That's not in the national interest.
That only serves the interests of one country, and that is China.
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (15:00): I do, indeed, respect Mr Richardson, and I've spent a lot of time with Mr Richardson. But, this year, the Australian people will face a choice. We are facing one of the most uncertain times that we have ever faced since the Second World War, and Australians have to make a choice about who they think is strong enough to lead this country through these times.
I wish there was the level of bipartisanship on these issues. I wish there was. But, I will not set a low bar for that. Our government is setting a high bar when it comes to national security, and that high bar means that you fund your defence forces, that high bar means you fund your intelligence agencies, that high bar means that you put in place things like the foreign relations bill, which means you could get rid of state governments signing up—Labor governments signing up—to the BRI. The Victorian government signed up to the BRI. It took our bill to get the Labor Party off the BRI plan in Victoria. So the pretence at bipartisanship on these issues by the Labor Party doesn't measure up. It doesn't measure up. I wish it were true.
I wish it were true that there was stronger bipartisanship, but for that to happen the Labor Party have to lift their game on national security. They have to show the same strength and resolve that this government has faced and this government has shown in standing up to those who would seek to coerce us and bully us, not to have an each-way bet on it, to say one thing over here and one thing out of the other side of their mouth, but to have the steely resolve to stare these sorts of things down and work with our allies and partners, whether it's to put together the AUKUS agreement with the United States and the United Kingdom or to resuscitate and strengthen the Quad—and I thank our partners in India, the United States and Japan—or conclude the defence arrangements we've got with Japan.
The Labor Party in government didn't meet these marks. They cut funding to defence. They cut funding to intelligence agencies. It doesn't help intelligence agencies when you cut their funding. In government, they walked away from strong border protection. They don't measure up to the coalition, the Liberals and the Nationals, when it comes to national security. So, we have set a high bar, and this Leader of the Labor Party doesn't measure up when it comes to national security, and this Labor Party frontbench doesn't measure up. And, indeed, the member who asked the question—the Leader of the Labor Party has entrusted him with defence of our nation if he's Prime Minister and he couldn't even protect the borders when he was immigration minister. He let the boats roll in, and the people died. And he was one of the most incompetent border protection ministers in government, and it was a strong field of failed ministers when they sat on these benches. (Time expired)
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (15:03): I seek leave to table a letter from the Prime Minister to myself dated 8 October 2021 in which he said, 'I thank you and your frontbench for support of AUKUS and the government's decision to acquire nuclear powered submarines.' He went on to say, 'Once again, I thank you for the bipartisan approach the opposition has taken in this vital national endeavour.'
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition doesn't get an opportunity to—
Mr ALBANESE: It was bipartisan until we got to the eve of an election!
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Is leave granted?
Leave is granted.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Morrison Government: Economy
Ms LIU (Chisholm) (15:03): My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workforce, Skills, Small and Family Business. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government's economic plan is supporting Australian small businesses and securing stability and certainty for the future? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Minister for Employment, Workforce, Skills, Small and Family Business) (15:04): I thank the member for Chisholm for her question and for the outstanding way she represents, and stands up for, the 22,100 small businesses in her electorate. This month I accompanied the Prime Minister to the member's electorate, and we went to Core Equipment and caught up with Core's managing director, Steve. We heard Steve talk about the impact that JobKeeper had and the impact that the Boosting Apprenticeship Commencements had on his business—
Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lyons is warned.
Mr ROBERT: Steve spoke about the government's $2 billion investment in the JobTrainer program and how that's made such a difference that Steve is putting on 50 new staff in Core Equipment this year. It's extraordinary. Because of the Morrison government's economic input, Steve's business is not just surviving; it is thriving. That's what economic recovery looks like. That's what unemployment at 4.2 per cent looks like. That's what the second-highest participation rate in our nation's history looks like. That's what the highest participation rate of women looks like. I know we all celebrate that achievement, driven by the Morrison government's economic inputs. There are 3½ million small and family businesses—they make up 99 per cent of businesses out there; we all know that—and the Morrison government is delivering writ large for those businesses.
Over 1.1 million Australian jobs have been created since the pandemic hit. There are 250,000 more Australians in work right now than pre COVID. We are one of the only industrialised nations on earth to have achieved that. Our plan is working. It's extraordinary. It is moving us forward, and this is why the Reserve Bank predicts an unemployment rate with a 'three' in front of it. We're able to get there because of the financial supports the Morrison government has put in place during a one-in-100-year pandemic. We've delivered over $314 billion in direct economic supports. There's more to do. We're not there yet. Since 2013, this side of politics—the government—has put in over 370 small business measures. That is extraordinary. We've delivered everything from tax deductions, from 30 per cent down to 25 per cent, to the payment times reporting register, so that business can see exactly what the payment times of large businesses is There's always more to do.
I'm asked about alternative approaches. Unfortunately, this side has put in 370 measures for small business. Can anyone imagine how many measures for small business the opposition have announced leading into an election in less than a hundred days? Zero. Nil. Zilch. Zip. Nothing. Not a sausage. Not a one. Not a single statement on small business! That is what the Leader of the Opposition and his frontbench think of the powerhouse of the economy. (Time expired)
China
Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand) (15:07): My question is to the Prime Minister: Can the Prime Minister explain his 2017 trip to Beijing for the signing of an MOU, when he said, on 16 September that year:
There was also agreement today on third party cooperation about infrastructure and other investments as part of the 'One Belt, One Road' program …
Can the Prime Minister tell the House why his government has kept this MOU secret? Will the Prime Minister table the MOU today?
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Just before I call the Prime Minister—
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I haven't called the Prime Minister yet, because there's no point, because I wouldn't be able to hear what the Prime Minister is saying. Prime Minister, I haven't given you the call yet.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I'm waiting for the level of interjections to drop. I'm so pleased the member for McEwen is right down the back there. The level of interjections is too high. The Prime Minister has the call.
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (15:08): It is a matter of public record that the government's policy, under both the previous Prime Minister and me, has been not to sign up to the Belt and Road Initiative. We have not signed up to the Belt and Road Initiative. We never have; we never will. Where discrete projects have been pursued in parts of the world—which is the policy of those opposite, I note—where there has been co-investment in projects, that has occurred. But we have not signed up—and never will—to the Belt and Road Initiative.
I note that the reference is made to when I was last there in 2017 as part of the closer economic dialogue arrangements between our governments. Those dialogues have not occurred for many years. They have not occurred for many years, and a lot has happened in the last five years. Since then, Australia has been subject to economic cohesion by the Chinese government, and we have stood up to that more firmly than any other country almost anywhere in the world. But we note the bravery and courage of Lithuania, and we stand with the Lithuanians on those issues, and we've worked with other countries around the world to stand up to the economic coercion of the Chinese government, which has only been met with more retaliation on Australia.
I'm not the leader of the political party who was happy to trade away some coercion for other coercion. That's the Leader of the Labor Party. The Leader of the Labor Party is the Chinese government's pick at this election.
The SPEAKER: Has the Prime Minister concluded his answer? Yes.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Did the Prime Minister make an unparliamentary remark? Having reflected on that question—it's a bit late now—it really did contain a level of argument. Anyway, we'll move on—
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: That it was secret. We'll move on.
Morrison Government
Mrs WICKS ( Robertson ) ( 15:11 ): My question is also to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House why it is important in these uncertain times for governments to make decisions for our nation's future with certainty and with strength, and is the Prime Minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (15:11): I thank the member for Robertson for her question. This country does face very uncertain times. We face a very uncertain international outlook. We face, even as we stand here today, the terrible situation that we see in Ukraine and Europe, where we have Russian troops still amassed on the border, where we still have the situation of cyberattacks being reported to have been undertaken on Ukraine, on their government, on their military and on their banks. We have the situation where countries of the world that believe in liberal democracy and freedom and the sovereignty of nations and being free from coercion are standing together against Russia. But we do, indeed, have a situation where there is one very large country in our region that has not joined those countries in condemning that, and I ask it to do so again. We do live in very uncertain times, and that does flow through to the economy.
This year the Australian people will make a very important choice about the future. A strong economy will deliver a stronger future for Australians, and that strong economy will enable us to continue to support our defence forces and our sovereign manufacturing capability, to ensure that we can keep downward pressure on inflation to deal with rising cost-of-living pressures. That strong economy and strong financial management will enable us to continue to see our economy push through and come out of this pandemic as one of the strongest economies in the world of advanced economies.
This is no accident. This is no accident. This is the product of a clear economic plan that has been taking this country through this pandemic. In the same vein, our strong plans on national security, whether it's on protecting our borders, bolstering our defence forces, funding our intelligence agencies, working with our partners as we enter into landmark new agreements to keep Australians safe and stand up to the coercion we see in our region—these are the standards that we have set as a government. Australians will have a choice between the strength of our government and the strength of our economic management and the strength of our leadership on keeping Australians safe, whether it's through the pandemic, where we have one of the lowest death rates in the world, or keeping Australians safe in our region. Or they have the choice of weakness of the Labor Party. The Labor Party has demonstrated their weakness not just recently but over the entire political life of the Leader of the Labor Party when it comes to economic management and national security. He spent little more than a heartbeat in the National Security Committee and the same on the Expenditure Review Committee.
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat. I have spoken to the Prime Minister about this, about references. I'm not going to repeat them, but I have spoken to the Prime Minister about that. The Prime Minister has the call.
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (15:14): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm asked about alternative approaches. The alternative approach depends on the experience of those who are going to be delivering on those approaches. As a Prime Minister, I've delivered three budgets. As a Treasurer, I've delivered three budgets. (Time expired)
Mr Morrison: Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! As all honourable members know, the Prime Minister is able to terminate question time at any point of question time.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
Senator Payne
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (15:15): On 18 February 2022, Senator Payne will become the longest-serving woman senator in Australian history. That eclipses the incredible record of Senator Tangney, who served for 9,080 days. Tomorrow, Senator Payne will also be the longest continuing serving member of this parliament. That is an extraordinary achievement and I think it is an enormous encouragement to all women of this country and young girls in this country. She has been a great servant of this parliament, a great servant of our party and a great servant of this government as Minister for Foreign Affairs, Minister for Defence and in many other roles. I commend her on this. She is now on her way to Europe to take part in the Indo-Pacific conference that is being held there. I congratulate her on her many achievements, I look forward to continuing to work with her in the important work she is doing as part of our government and I congratulate her.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (15:16): I join with the Prime Minister in congratulating Senator Payne on what is a substantial achievement in a long and distinguished career in the Senate and as a minister. Marise Payne was the president of the New South Wales Young Liberals while I was the president of New South Wales Young Labor. We had a program of going around to schools to have debates and encourage young people in terms of civic involvement and engagement. I got to know Marise Payne very well while we were both much younger.
There is something to be said about longevity in parliamentary careers—you do get better, you do learn. Marise Payne is someone who has a good relationship with people on both sides of the chamber. I think she is widely respected. I wish her well and congratulate her on this substantial achievement. As the Prime Minister said, increasingly we will see women break records. That's a good thing. We need to be more representative of the population. That means the parliament should reflect Australian society, which, after all, is fifty-fifty.
Hono urable members: Hear, hear!
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Defence and Leader of the House) (15:18): 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.
BUSINESS
Leave of Absence
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Defence and Leader of the House) (15:18): I move:
That leave of absence be given to every Member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting.
Question agreed to.
QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER
Parliamentary Precinct
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (15:19): Mr Speaker, my question to you is based upon your authority under the Parliamentary Precincts Act 1988, which gives the Presiding Officers the responsibility for the control and management of Parliament House and its immediate surroundings. Last Saturday, 12 February, Canberra witnessed the largest-ever protest in the nation's capital, when many tens of thousands of Australians travelled from all—
The SPEAKER: Member for Hughes, this is not an opportunity to make a statement. Do you have a question for me?
Mr CRAIG K ELLY: I do, Speaker.
The SPEAKER: Well, just get straight to the question, please.
Mr CRAIG KELLY: During that protest, can the Speaker confirm if the AFP positioned one or more long-range acoustic devices in the parliamentary precincts with the intention that it be used as a sonic weapon against protesters who included nurses, schoolteachers and paramedics? Did the AFP seek approval from the Presiding Officers to deploy such a device, and was the long-range acoustic device used against the protesters on that day?
The SPEAKER (15:20): I'll report back to the House on that in due course.
AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS
Report No. 17 of 2021-22
The SPEAKER (15:20): I present the Auditor-General's performance audit report No. 17 of 2021-22, entitled Australian government advertising: May 2019 to October 2021—across entities.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Morrison Government
The SPEAKER (15:21): I have received a letter from the honourable the Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government's failure to plan for the future of Australia.
I call upon honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (15:21): Well, there is an old saying, which is, 'Don't waste a crisis,' because a crisis is an opportunity to take a step back and think about how you should emerge from the crisis even stronger. We in the opposition have been doing just that. We've examined the problems that have been identified, and in some cases magnified, by the pandemic that Australia continues to go through, and we have based our policy on how we create a better future for Australia as we emerge from this crisis—a stronger economy that lifts up living standards, delivers for working people and is more resilient going forward.
One of the things that have been identified during this crisis is a reminder that we too often are at the end of supply chains and that that makes us vulnerable to international activity. There's a lot of talk about foreign policy and engagement. The truth is that, overwhelmingly, most of the RATs, for example, come from just one country. If that tap's turned off, that creates a problem.
But the truth is we have incredible opportunity. In the resources sector, we have everything, for example, that goes into a battery: lithium, nickel and copper. We have everything that goes in. That's why we've established a National Reconstruction Fund. Just as during World War II Curtin appointed Chifley as the Minister for Postwar Reconstruction, and in that postwar period we saw the foundations of the postwar boom in Australia, we want to lay the foundations for the post-COVID boom here in Australia. We do that by understanding that industries need to transform through the use of cleaner and cheaper energy but also that we have an opportunity to have new industries emerge.
That's what our powering the nation plan is about. Something that, at the end of this fortnight's sitting, people might have noticed in the gallery is that we announced our climate and energy policy on 3 December. We announced it with a fully costed, comprehensive plan, a plan that will see our emissions drop by 43 per cent by 2030; create 604,000 jobs, with $52 billion of private sector investment and $78 billion of additional investment in total; and see household power bills reduced by $275 between now and 2025.
The truth is that change happens. The job of government is to ensure that you shape that change in the interests of people. That's why those opposite are just incapable of dealing with the future; they can't even deal with the present. During the last campaign we saw the scare campaign about how electric vehicles were going to end the weekend. We saw them say that hydrogen was snake oil—that it was nonsense. That's why, when we stand still, every other country in the world with any leadership goes past us. That is why it's a mistake for us to be frozen in time while the world warms around us and to be isolated when it comes to action on climate change.
Our vision is for new industries powered by cleaner, cheaper energy and for us to identify how we need to make more things here: make our trains and our ferries and our transport infrastructure; make pharmaceuticals; and make high-value manufacturing right here. The opportunity is here right now. And we want to make sure that Australians get those jobs, and that's why we'll create Jobs and Skills Australia, to do, for labour, what Infrastructure Australia does for the allocation of capital and investment. It is to make sure that we look and plan for what the labour market needs over the next year, the next five years, the next 10 years, and to make sure that training is there. And we will make sure that it's equitable as well, by having 475,000 free TAFE places in areas of skills shortages. We will make sure that we address areas like nursing shortages by having 20,000 additional university places. Those are the lessons that we've learnt. How do we position ourselves to emerge stronger in the future?
We also need to look at social policy. We've had a reminder of how important health is. If you don't get health outcomes right, then everything else falls apart. That's why we want Medicare to be strengthened. That's why we will always have Medicare at the centre of our health system, and we will make sure that we have policies that make sure GPs are more available; that it's cheaper to go and see a doctor. We will make sure that we support telehealth and we support IT. The expansion of the NBN is about education and health services; it's about positioning ourselves for the future. Those opposite are the copper mob. At a time when the whole world knew you needed to go to fibre, they were there saying, 'No, we don't want fibre; we'll go back to copper,' and we're suffering as a result.
But we've also seen sectors suffer—child care in particular. Childcare centres are currently closed, many of them, because they can't get workforce. We need to acknowledge that, in order to power the economy, we need mobilise women's workforce participation. We need to drive productivity. We need to drive opportunity. We need to represent the whole of the country, and that means representing women. That means adopting the Respect@Work report. That means closing the gender pay gap. That means making child care accessible for all.
And, of course, most tragically, we have been reminded about the aged-care crisis and how, in spite of the fact they had a royal commission with recommendations about the workforce, they've done nothing about increasing the pay of people in the aged-care sector. They still won't guarantee that a nurse should be in every nursing home 24-7. One would have thought that's a pretty fundamental principle. But the aged-care crisis, with more than 700 deaths, is what we've seen.
We have a plan for the economy, for social policy and for environmental policy, around the theme of A Better Future, making sure that no-one's left behind and no-one's held back. Those opposite have nothing of substance to say. That is why this week, in spite of the fact that we've seen previously they don't have anything to say about the problems of today—let alone plans for tomorrow—the Prime Minister said: 'Hold my beer. What I'm going to do is trash our national interests.' That is what he said. Mike Burgess, the Director-General of Security with ASIO, said this last night: 'I'm very clear with everyone that I need to be that's not helpful for us.' That was about this government's absurd campaign to try and divide the nation. Dennis Richardson has the quadrella. If you think about the four positions in this country, in terms of our bureaucracy and our structures, that are consistent over a period of time, they are Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Secretary of the Department of Defence, the head of ASIO, and the US Ambassador's position. He has held all four! He was appointed by the Howard government as the Director-General of ASIO and as our ambassador in Washington. This is what he said:
The creation, or the attempt to create, an artificial division where one, in practice, does not exist only serves the interests of one country, and that's China.
If you're looking for a Manchurian candidate, he sits over there, because, with the campaign that has happened this week, he has served the interests of China, not our national interests. That is what has occurred. And, if you look at the comments from respected commentators, like Paul Kelly, Greg Sheridan and others, they all know.
Last Friday I met with the US Secretary of State and other allies. I have been engaged with the US since I was a guest at the state department there for six weeks more than 30 years ago. Since that time I've built up friendships with people in the United States, and relationships, and trust. I've never been to a rally for Donald Trump. What we're seeing here this week is the importation of Trumpian rhetoric, where truth doesn't matter and facts don't matter. But this is what the US Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs said about the meeting with us:
We came away reassured that these principles that we hold dear and our vitally important alliance transcends politics and any one party.
We came away absolutely confident that whomever the Australian people select as their new leadership, as their next leadership in the upcoming election, we are confident that the US-Australia alliance will endure and remain as strong as ever.
In order to engage in foreign policy you need to engage with respect, not engage in the trash talk that those opposite have engaged in this week.
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein—Assistant Minister to the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction) (15:31): I rise to speak on this matter of public importance and I imagine, for many members on all sides of this chamber, this is a bipartisan moment. We're all counting down the days until we no longer have this Leader of the Opposition and his pointless and menial matters of public importance, because we all know what's going to happen at the election—which is, of course, the government is going to be returned. But then we are going to see The Hunger Games on the other side of the chamber, particularly for those who aspire to replace the Leader of the Opposition. Of course, we know full well there are already members auditioning—and I see one of them, the member for Maribyrnong, walking out of this chamber, and there are many others who are charmers and pretenders to the throne and the crown. But, of course, none of them have a plan for the future. Their only plan is how they find their way to that chair on that side of the chamber after the next election, because they know that this Leader of the Opposition will fail.
We saw evidence of it in the speech the Leader of the Opposition just delivered. He called this side of the chamber the 'copper mob'. It might interest the Leader of the Opposition to hear that I recently went to a company in New South Wales called SunDrive Solar. SunDrive are doing some really exciting and innovative things. They're changing the very structure of solar panels, and they're switching the use of silver wash, which is a necessary ingredient to be able to build conductivity in solar panels, and shifting to—that terrible metal of the future, according to the Leader of the Opposition—copper. Why? Because it delivers better outcomes, and because it's part of the industrial capacity of the future of Australia. So we on this side of the chamber are proud to be on the side of technology. We're proud to be part of building Australia's industrial future. And, more critically, we're proud to be able to do it in a cost-competitive and efficient way so that Australians can have jobs.
In fact, as I listen to this debate on the matter of public importance, I am kind of reminded of the absurdities of some remarks I heard yesterday at the National Press Club. I watched it from here in the office in Parliament House. But we all know what the National Press Club is like. You have a guest; in this case, it was Climate 200's Simon Holmes a Court. And then afterwards journalists asked questions, because he was projecting his, what do we call it, vision, plan, whatever it is, about the future of Australia, as part of the fake Independents campaign that he is financing so that he can install the Leader of the Opposition from that side of the chamber on this side of the chamber. But we all know what it's like at the National Press Club, Deputy Speaker, when you're giving this so-called visionary speech about where things are going to go. Simon Holmes a Court was asked a question by Katharine Murphy, a journalist at the Guardian. And, whatever anybody thinks about Katharine—and people have a diversity of views, of course, on her media and her reporting and her articles—nobody would call her a hard-right-wing Rottweiler. I think that's fair to say. I think even she would agree with that. She asked a pretty straightforward question, and it was a fair question too. She asked the question, 'What's a science based policy for climate change?' of Mr Holmes a Court. Of course he gave a long, complicated answer but didn't actually address the fundamental, which was, 'What is a science based approach to climate policy?' That led Katharine Murphy from the Guardian to ask the question once again. She said: 'I'm just picking it up, given Greg Brown from the Australian set the precedent. David Crowe, you're active in the climate policy space. Simon, you have been for years. What is the answer to my question? What's a science based approach to climate policy? What's the answer?' The answer was, 'I'm not sure.' And that shows you, despite the big talk and the rhetoric of plans and visions in the future, that so many of those who oppose the government actually have none. They have no clarity about what they stand for. They have no substance beneath the headlines. That's exactly the sort of model that the Leader of the Opposition was channelling in his speech today.
We see this consistently from other members of parliament. We see it from the member for Warringah, whose policy on climate, despite the big talk—again, following from Mr Holmes a Court—is not dissimilar. Their solution is to establish new commissions to do all the work for them. They have no plan. They have no vision. In fact, even the Labor Party when it came down to it, relied heavily on the government's plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions to be able to develop their own plan. The member for Warringah's solution is to develop a new commission whose sole purpose is to override democratic decision-making, because she has no plan. She has no capacity to solve the complex challenge of how we continue to grow our economy while also making sure we cut our greenhouse gas emissions.
That's against the performance and the outcomes that this government has delivered. Since 2005, we have seen Australia's economy grow by 45 per cent. We've seen emissions go down by 20 per cent. We call that the decoupling. We have a plan on how we're taking Australia forward together, because we understand, as the Prime Minister said in question time, it is about jobs, jobs, jobs and more jobs. No-one has set that out more clearly than the shadow Treasurer. The shadow Treasurer said at the start of the pandemic that would be the benchmark of performance of a government at the end of this pandemic. Well, to the shadow Treasurer, we say, 'Challenge accepted.' The reality is we have the lowest unemployment rate in over 13 years against a global backdrop where unemployment has become a big challenge. Inflation is emerging as a challenge in most countries, and of course they have had nowhere near as much sail through the pandemic in terms of the number of deaths. The Prime Minister has been consistent: our job isn't to just protect lives but also livelihoods.
Australia under this government has continued to perform. But I do have empathy with the matter of public importance put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. He is concerned about the future, and I can understand why. When it comes down to it, no Australian can plan if we see a change of government with a Labor-Greens alliance on the other side of this election. It doesn't matter what the issue is, whether it's economic policy. Earlier this week, the member for Melbourne was outraged at the proposition that there might be an inheritance tax that he supported, which of course is the position that's previously been put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. He didn't want an inheritance tax just when people die. He wanted an inheritance tax, a wealth tax, today. The member for Melbourne is going to be using that as one of his key negotiating points when he holds the Leader of the Opposition hostage in negotiations after the next election. He doesn't want to tax people when they die, as the Labor Party does; he wants to make sure that people are taxed at all stages of life, including on their family home. So I can understand why the Leader of the Opposition is worried. How can Australians plan for the future when he is going to be held hostage by the Marxist member for Melbourne?
It isn't just those radical policies that the Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party will be held hostage to after the next election. The Greens have also outlined that they'd like to see a 50 per cent cut in expenditure on national defence. Think about the enormity of the national security challenges our nation faces, the absolute enormity in making sure we secure our interests and our sovereignty on the global stage not just for ourselves but in how we help so many of our allies, partners and neighbours be able to stand up for their sovereignty too, particularly in places like the Pacific Islands. The answer from the Marxist member for Melbourne to impose, negotiate, and hold the Leader of the Opposition and a future Labor government hostage is to cut spending in that space and undermine directly—hack at the heart of Australia's national security.
The question will be put to the Leader of the Opposition when he sneaks into government—if he sneaks into government—with the support of the Marxist member for Melbourne and the Greens. To achieve that outcome, what are you going to do? Are you going to cut the kit that our troops have? Are you going to cut their pay? Are you going to cut their necessary support and infrastructure, whether it's subs, tanks or other types of vehicles, to keep them safe and protected on the battlefield? What's it going to be? These are the big choices they will face at the next election.
The Labor government's plan, with an alliance with the Greens, will undermine Australia's national security and economy from the get go. If you compare it not just to the performance of the government throughout this pandemic period but to the years prior—if you compare it to the plan that we have to make sure we continue to secure Australia's economic opportunities while also building Australia's industrial capacity for the future—we have the plan that will secure our national security in, frankly, what are going to be difficult times and likely to be Australia's most challenging decade. We have the plan to make sure that Australians are in the best position to be able to buy their own home and secure their own retirement. We have the plan for Australia's health security. We have the plan that will continue to ensure that Australians remain healthy against a global health challenge like the pandemic. At every stage, it's quite clear the choice that Australians have: a plan put forward by a coalition government for security or a plan that's hostage to the demands of the Greens under a Labor government and the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (15:41): After listening to the posing, preening and prognostications of the previous speaker, it gives me the opportunity to talk about national security, Defence Force posture and defence personnel. During question time today, the Prime Minister said, 'My job is to keep Australians safe.' If that's the case when it comes to defence personnel, as the previous speaker was talking about, this government has monumentally failed. There has never been a Defence Force posture review undertaken in the last nine years by this government. Not once have they examined it.
The Morrison-Joyce government has failed to plan for our national security. They have failed in recruitment and retention. Five and a half thousand people leave our ADF personnel every year, and they fail to deal with the transition to civilian life. But they've also failed to recruit. The latest Defence annual report shows that in 2020-21 Defence met only 90 per cent of the permanent force recruitment targets, and we know it has failed to meet the 2016 Defence white paper targets every year since 2015-16 under this government and the various prime ministers they've had. At the same time, the 2020 Defence Strategic Update and the 2020 Force structure plan showed that workforce costs are set to fall as a percentage of the defence budget while capability acquisitions will rise. In other words, personnel will go down while capacity will go up. This means that this government is massively underinvesting in our defence people and defence jobs relative to capability and procurement. Let's talk about that. That's their plan for the future. Given that the government is failing to meet its current recruitment targets and that personnel shortages are already impacting the ADF, this could become a pressing defence capability issue. The previous speaker didn't talk about that. So don't give us lectures about national security when you can't fill your defence personnel in the ADF.
Back in 2020, as part of the strategic defence update, the government promised to deliver a new defence workforce strategy in the following year, 2021. It didn't deliver that strategy. It came and went. We haven't seen it. Now they're saying that they'll deliver it this year. We still haven't seen it, and I doubt whether we'll see it this side of the election. We understand it's been delayed, apparently, because of the AUKUS agreement between Australia, the UK and the United States. If they can't deliver a strategy to fulfil their previous commitments, how do they plan for the future?
Of course there's no guarantee that the government is on track to meet the current white paper target of around 62,400 personnel. We need to see a new workforce plan as soon as possible to know if there are enough people to actually operate the future force of the ADF. The reality is: we don't have enough personnel now, let alone staff, for the future acquisition of nuclear submarines, new ships, long-range missile systems, manned and unmanned spy craft and cybercapability. We need defence personnel, and the government is not planning for the future in that space. The government hasn't had a posture review during the whole tenure of the government. It hasn't fulfilled it once in terms of the number of personnel to fill our ADF to improve our national security. So don't give us lectures when it comes to this issue. Don't preen and pose and prognosticate over there when you haven't got the personnel to staff the ADF to keep us safe in this country.
It's been reported the Navy has already launched Plan Delphinus to grow the submariner force from 852 to 2,000 personnel for the proposed French submarines—which are no longer required! Even more submariners will now be required for the nuclear subs, so the Navy will need 20,000 personnel—up from the current 15,000. We haven't got enough ADF personnel to keep us safe in terms of national security. There's no force posture review, and the Navy will need another 5,000 personnel for the new nuclear submarines.
It really blows this government's commitment out of the water when it comes to defence in this country. Capability is going up and workforce is going down. The government and the defence minister have some serious questions to answer. They need to come up with a plan and come up with it fast. Don't come in here and give us lectures about national security when you can't do your job in defence personnel for the future.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (15:47): Speaking of not being able to do your job: what did the member for Blair say when the Labor Party, in government, was cutting defence spending to 1.56 per cent of GDP? Did he go into the Labor caucus or the Labor cabinet and say anything? No—and he's just left the chamber now! It's not just what you say at the dispatch box or in this chamber; it's what you do in committee hearings, it's what you do when you're in caucus and it's what you do when you're in party rooms that make the difference. I'll bet that the member for Blair said nothing—absolutely nothing!—when Labor was ripping the guts out of defence spending to the tune of 1.56 per cent of GDP. That is the least that a government has spent on defence spending since 1938. And we all know, sadly, what happened in 1939.
That's the Labor way. Anyone listening to this debate will remember, all too well, how defence spending was cut in the years of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government. It was pathetic. For the member for Blair to stand at the dispatch box and make out that Labor might have changed its ways, as if we have something to be sorry about—we have put investment in defence, in shipbuilding, in equipment and in personnel and people, and we will continue to do it. I hate to think what will happen if the member for Melbourne ever has a say in determining what Labor might do in a future Labor-Greens-'Voices of'-Independents alliance government. The member for Melbourne will have a big, big say. We already know he's belled the cat. He wants to cut national defence spending by up to 50 per cent. I tell you what; I won't cop it!
I'm the proud member for Riverina. Through Kapooka my hometown has basic training for every soldier who goes through that proud establishment. I know how important the Royal Australian Air Force is not just to our nation but to my hometown, to my electorate. If you spend any given time wearing the blue you end up at Forest Hill and RAAF Wagga, and we've also got a Navy base—all three arms of defence. We are the only regional inland city centre to be able to make that claim, to make sure we train our defence personnel to the greatest capability. Don't just take my word for it. You go anywhere in the world and people will tell you how good our Defence people are. And to think that Labor members and particularly the Greens leader are going to cut the guts out of defence spending if they get the treasury bench! That will be a shame, particularly at this time, when we've got the Ukraine situation, the situation in the Pacific rim and, of course, the ongoing situation in South-East Asia and elsewhere. This is a critical time not only to put more money into defence spending but to protect what we've already got, and those on the opposite side will not be protecting what we already have in the area of defence.
I listened very closely to the member for Grayndler, the opposition leader, talking about driving women's workforce participation. There is a good story to tell there too as part of the coalition. Indeed, the Morrison government's personal income tax plan has already delivered more than $14.4 billion in tax cuts to more than 5.2 million women; the number of women participating in the workforce is at a record level; and we heard in question time today that women's unemployment is at four per cent. They are good numbers. We should be proud of those numbers, and indeed we are. We should be extolling them in workplaces right across the country. There were 815,600 female business operators as at August 2021. We have put our money where our mouth is. We are making sure that if women can participate in the workforce—and we encourage them to do so—there are opportunities for them to pay less tax.
As for those opposite, what will they do if they get into government? They will jack tax rates up, because that's what they always do. They are reckless. They are chaotic in government. We saw that in those six sorry years, and the member for Blair knows it full well. He knows full well that they will cut defence spending and jack taxes up, because they've got form.
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (15:52): I would hate for this parliament to only get half the story, and unfortunately, when former Prime Minister Turnbull and the member for Riverina talk about defence spending, they're both missing a really crucial piece: they're not mentioning that defence spending also rose to 1.93 per cent of GDP under Labor in 2009-10, which was higher than at any time in the Howard government. It was the highest figure since 1994, when Paul Keating was Prime Minister and defence spending as a share of GDP was 1.96 per cent. I'm sure none of the members opposite would want there to be a misleading figure used here to mislead the Australian public about what governments of all colours do, because both sides take the defence of our nation very seriously, and it has been appalling to see it being used as some sort of little political tool in recent days.
What I'd also like to point out is that the Prime Minister spent a lot of time today trying out his latest messaging about the economy. What he's missing is a key point, and that is something that COVID has shown us: if you don't have your health, not a lot else matters. We've seen that. We've seen that with people's lives. It's all very well to talk about how important the economy is, but the economy is actually about people, and that's how we see it. We intend to have, if we are in government, a strong economy, not at the expense of people but in support of people and their health and security.
The obsession with political pointscoring that we're seeing from those opposite means that they have had no interest in solving the problems that have emerged and been highlighted by COVID. They've only been concerned about making sure they don't have to take responsibility for anything. They don't want you to blame them for anything, but they'll take credit for everything. The Prime Minister leads this charge. It comes from the top down. If you were outside this place looking in, you'd be forgiven for thinking that this country is being run not by a Prime minister but by an adolescent. He reminds me of an adolescent who hasn't yet learnt how to take responsibility, hasn't yet learnt that you have to stand up and unconditionally say 'I'm sorry' sometimes, and hasn't yet learnt that sometimes you can't just push the blame onto other people and pretend it wasn't you. Australians deserve more than that from a Prime Minister, and they deserve much more than they're getting from this government that is just fighting within itself and dividing the nation.
On this side, Labor want to see a nation that is brought together. By the end of a first-term Labor government—there are a whole lot of things that are achievable, that people might struggle to conceive when they think about those opposite running the place—and working with Australians, there's so much that we can get done. We can see more things being made at home, and I stand here very proudly as the member of parliament who has the only Australian manufacturer of rapid antigen tests that was listed in the initial listing on the TGA for the at-home rapid antigen tests. That's a company called Innovation Scientific. I was working with them for many months to educate small businesses about RATs, long before they were available, and to show them what the quality of an Australian product is. That's the sort of thing we should have more of in the Hawkesbury and in the country. The way we do that is we power it with cheap energy. We know that people should be paid a secure and decent wage, so they can live with security.
While there are certain things that we can't compete with other countries on, we can compete on energy. One of the keys to a future made in Australia is cheap renewable energy—and it also creates jobs. Our Powering Australia Plan will create over 600,000 jobs. We will be able to boost renewables to 82 per cent of the grid by 2030, and people will get a $275 drop in their energy bills by 2050. That's what Labor can do working with people, not fighting amongst ourselves.
Mr SIMMONDS (Ryan) (15:57): I'm pleased that Labor members have seen fit to bring forward this matter of public importance, because it talks about the plans that both of our parties have for the future. They're quite right: at the next election, coming up in the next few months, Australians will face an incredibly stark choice. There is a gulf of difference between the plans that this government have for the prosperity of our nation and the plans that Labor have for Australians, and Australians need to know the difference.
I think Australians understand what this government are about. They have seen us in the trenches over the last three years, keeping them safe from a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic. They have seen us keep people in aged care safe. They have seen us roll out vaccines to vulnerable communities. They have seen us roll out booster shots. They have seen us close the borders quickly. And they have seen us take the hard decisions when needed so as to keep Australians safe. They have seen us support hundreds of thousands of jobs through the JobKeeper program, a program that has enabled us to have the economy firing as we come out of the pandemic, including heading towards a record low unemployment rate. They have seen us keep Australians safe when it comes to standing up to the coercion of other nations. And they have seen us tackling the difficult security environment that we face—one of the most difficult security environments faced by any government in a long, long time.
Meanwhile, Labor's plan for the future, Labor's plan for Australians, is a dark and depressing one. It's one where Australians don't feel safe. They don't feel safe to make choices for their families. They don't feel safe to plan for their future. They don't feel safe that their kids will have opportunity and hope. It's a future where a future Labor government have lost control of our borders, just like they did the last time they were in government because the opposition leader doesn't have the ticker to personally turn back a boat. As a consequence, people will die at sea—women and children. Australia's law enforcement and border patrol officers will be fishing bodies out of the sea on a daily basis. Billions is being spent locking up those who have been trafficked by people smugglers in their evil trade—just as Labor did when they were last in government. To pay those billions of dollars to lock people up because of people smugglers, because they've lost control of the borders, Labor are ripping it out of defence. They're ripping it away from Australia's serving men and women, just like they did when they were last in government, when defence spending was at the lowest levels since the 1930s.
They took money out of ASIO, the AFP and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission—the very agencies working to keep Australians safe on the front line every single day. In Labor's plan for the future, Australians are now less safe from foreign interference and less safe from criminal gangs and bikie gangs who would seek to do them harm. It gets worse. As those groups are allowed to flourish because Labor is ripping funds out of ASIO, the Criminal Intelligence Commission and the AFP, Labor is lacking the ticker to revoke visas of convicted criminals and send them back to their home nations where they hold citizenship. So these people continue to commit crimes against Australian citizens. This government has revoked 10,000 visas of convicted criminals. Labor couldn't manage even a tenth of that.
I haven't even got to Labor's vision of our economic future—one where they add taxes, like inheritance and death duties, the retiree tax and housing tax; where they undo the economic policies of this government that have created jobs; where they undo the HomeBuilder scheme, which is putting record numbers of first home buyers into their first homes; and where they undo our infrastructure investment, which is creating jobs and getting people out of traffic congestion and back to their homes and their families more safely and more quickly. The unions reign supreme again, causing inflationary pressures and cost increases that families have to deal with in the supermarket aisles. This is Labor's vision for the future. It's bleak and it's dark.
Australians at the next election in the next couple of months have a stark choice. Re-elect this coalition government to keep unemployment low, to keep our economy strong, to keep Australians and their families safe, and Australia's borders safe and standing up against economic coercion from other nations. (Time expired)
Mrs PHILLIPS (Gilmore) (16:02): I've got to say, as a new member in the parliament, I have never seen anything like we've seen this week from those opposite. It is embarrassing. What members opposite are saying and the division that they are trying to create in this country is absolutely embarrassing. I am ashamed of the Morrison government and the ministers who have stood up here in question time today and absolutely lied to people in this Australian parliament. I grew up on a dairy farm—
The SPEAKER: The member for Gilmore will resume her seat. The assistant minister on a point of order.
Mr Tim Wilson: Point of order. The member made an unparliamentary remark regarding other members.
The SPEAKER: The member did make an unparliamentary remark. The member for Gilmore can continue.
Mrs PHILLIPS: I grew up on a simple dairy farm. Things were pretty simple. We got on with life. We did what we had to. We had food. We traded vegetables. We did all of that. And I look today at where we've got to in this Australian parliament, where those opposite are coming out to seek to divide people. I just can't believe what is happening. I think if people in my electorate saw what was going on in this Australian parliament, they would be ashamed of what has happened.
I cannot believe the division on every single topic that those opposite have talked about. Let's talk about defence. I come from a defence town. I've got a son in the Army. Why are we divided about defence? We should not be divided about defence. I have HMAS Creswell in my electorate. I'm proud of that. At the moment they are off working in aged-care homes in Victoria to support them during the pandemic. The brave men and women of HMAS Albatross served us through our Black Summer bushfires and just about every other disaster we can think of. We've got Australian Public Service employees working in Defence and working right around that need more support. I can tell you that there have been so many cuts that have happened there, but what those opposite are doing is trying to divide, and it's absolutely shocking. I cannot believe the depths and the lows people have gone to in this Australian parliament when our parliament should be standing up and creating a better nation for every person in our electorate, a better nation for everyone in Australia. But all we see is division. All we see is politics. That's what it's all about from the Morrison government, and I say that quite honestly and sadly, because it should never stoop to that.
My mum was a TAFE teacher and a dressmaker. She went to TAFE. She worked hard but, like many women, when she got married she had to leave her job. Shouldn't we be investing in our TAFE system? Shouldn't we be investing so that more young people can go to TAFE and can go to university? I'm married to a tradie. Where have all our tradies gone? We've gone through the bushfires in my electorate, and people can't even rebuild their homes or get out of their temporary accommodation or get out of their temporary business premises because there aren't enough tradies because those opposite do not support the public funding of TAFE.
This government has failed to plan for the future of Australia. We should be making more things right here in Australia. Senator Molan came to my electorate recently and talked about sovereignty, but what's the government doing? We've already committed to a maritime strategic fleet. We've already committed to the helicopters and the aerial firebombers. We've already committed to a housing Australia future fund so people can have a home. There is nothing from the Morrison government. They need to do better. (Time expired)
Mr STEVENS (Sturt) (16:07): I appreciate and welcome the opportunity to have a debate about Australia's future, and that debate is framed around two vitally important topics: the future of the Australian economy and the future of our national security. I welcome the fact that this will be the way we will frame the election campaign, and I look forward to the opportunity to go to the people of my electorate, like I know all of my colleagues on this side of the chamber equally look forward to going to their constituents, and saying, 'These are the important issues that you have to adjudicate over when you go into the ballot box and choose where to put No. 1 on your ballot paper.' I'm very confident that the Morrison government will be handsomely re-elected when we frame the election on this basis. It surprises me but I welcome the decision of the opposition to craft a matter of public importance on a topic that we have all been desperate to talk about ourselves all week in the parliament. Again, I thank them for this opportunity.
Before I talk about our plans for the future, let me say that our record on both of those topics, on the economy and on national security, is one we take a great deal of pride in. We know, of course, that the unemployment figures came out today. Again, unemployment is stable at 4.2 per cent, an unbelievable achievement of the economic policies and settings of this government and one that has surprised many, particularly those opposite, particularly the shadow Treasurer, who was hoping and praying that unemployment would increase dramatically because of the impacts of the coronavirus pandemic. That has not happened and it's because of the strong economic decisions that we have made as a government. I won't catalogue them all, because I've had the opportunity to do that in the past, and I think they're well ingrained in people's minds. But the results couldn't be better encapsulated than today's unemployment figure of 4.2 per cent. When I was at university, five per cent was considered full employment. The fact that it's 4.2 per cent and that the Governor of the Reserve Bank and other senior eminent economists expect that the unemployment rate will go below four per cent is certainly a cause for congratulations on the strong decisions that the government have taken to secure our economy and to ensure that we're in a strong position to go into this campaign, to go to the people of this country and say: 'This is what we've done. But, more importantly, this is what we'll do into the future.' Again, in national security, particularly in defence but also in law enforcement and also in the intelligence agencies, we have made very significant investments and strong decisions that have put all of those elements of our national security services in this country in the strongest possible position to meet some of the threats and challenges that, unfortunately, could well befall us in the years ahead. I think the 2020s will be a period of uncertainty and probably the most significant time since the end of the Second World War, particularly in our region. We need to be in a strong position to meet those challenges, to meet those potential threats. We want peace and we want stability and we want freedom in our region, and you secure that through strength. You secure that through a strong Defence Force, through investing in that capability.
As someone from South Australia, when it comes to sovereign capability and the defence industry, I know just what an impact that makes not only when it comes to our national security but also when it comes to the economic dividend of that. We have a naval shipbuilding program underway in SA, with nine frigates and eight nuclear submarines to be built in Adelaide, and supply chains spread throughout the nation. There is technology that we can access through important alliance partners—in particular, the AUKUS agreement that has recently been signed by our government, which gives us the opportunity to have a nuclear-propelled submarine fleet for the first time in our history.
We have the Quad, the quadrilateral dialogue, and other alliances in our region. These sorts of decisions and achievements under this government are underpinning our national security—much like the free-trade agreements are underpinning our future economic prosperity. We know that our economic growth, in the greatest amount, will come from growing our export sectors and producing more and selling more to the rest of the world. As a nation of only 25 million people, we've got much higher ambitions than merely providing for the needs of this country. By signing those free trade agreements, we're putting ourselves in a position to maximise our market access.
This is a government that understands how to drive forward with a future of prosperity for this nation—economic prosperity and national security. We're making those tough decisions. We've made those tough decisions. We'll have the policies to take to the next election and secure the future of this country for the years and decades ahead.
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (16:12): National security and defence are very important, as all speakers in this MPI have alluded to. It's important to note, though, that there's more to national security and defence than defence spending. There's also fuel security, which the government has manifestly failed to address over its nine years in government. We don't have the fuel reserves in this country that we need. Under this government, we've seen Australia's maritime fleet absolutely decimated. We have a tiny handful of merchant vessels left and merchant crews in Australia, Australian crews. They're also part of our national security apparatus, as we saw in World War II at Dunkirk. It was the merchant fleet that saved those soldiers on the beaches of Dunkirk. That's how important the maritime merchant fleet can be. Under this government we've seen our maritime fleet absolutely decimated. What Australian voters are looking for in the months ahead is certainty and security, and only Labor can provide it. This government has failed over the last nine years to provide that security and certainty.
The Liberal government is a risk agent, it's an agent of risk. Everything it does is about chaos and change. This may come as a surprise to people listening to this debate. The Liberal Party used to be a party of conservatism and looking after the establishment and tradition. That's changed in recent years. It's now a party of risk and change. It smashes the ABC. It cuts Medicare whenever it can. Try to find a bulk-billing agent in regional Australia. You can't. You can't find a bulk-billing GP. The government chips away at Medicare every chance it gets. Arts and culture have been decimated under this Liberal government. University education—decimated. University lecturers and staff—absolutely forgotten by this government. During the pandemic 40,000 teachers at university level were left behind because this government didn't care about that incredibly important institution. National security and defence have become political playthings under this government. And just today was the incredible sight of this government gagging debate on its own legislation because it has no respect for the traditions and the culture of this parliament and this democracy. It's all about power at any cost: do whatever it takes; do whatever it takes to win. That's all it cares about—no integrity, no decency.
After a promise before the last election about a federal integrity commission, it's gone nowhere. They're not even introducing the bill that they say that they've drawn up—which we know is deficient, but they don't even have the guts to bring it into the chamber.
This Liberal government cannot be trusted. It is dismantling Australia's culture and our traditions, and they are turning this country into a cut-price version of the worst aspects of America. This Liberal Party that governs this country now is not the Liberal Party of Robert Menzies. It's not the Liberal Party of Malcolm Fraser. It's not the Liberal Party of John Howard. It's not even the Liberal Party of Malcolm Turnbull. This is the Liberal Party of Donald Trump. That's that what this Liberal Party is. Look at what they're doing: insecure work is rampant in Australia under this Liberal government; penalty rates have been cut under this Liberal government; wages have actually gone backwards for people because of this government; there's no respect for family time for people under this government because of their attacks on penalty rates and weekend rates; financial insecurity is getting worse; they've deliberately suppressed wages under this government; and young people are finding it increasingly difficult to afford to buy a house. It used to be the case that young people could get a good, secure job and go out and get a mortgage and buy a house. Young people today think: 'How on earth can I afford to buy a house in this environment? My labour is casualised, I've got insecure work and my wages are suppressed. How on earth can I get into the housing market?' That is the legacy of this failed Liberal government, a government that can't be trusted with the future of this country.
Only a Labor government will provide certainty and security, secure work, cheaper power prices, a future made in Australia and more manufacturing. The choice is easy at the next election. The choice is easy: Albanese.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The discussion is now concluded.
STATEMENTS
Personal Explanations
Mr BANDT (Melbourne—Leader of the Australian Greens) (16:17): I wish to make a personal explanation.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr BANDT: Yes; twice during the MPI on two matters.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please proceed.
Mr BANDT: The member for Goldstein said that I and our party wanted to introduce a wealth tax, including on the family home. That is not true. The Greens policy is for a tax on billionaires' wealth. It is only billionaires who would have a tax imposed on their wealth. He knows that. It's available on our website. If he wants to have a debate about that, that's fine, but don't make up things that we don't stand for.
On the second matter during the debate on the matter of public importance, both the member for Goldstein and the member for Riverina said that it was the Greens policy to have a 50 per cent cut in defence spending and to cut defence spending to one per cent of GDP. That is not true. The Greens policy is to set defence spending at 1.5 per cent of GDP. That is an amount that I note is higher than countries like Germany and Canada. That is available on our website: greens.org.au/platform/world.
I note in this respect this is the second time that I have risen to make a personal explanation about this matter, and I'm putting on notice the members of the government that I reserve my right to treat further repeats of this statement as a deliberate misleading of the House.
BILLS
Treasury Laws Amendment (Cyclone and Flood Damage Reinsurance Pool) Bill 2022
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that this Government have had almost nine years to take action on the skyrocketing cost of insurance in northern Australia and have failed to deliver anything to the long-suffering households and small businesses who have seen their premiums on average almost double in that time".
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (16:20): We agitated with over 2,000 people at the meetings. The head of the Insurance Council of Australia attended the meetings throughout North Queensland. But I and my office were able to call, and we had a terrific head of steam, and the government took the steam out of us by having an inquiry. Whenever you don't want to do something, of course, you immediately have an inquiry. They were very successful in taking the steam out of us, and we were knocked over in our endeavours.
I have to put on the public record the enormously great work done by the Townsville Chamber of Commerce and the Ingham chamber of commerce, and I want to actually mention names. Ross McLennan, Ramon Jayo, Pino Giandomenico, Rodger Bow and Andrew Lancini were mayors at various times. Margaret Shaw is a Townsville advocate on insurance. Rachael Coco is an absolutely brilliant lady at the Hinchinbrook chamber of commerce. Ron Bellert is at North Queensland Insurance Brokers. I particularly acknowledge George Christensen.
Nothing was happening until George and I—God bless George—came into a meeting. Sometimes it's a bit difficult for a member of the government to go public. What these people had done was to find out that 25 per cent of the houses in North Queensland were not insured. That means that, if a cyclone hits, the government are going to be up to rebuild those houses, whether they want to or not. With that information, George and I were able to go public, and I give most of the credit to him. It cost me nothing but it cost him plenty to do that. Suddenly it was switched on again. We thank the government for having looked at what is the sensible approach to this. Once the insurance companies know that there is a reinsurance pool there, they can proceed to give us the insurance at a reasonable rate.
As I have said four million times on this issue, all of the houses that are goable—the old houses—are gone. Cyclones appear every four or five years, and each cyclone takes out a certain number of houses in North Queensland. In Innisfail, with the worst cyclone in Australian history for its intensity and its speed, Cyclone Larry, half the houses in Innisfail vanished and the other half were quite alright. The other half were the ones built after the cyclone in Darwin, under the post-cyclone codes. We now build houses that can withstand cyclones. So all the houses that are goable are gone. So really the government are providing a reinsurance pool that they will never need to dip into very much at all, because the houses that are there now will withstand any cyclone that nature wants to throw at us. So really it's not a very big ask from the government, but all the same we thank the government very sincerely for taking this initiative. I want to put on record those fighters who found out that 25 per cent of the houses were not insured, which enabled the member for Dawson, George Christensen, and me to switch it back on. I pay a very great tribute to the member for Dawson, who is leaving this place as well.
Mr GEE (Calare—Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister for Defence Personnel) (16:24): I move:
That the question be now put.
Question agreed to.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Llew O'Brien ): The question now is that the amendment be disagreed to.
Question agreed to.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Third Reading
Mr GEE (Calare—Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister for Defence Personnel) (16:26): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2021-2022
Report from Federation Chamber
Bill returned from Federation Chamber without amendment; certified copy of bill presented.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr GEE (Calare—Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister for Defence Personnel) (16:28): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
ADJOURNMENT
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Llew O'Brien): I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
New South Wales: Transport Infrastructure
Constance, Mr Andrew James
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (16:28): I live in, and represent people in, the fastest-growing region in the country—Western Sydney. In my part of Western Sydney there is huge population growth, with 200,000 people expected in the coming years. The Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, and the New South Wales Premier, Dom Perrottet, love cheering on new housing supply and love taking the stamp duty of young families moving into the area but rarely put it back into infrastructure that makes people's lives easier. For example, in our part of the world, the Western Sydney rail line from Penrith is often—every three out of five days—late. It's overcrowded to nearly 300 per cent capacity. Roads like Richmond Road near Colebee are constantly congested, which is hugely frustrating for people wanting to get to and from work or just do their business on the weekend. The north-west metro that the New South Wales government cheers on, that just happens to go through, basically, Liberal seats, finishes at Tallawong and does not go down to St Marys. It is a huge missed opportunity to alleviate congestion and improve public transport in our part of the world.
You could do something about this. Certainly the New South Wales government could, but, unfortunately, they had one of the worst transport ministers in New South Wales history in the form of Andrew Constance. This is a bloke who we had to take to the Australian Human Rights Commission just to make sure he followed the Disability Discrimination Act to install lifts in Doonside Station to help elderly and disabled people. It was one of the view railway stations on the western line that didn't have a lift. Why? Because, as is often the case with the Liberals, they always rort. What should be done is always contorted into financing projects in Liberal electorates above Labor ones. So he kept doing that. Look at his record: projects delayed and projects overbudget. He couldn't fit ferries under bridges and he couldn't fit railways onto rail tracks. He outsourced—disgracefully outsourced—so much manufacturing offshore. People who could have done with those jobs, through the course of the pandemic, saw all this rolling stock and all this equipment offshored, because he and Gladys Berejiklian said that Australians aren't very good at making things. The only legacy that Andrew Constance has is that he came up with a name for a ferry, Ferry McFerryface, that made him the laughing stock of the nation.
I thought we were just being dudded in the outer suburbs, but it turns out he was a dud for his own constituents. He didn't fight for better health care in the seat he has held since 2003. We still see people who are bushfire affected living in caravans two years after the event. It's no wonder that Bega, for the first time since 1988, voted the Liberals out of that seat. Andrew Constance held that seat since 2003. He got really uptight the other night when I raised all this. He said I was being personal. No, I wasn't being personal about him; I was being personal about his terrible performance, because it's all about him. He criticised Scott Morrison and then wanted to become part of his team, in the seat of Gilmore. At least Gladys Berejiklian had the decency and self-respect to decline serving with Scott Morrison and put her self-respect above her ambition. Now, Andrew Constance reckons it's time for a career change and to go into Gilmore. It's always about Andrew Constance.
To the people of Gilmore: I respect that you will make your own decision about who you vote for, and I respect that you don't need someone from outside your area telling you who to vote for. But I plead with you to look at this man's track record. It's a terrible track record. He made life worse for the people I care about in my part of the world and always played politics with infrastructure investment. He neglected the people of Bega. He did not fight for them on health care. He certainly, while making a big deal about the bushfires, didn't follow through and deliver for people in need there. To the people of Gilmore I say this: the only constant with Andrew Constance is his self-promotion and ambition—always for him—and disappointment and neglect for the people he should be representing. He should not, absolutely not, be given the chance to let you down. I urge you to think about that if he is the Liberal candidate for the seat of Gilmore in the election in a few weeks time.
Type 1 Diabetes
Mr SIMMONDS (Ryan) (16:34): It's budget season, of course, and there are always a lot of requests and calls made on the public purse. But there's one particular request that I am passionate about, many members of my community of Ryan are very passionate about and I know many of my colleagues are passionate about. As we head into the next few weeks and into the budget, I want to put in a particular plug for this government to consider further funding as part of the upcoming budget to assist people with type 1 diabetes.
At the end of 2021, there were 129,211 people registered with type 1 diabetes in Australia. As people would know, type 1 diabetes is often developed quite young, as a child, and is quite different to type 2 diabetes, which is more based on lifestyle factors. In October last year, I, along with 12 other coalition colleagues—and, between us, we represented every state of this great nation—wrote to the health minister asking for support to increase access to type 1 diabetes technologies. Our ambition is that all people living with type 1 diabetes have equitable access to the most effective diabetes management systems, regardless of age or income. This means increasing coverage of insulin pumps and glucose monitors.
That's the good news out of this. The good news is that, despite how difficult it is for young people, and people of all ages, to manage type 1 diabetes, the advances of technology are giving them that option. The technology that we have available now through continuous glucose monitors and insulin pumps allows a set-and-forget response where people can just get on with their lives without having to worry about constant testing or the constant highs and lows. I'm so very proud to have been part of this government and particularly initiatives led by the health Minister, Greg Hunt, that have seen this government go further than any before it, making important, groundbreaking initiatives accessible for people with type 1 diabetes.
With a little bit of further investment, we can ensure that those technologies that we're already funding for young people are available to all sufferers so that they can stop planning their lives around how to manage their symptoms and instead plan their futures with confidence. So our ask is this: an extra investment to support expanded access to glucose monitors for adults, who currently miss out, to expand access to insulin pumps to people of all ages with a low-income healthcare card, and, in addition, to make sure that our investment in new technology is fit for purpose so that as new technology becomes available that can be deployed in the fight as well.
This investment would allow continued access to subsidised glucose monitors and insulin pumps for those who have already had access to them. Currently some kids living with type 1 diabetes have either their monitor or their insulin pump taken away at either their 18th or 21st birthday, depending on their circumstance, because they're no longer subsidised. A teen entering adulthood should be planning their studies. They should be starting their career. They should be thinking about how to make a home of their own. They should not be trying to relearn how to manage their diabetes without continuous monitors or pumps. Likewise, parents who have watched their kids excel because of this technology want to see their kids continue to excel. They don't want to see them face extra pressures at an already pressured time, turning 18 or 21, and having the worry of their kids learning how to manage this disease all over again.
That's what struck me about JDRF's Access for All campaign. It's the opportunity to relieve some of the burden of these young Australians during what is an already challenging stage in their lives. It's why I'm enthusiastically supporting their campaign. I know that JDRF ambassadors have reached out to MPs from all across this chamber. I really want to thank them for sharing their stories on living with type 1 diabetes.
This extra investment would make financial sense too. Type 1 diabetes currently costs the Australian community $2.1 billion each year. We can reduce that cost by keeping people out of suffering hypoglycaemia or long-term health effects by managing their type 1 diabetes better using this technology.
I really want to thank Minister Hunt and the PM for engaging with me and other backbench colleagues on this important issue. I sincerely encourage the government to deliver the funding this initiative needs prior to the upcoming budget. I look forward to the community and the government getting behind the campaign.
National Security
Mr KHALIL (Wills) (16:39): I have dedicated my entire career to foreign policy and the national security of Australia because, beyond partisanship, is our collective commitment to Australia's national interest. So I find it remarkable that members of this coalition government, both the Prime Minister and the defence minister, have the gall to attack the Labor opposition on national security. They have been in power for nine long years. They are responsible for that collective commitment to our national security, yet they can only huff and puff their way through a desperate scare campaign. It was Labor in government who banned Chinese state-owned company Huawei on national security grounds in 2012. It was Labor in government that did not ratify an extradition treaty with China that was signed by the Howard government.
The facts are that the coalition government are incompetent managers of our national security with undisclosed links to the Chinese Communist Party. In nine years of coalition government, trade minister Andrew Robb negotiated the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, got a job with Chinese-owned Landbridge company—which now operates the port of Darwin—and the coalition government leased the port of Darwin to the same company! Tony Abbott invited President Xi to speak at parliament, backed President Xi's so-called commitment to democracy, and elevated the relationship. The defence minister when he was home affairs minister met with Huang Xiangmo, a Chinese billionaire who was later barred entry into the country on national security grounds. The minister met with him about migration applications after a $10,000 donation was paid to ex-Liberal minister Santo Santoro.
The only MP charged under foreign interference laws was former Liberal candidate Di Sanh Duong, aka Sunny Duong, well-known to the member for Chisholm, who described him as 'inspiring'. And, while the Prime Minister and the defence minister bluster about national security, in their own government the member for Chisholm has an astronomical number of publicly reported links to Chinese Communist Party United Front organisations—to the Chinese Overseas Exchange Association, Australia Jiangmen General Commercial Association, World Trade United Foundation, United Chinese Commerce Association—and the member for Chisholm refuses to discuss and consistently denies these links. The member for Chisholm has a close relationship with Haha Liu, a Liberal Party donor who attended her inaugural speech and was assessed by ASIO as a national security risk. It was the member for Chisholm who secured access to the federal government for a company that was endorsed by the Chinese Communist Party and later implicated in a major organised crime probe into $1 million in suspected drug money. The member for Chisholm hosted in her home a man who later died suspiciously after telling ASIO he had been approached as part of a plot to insert a Chinese agent into the federal parliament!
The member for Chisholm's links to the Chinese Communist Party were the subject of security warnings before her pre-selection for the 2019 election, as revealed by the Herald Sun, and the member for Chisholm's connection to guests at a Liberal Party fundraiser in 2015 led to the party returning $300,000 in donations due to security concerns. This is the member for Chisholm whose connections led ASIO to advise then Prime Minister Turnbull to not attend one of her Chinese New Year functions; who, in a train-wreck interview with Andrew Bolt on Sky, on multiple occasions was unable to remember any of these connections with Chinese Communist Party linked organisations; and who repeatedly refused to describe Chinese activity in the South China Sea as illegal! She is a Liberal member of this Morrison-Joyce government.
The Morrison government bluster is a smokescreen for how compromised they actually are and for their incompetence, too. It is the incompetence of a Prime Minister who has amateur-hour diplomatic skills, who is not across his brief, and who has repeatedly made the mistake of describing the relationship between China and Taiwan as 'One country, two systems'. That was Hong Kong, Prime Minister! And, despite officials admitting he had made a mistake, he doubled down in the media and refused to backtrack. Here is the common thread, Speaker: the Prime Minister's national security policy is driven by his short-term domestic political survival, not the national interest. They are compromised! They are incompetent! Unlike Liberal Senator Abetz's abhorrent questioning of the loyalty of Chinese Australians, this debate is not about that community. This is about the government's incompetence and the government lurching from one bungled position to another. They bluster and attack the opposition, all the while wilfully blind to the fact that bipartisanship on national security is a national asset. For Australia's national interest, they have got to go!
The SPEAKER: The question is that the House do now adjourn—and we might need to get that microphone checked afterwards! I give the call to the member for Sturt.
Lucas, Hon. Robert Ivan (Rob)
Mr STEVENS (Sturt) (16:44): I take the opportunity this evening, in the adjournment debate, to pay tribute to a constituent of mine: the Hon. Robert Ivan Lucas MLC. Rob Lucas will retire at the upcoming South Australian state election, which is due to be called this weekend and will be held on 19 March—a little over four weeks time.
Rob Lucas, to my best understanding, is the father of all the parliaments in the nation. He was elected in December 1982, a few months before I was born. If the election were due later in the year instead of in March, he would clock up nearly 40 years of service in the South Australian upper house. Before I address the many other achievements in his career, I think that alone is something quite significant. I enjoyed listening to the very eloquent valedictory speech earlier in the week of the member for Lingiari here. It's quite fascinating for newer members to hear about what things have been like in chambers like this and others over the years—what has changed and also what, perhaps, hasn't changed.
It is quite remarkable that Rob Lucas is still serving in the parliament, having commenced his period of service in 1982. There have been six premiers of South Australia in that time, and he has served four of them as a minister. He's been a cabinet minister for more than 12 years, and he's been the Treasurer for nearly nine years, so his period of cabinet service is very impressive as well. He's been on the frontbench, whether in government or opposition, for almost the entirety of those 40 years. I suspect he was probably elevated to the frontbench within four or five years of first being elected to the parliament. He has been on the frontbench for the entirety of the time that I've known him and worked with him, in both government and opposition.
I had the opportunity to work with him for a very long time. Before coming to this place, I was chief of staff to the Liberal leader in South Australia, Steven Marshall, who is now, of course, the Premier. I was his chief of staff for five years in opposition and his first year in government, before the opportunity presented itself for me to contest my seat and be elected to this chamber, so I worked alongside Rob for six years. Throughout that period, he was a very senior member of the leadership team and someone I saw as a mentor to me. He had an unbelievable experience in government and politics and in understanding how to confront issues—sometimes happy ones and sometimes difficult ones, both in victory and defeat. He certainly is—and soon we will say 'was'—a very reliable 'Rock of Gibraltar' for the Liberal team in South Australia.
I think it would have been a very different election result in 2018 if Rob Lucas had not been a part of the team. Of course, in many ways he was doing us all a favour. The joke in the team was that he would have actually earned more money by retiring than by staying in the parliament because, having previously been a minister, his very generous defined benefit pension scheme would have paid him more than he received as a backbench member. It speaks to the quality of the man that he wasn't in it for the remuneration but was in it genuinely to be a parliamentarian. He certainly enjoyed, and engaged in, the cut and thrust of debate on ideas. He was a very polite but aggressive debater and campaigner for the way in which he believed the state of South Australia should be run and the direction we should take our state, both within the party and in the parliament, as well as in the media and in the community.
Rob's leaves an enormous legacy in the state of South Australia and for the South Australian Liberal Party, and, I humbly admit, I am a part of his legacy. He certainly contributed to enhancing the attributes that helped me come to this place, and I'm truly grateful for the access that I constantly had to his experience, his advice and his wisdom. I was not alone in a team that very much relied on him. When the Liberal Party were elected to government in 2018, he was the only person who had previously served as a minister, and we relied on his enormous amount of experience and wisdom. More importantly, he was a great Treasurer and a great contributor to South Australia. He thoroughly deserves to enjoy his retirement.
Fraser Electorate
Dr MULINO (Fraser) (16:49): As the 46th Parliament approaches its final days, I want to take this moment to acknowledge the remarkable resilience of the Fraser community throughout this long, multiyear pandemic. There are so many wonderful community organisations around Fraser which have done so much to support people across that community over the last couple of years. They are all deserving of thanks for their contributions, which have strengthened our community and helped so many people get by during such a difficult time. Organisations throughout Fraser stepped up to provide every manner of support to people in need, at a time when people increasingly found themselves experiencing hardship. Volunteer organisations like The Humble Mission and many Vietnamese organisations and other multicultural organisations provided emergency relief in the form of meals and essential clothing, hygiene and bedding products, and helping those members of the community who were at their most vulnerable. These organisations were often the last resort for people who were isolated from family and other supports—the last resort for people to get essential services and essential goods.
I would like to acknowledge and thank Western Health and all the frontline workers involved in confronting the enormous health challenges we have faced over the last two years. I think it is particularly important to acknowledge the sacrifices made and the risks undertaken by frontline workers who risked exposure and heightened levels of stress to help vulnerable people throughout the community. This also applies to our emergency services workers—to workers in ambulances, to the police, to fire. It also applies to other sectors that have often gone under the radar in the past—like our retail workers, who often put themselves in harm's way to make sure people throughout the community could access essential goods and services. According to the Australian Psychological Society, frontline workers suffer an increased likelihood of depression, anxiety and other mental health distress. Their resilience has been remarkable.
Western Health has also played a significant role in supporting the vaccine rollout across my electorate, along with local school and community organisations who lent space and time to achieve the vaccination targets and keep our community safe and open. I also want to give a big shout-out to many other organisations—for example, Big Sams market, which currently has a vax pop-up. Many organisations throughout the community are facilitating the vaccination rollout. With vaccination rates for schoolchildren and booster rates still nowhere near where we need them, there's so much more to be done.
As a parent, I also want to recognise the significant effort invested by teachers and leaders of school community across my electorate and beyond to deliver high-quality online learning and the flexibility and professionalism with which they've approached every new problem posed to them. The pandemic has presented unique challenges, and the teachers and school leadership of Fraser have faced them admirably.
I also want to highlight the resounding success of the Lunar New Year celebrations across Fraser and Melbourne's broader west. I want to point in particular to the St Albans Lunar New Year Festival, organised by the St Albans Business Group Association, which I attended last week. Thank you to all the organisers, volunteers, participants and attendees who made it possible to hold this festival in person this year. Last year, this event had to occur via video. Apparently, over half a million hits occurred on the website, so it still resonated with people and still meant a lot to people. But this year's festival was able to be held in person, and I want to thank all the people who made that possible. It meant so much to people to be able to see the dancing lions and the fireworks in person. Over 80,000 people attended this one-day festival, which is a remarkable testament to how much people want to attend events in person together to reconnect with each other.
The Vietnamese community plays a significant role throughout the community of Fraser and Melbourne's west, contributing massively to our cultural diversity. The Lunar New Year festivals in St Albans, in Footscray and in many other settings have been the perfect celebration of both the cultural diversity of Fraser and us returning to life and feeling more normal. I want to thank the many Vietnamese community groups for their leadership throughout the last two years connecting people at a time when they were at their most isolated. There are too many to mention them all, but the ones that stand out include the Australian Vietnamese Women's Association, Vietnamese Community in Australia and Australian Vietnamese Arts. Fraser plays home to more than 30,000 Vietnamese Australians, and their contribution to our community cannot be overstated.
Treasury Laws Amendment (Cyclone and Flood Damage Reinsurance Pool) Bill 2022
Mr THOMPSON (Herbert) (16:54): I had hoped to rise earlier today in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cyclone and Flood Damage Reinsurance Pool) Bill 2022. This is probably the most significant bill brought forward in this place for northern Australia and North Queensland, and especially for places like Townsville. We heard from members of the government and the opposition, who were all relatively in favour of the bill. But I have to take issue with some Labor Party members from New South Wales, who stood up and were critical of what we've brought forward. Not one person from the opposition picked up the phone to speak to me about the market failure that we've seen in insurance—not one person. I spoke with the member for Leichhardt, the member for Dawson and the member for Kennedy. Those opposite just wanted to politicise and critique when people of North Queensland have suffered, but the people on the opposite side aren't from our area. They filibustered so that a few of us couldn't speak, but I am very happy that it has passed this House, and will go to the other place.
We've seen market failure of an essential service. The essential service is insurance. I call it an essential service because you need it like you need water. You need it like you need fuel. If you have a small business, you need insurance. If you have a household, you need insurance. If you have a strata title, you need insurance. It's something you must have. But in places like Townsville and in regions in North Queensland, we haven't been able to get insurance. Or the premiums have skyrocketed so much that people are choosing to sacrifice something else to get it. Or they are forgoing it altogether.
The member for Leichhardt has been on this journey for 11 years. It's a long time to be in a fight. When I got into parliament, he grabbed me straight away and said, 'What are your biggest issues?' I said, 'Crime and insurance.' He said: 'Yes. Come here, and let's talk about insurance.' It has been very positive to work with Minister Sukkar and the Prime Minister to come up with this reinsurance pool. This legislation will make a real difference in the lives and livelihoods of people in North Queensland.
Every day my office would get countless calls from people who have had their premiums jump 30 per cent, and I couldn't fathom how. We wanted to work with insurance companies and with people to help get insurance to a level that was acceptable. We'd hear one thing from insurers one day, and then another thing the next day. At the end of the day it hurt the people on the ground. Last year in Douglas, a suburb of Townsville, people had premiums of $2,777. In one year those premiums jumped to $4,213. That's a 51 per cent increase in one year. It simply defies logic how something can double in one year. It doesn't add up.
Other residents have shared how their renewals increased by 35 per cent in a year, despite making no claims. There has been no decent explanation from the insurance companies about why this has jumped so significantly. One resident wrote to me said: 'I recently received my house insurance renewal. No cyclones, no fires, no floods, no break-ins, no claims, but a massive 35 per cent premium increase. Surely nothing goes up by 35 per cent in one year—not even the building costs.' Another resident explained the process they'd been through to try to reduce their premium by shopping around: 'I've tried to attain other quotes for my modest, small, three-bedroom 1970 home and have received quotes ranging from $4,500 to $7,000. Lowering the house price by $50,000 doesn't have much of an impact either. I have a high-set home; it's not in a flood area. No storms. No major events. I've never made a claim.'
This price hike is ridiculous. That's why the government has come in to create the $10 billion reinsurance pool, so their premiums will not skyrocket any higher. The savings will be up to 46 per cent for homeowners, 58 per cent for strata properties and 34 per cent for small and medium businesses. This is a fantastic policy. The reinsurance pool will benefit all of North Queensland.
House adjourned at 16:59
Federation Chamber
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Zimmerman ) took the chair at 09:59.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Zimmerman ) took the chair at 09:59.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Kingsford Smith Electorate: Bus Services
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (09:59): Prior to the 2019 New South Wales state election, the then Premier, Gladys Berejiklian, gave a firm commitment to our community that there would be no privatisation of bus services in the eastern suburbs of Sydney. Gladys Berejiklian and, indeed, the new Premier, Dom Perrottet, misled our community, because that is exactly what they have gone ahead and done in the wake of the election. They've let our community down and misled the people of the eastern suburbs, because the New South Wales Liberal government has proceeded with the cutting of 24 local bus services and a large number of bus stops, and they're proceeding with the privatisation of the public bus service that is so beloved by many in our community and relied on by so many. It's a despicable act that will have a dramatic effect on the quality of life of so many in our community, particularly the elderly, people with a disability and children, who rely on these bus services on a daily basis to go about their business.
Over the last six months I have been contacted by many constituents and locals who are dismayed at the decision made by the New South Wales government. I want to provide a flavour of the responses that I've had from the community for the House from this email I received from Sandra of Botany, who wrote: 'Since school returned over two weeks ago our kids haven't had a day they could get home in under two hours. It's astonishing that it's taken them over two hours to travel 10 kilometres in distance from Waverley to Botany. Our kids are usually exhausted and stressed by the time they get home, and this has consequently impacted on our whole family life.' This has occurred because the government cut the 400 bus service that this family relied on to get their kids to school on a daily basis. She goes on to say: 'When the state government decided to make changes to bus services, they also decided to take away our suburb's most vital bus service.' That is a reflection of what's going on with this government. It's not just in Botany. From La Perouse all the way to Randwick, there have been cuts to services, and they've had a dramatic effect on people's quality of life.
The reason we pay taxes is for governments to provide quality services, particularly quality health care, education, and transport services. They're the vital services that people rely on, on a daily basis. When you cut bus services like this, it has a dramatic effect on the people of our area. The Perrottet government should be ashamed of themselves for the disadvantage and hurt they've caused to so many, particularly pensioners and people with a disability.
Moncrieff Electorate: Australia Day Awards
Ms BELL (Moncrieff) (10:02): Australia recognises our citizens for the hard work and contributions they make to develop and foster a prosperous, growing community for the betterment of all who call Australia home. Our honours and awards system recognises the merit of outstanding service and contributions of Australians. Recipients come from far and wide, right across our great nation, from all walks of life and from different circumstances to inspire and make positive change for future generations. While some are well known for their contributions, the majority are unsung heroes, who make an impact in their own communities, unobserved by the public eye but recognised by those who nominate them for their service and contribution to our great country.
Typically our country's heroes don't seek thanks or applause. They deserve both. The honours and awards system gives the nation a chance to celebrate and acknowledge those who work tirelessly to improve local communities and to make Australia a better place. I congratulate and pay homage to the citizens of Moncrieff who this year received such an honour.
Chelsea Hodges OAM began swimming as a six-years-old in Biloela in Queensland. She's now a Gold Coaster, an Olympic gold medallist and an inspiration to young women across the nation. Chelsea represented Australia for the first time at the FINA World Junior Swimming Championships in Indiana in 2017, and since then her determination and dedication to sport have propelled her to the highest of all heights. Thank you, Chelsea, for your service to sport and representing Australia at the 2020 Tokyo Olympic Games and for bringing home more gold to the coast.
Dr Stephen Godfrey OAM is president of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Ophthalmologists, a national RANZCO examiner and a visiting medical officer at Gold Coast University Hospital, training and supervising registrars. Dr Godfrey is a general ophthalmologist treating all eye conditions. He is committed to the outreach eye surgery program in remote North Queensland. Dr Godfrey operates at Pacific Private Day Hospital in Southport, John Flynn Private Hospital in Tugun and Gold Coast University Hospital. Thank you, Dr Godfrey, for your service to medicine as an ophthalmologist.
Nick Marshall OAM is not only a recipient of one of Australia's highest honours but also the recipient of the 2020 Australian of the Year—Local Hero. He's my local hero, at Nobbys Surf Club. Nick's contributed greatly through his dedication to surf lifesaving to ensure our beaches are safe for locals. Thank you, Nick, for your dedication.
Captain Dennis Magennis was awarded an OAM in the Military Division for meritorious service as the manager of the Australian Army Military Museum and as a regimental sergeant major of the Australian Army. I would also like to congratulate Roger Emmerson OAM for his dedication to the community.
Macquarie Electorate: Small Business
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (10:06): Some small businesses in the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury describe the last three months as being as bad as November 2019. That date is powerful in the minds of my constituents because it's when the smoke started from the Gospers Mountain fire, and people literally stopped coming to the region for months. These are tourism and hospitality businesses that rely on a variety of things like international tourists, school excursions and senior groups taking bus tours, as well as strong consumer confidence and confidence of locals to get out and visit these venues. If any one of those things is soft then their viability is on the line. It's taking a toll on operators and their staff. You can hang on in business through a rough patch, but we've now had more than two years of these conditions. Every time it feels like there's hope for a good season, it's a fizzer or worse.
Cafes battle not only with quiet weekdays but also with not enough staff or capacity to make the most of the sometimes busy tourist weekends. Travel agents are still doing it tough right now. They may be taking bookings, but those bookings are often paid for by credits that travellers have from their cancelled COVID trips and that means very little or no income. One tells me, 'The grants helped us up to this point, but where we go from here I don't know unless further grants are available.' They're hoping the unused funds from the travel agent support rounds are going to be made available to those who are still trading. The federal Treasurer has declined to provide further support for small business, saying in a Sky interview I was watching a few weeks ago, 'With respect to New South Wales, I've had requests from other states and the answer's been consistent, which is we're bringing an end to that emergency economic support, we're moving to a more normalised setting.' That's not how it feels on the ground.
The latest support from the New South Wales government continues to leave out the businesses it left out before: those who'd opened just before bushfires and COVID or were brave enough to open doing COVID, and those who had expanded so their turnover doesn't show a decline even though they may be running two shops with double the operating expenses to achieve the expansion. These businesses trusted what governments were telling them, especially about what to expect in the summer just ending—false hope from governments that things would return to some sort of normal. Many businesses have closed, sold, retired or given up, and others are just hanging on. Most businesses don't broadcast this; that's not what small business does. I know that when business is tough, we put on a smile and we say 'We're getting there', or 'It's just starting to pick up.'
Of course, this isn't the case for all small businesses. Some are thriving, but those who aren't need support. One said to me about his business, 'If we can't hold on and we close now, in six months time governments will be providing incentives to someone else to get the same service up and running.' Surely, it makes more sense to extend a lifeline to those who really need it, who've hung on, rather than let them crash and burn. (Time expired.)
Lions Club of Mount Panorama
Mr GEE (Calare—Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister for Defence Personnel) (10:09): Today I rise to highlight the outstanding work being done by one of Calare's great service clubs, the newly named Lions Club of Mount Panorama. The club was formerly known as Bathurst Macquarie. It became part of Australia's largest service club organisation about 46 years ago. Since then, scores of outstanding members have volunteered their time and service to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to make the wider Bathurst community a better place for everyone lucky enough to call it home.
The Lions motto is We Serve. I know this because I, too, am a proud Lion, and I see what these wonderful men and women do for our communities and also our younger Leos. Members continue to be there in times of flood, drought and bushfire. Day in, day out, they quietly take on projects to improve the lives of area residents. Their work provides funds to buy vital equipment for those who need it most: a state-of-the-art wheelchair for a young school student; hearing dogs; insurance to allow students to take part in riding for the disabled; toiletries and clothing for the city's homeless; a sewing machine, material and thread to allow disabled residents to learn to sew. All this valuable work is funded by money raised by the Lions. Their main income comes from the monthly riverside markets where members collect donations from visitors and fees from stallholders. Members also run a catering van to cook up a storm at fundraising barbecues. The food van and storage shed are made possible thanks in part to Australian government funding.
This month I was honoured to take part in celebrations to launch the club's new name, a name its members have chosen to take it into the next chapter. What better year to rename the club than the same year Lions Australia celebrates its 75th anniversary and the same year Mount Panorama Lion Michael Ryan takes over as district governor. I would like to acknowledge the selfless dedication of all these wonderful Lions: president, Sue Longmore; secretary, Judy Ryan; treasurer, Lesley Carter; incoming district governor, Michael Ryan; past district governor, Roger Thomas; Graham Carter; Ryan Cooney; Dennis and Sally Coopes; Pat Duff; Alan and Kerry Harris; Jan and Roger Kendall; Terry Longmore; Jon Maclean; Jennifer Murray; Glenn and Tracey Phillips; Michael Rendell; Licia Thomas; Dean and Lorraine Ward; Kath Whitehead; Michael Whittaker; Margaret Yule; and life member John Fish, who has been a Lion since 1968.
These men and women exemplify the community spirit that makes Australia such a wonderful country. On behalf of this parliament, I formally recognise them and thank them for their dedication and service. I also recognise Lions right around Australia, wherever they may be, and thank them for all of their wonderful work. They are part of the fabric of our communities right around Australia. We would certainly be lost without our Lions, and I know all members of this House join me in saluting our Lions and the wonderful work that they do.
Religious Discrimination Bill 2022
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (10:12): Parliament missed a valuable opportunity last week. We let slip the opportunity to protect all Australians from discrimination. Parliament failed to protect people of faith, all faiths—Christians, Hindus, Muslim women who are scared of being attacked for wearing a hijab, Sikh men worried about having their turbans ripped off in the street, Jewish people, and so many more people of faith. On Prime Minister Morrison's watch, this parliament missed the opportunity to protect people in the LGBTIQ community. Parliament missed the opportunity to protect children, all children—straight children, gay children, trans children. Children, whoever they are. The parliament failed. Instead, Prime Minister Morrison deliberately and cold-heartedly chose division and discrimination. He talked of unifying but walked away when it mattered most. This sinister Prime Minister used trans children as a divisive tactic in a cold-hearted attempt to score political points. Just let that sink in. He used children in the hope of improving his electoral fortunes.
The parliament had a chance to extend protection from vilification to people of faith, particularly minority religions, like my Muslim and Sikh communities, who have been telling me for years they need this protection. Parliament could have stepped up last week. Instead, the Prime Minister stepped down to the gutter. Labor moved an amendment to achieve protection, but the Morrison government made the decision to deny people of faith that protection.
Last week this parliament had a chance to extend discrimination protection to all children. The Morrison government made a decision to leave trans children open to discrimination. The damage of that shameful stance by the Morrison government—not all—has already been felt in the trans community. That low road should never have been a direction for this parliament. All children should be protected, always.
Sadly, the Greens political party were just as bad as the coalition last week. They abandoned people of faith in that important debate. In their desperation for relevance, and to always attack Labor, the Greens failed to protect all Australians. They had the social media attack ads ready to narrowcast to certain groups who they think will help their electoral chances, when they should have actually been seeking to protect all Australians from discrimination.
I want to make Labor's position crystal clear: we want to extend protection from discrimination to people of faith without removing existing discrimination protections for other Australians. We want all children to be protected from discrimination, and this is achievable. It was achievable last week, but the Morrison government decided not to protect religious people from vilification and not to protect all children. The Morrison government opened their old and desperate playbook last week to divide the parliament and to divide Australians, pitting religious communities against LGBTIQ communities, pitting the rights of one group of children against the rights of another. It's a hard path to unite the country, and this government is not up to it.
Parliament House: Protests
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (10:15): You'll be pleased to know that, having had a wisdom tooth pulled yesterday, I'm going to be speaking a bit more slowly and a little less ferociously, but speaking nonetheless. There were tens of thousands of people—perhaps even hundreds of thousands; I'm not sure—that were vilified in this place and in the press recently, and those were the people who participated in the Convoy to Canberra rally that we saw over the last couple of weeks. The media and power elites have done their best to try and trivialise that protest, and they've focused on the very, very few in the crowd who probably didn't do the right thing, whereas the vast majority did.
They trivialised the size of the crowd. Having been there on both protest days, I can tell you: if that was an NRL game, it would've been a packed house; it would've been sold out, and there would've been people wanting more tickets. It was the biggest rally I've seen in this place in the 11 years that I've been here, and that was echoed by none other than Chris Uhlmann, who said it was the biggest rally that he had seen in Canberra in the past three decades. The media tried, on the one hand, to claim that there were about 4,000 people at the protest; on the other, they were blaming them for overflowing the EPIC grounds, where most of the protesters were camping. You can't have it both ways.
Here in this place and in the media, the protesters were demonised and painted as fringe and violent, but the only violence that I saw was that committed against those protesters, with two instances of road rage, spurred on, I believe, by the biased reporting from the Canberra Times, which whipped up locals against those people. Those people were far from fringe. There were people from all walks of life, from brickies to graziers. There were occupations all over the place, and people had their tenure in those occupations written on their backs—doctors, nurses, teachers, firies and ambos who have lost their jobs due to 'no jab, no job' mandates. There were even policemen there.
These people deserve to be heard, in this place and in state parliaments as well. Their message is loud and clear, and it's one that everyone should heed. They want an end to these mandates—the 'no jab, no job' mandates, the mask mandates and all the other restrictions. The data is in, and we find that they haven't worked. The vaccine mandates didn't work. The mask mandates didn't work. It all needs to come to a crashing halt.
Werriwa Electorate: Community Events
Ms STANLEY (Werriwa—Opposition Whip) (10:18): Over the past few weeks, as COVID subsides in my community, I've been honoured to start attending community events across the electorate of Werriwa. On 3 February I was pleased to be invited to join the Parish of St Luke's commencement ceremony for their new reverend, Timothy Booker. Reverend Booker has worked at St Luke's before, with outgoing Reverend Stuart Pearson. St Luke's is the oldest existing Anglican church in Australia, and services have been held on the site since the early 1800s. Reverend Booker is the 16th rector for the church, which demonstrates the commitment of the rectors, previously, to our community and their parishioners. Reverend Booker follows Reverend Stuart Pearson, who was this year named Liverpool Citizen of the Year for all the work he has done in our community over the past 20 years. Reverend Pearson has served our community, encouraging all at services, whatever their language or ethnicity. The services are in many languages, and he also has been supporting volunteer groups. I wish Stuart and Julie all the best for a wonderful retirement. I know they'll still be very much part of our Liverpool community, and I thank them for their support of our area over so many years.
I attended this year's colourful Lunar New Year celebrations at the Mingyue Lay Buddhist Temple. The event is always beautiful and colourful, and this year's was no different. Welcoming in the Year of the Tiger, the weather was almost perfect, although the quick showers did make the fireworks very difficult to light. I was privileged to be one of the people asked to do so. I'd like to recognise James Chang and Victor Kong for all of the work they and their volunteers do every day to support the large community who visit their temple. These leaders also do incredible work within our community and are often at the forefront of fundraising, if required. They raised incredible amounts of money for those affected by the 2019 bushfires throughout New South Wales as well as by recent flood events and other natural disasters. Nothing is too much trouble for them to help with.
I also attended the signing of the Australian-South Eastern Asian Network statement, which was recognising the coming together of our Laos, Cambodian, Khmer Krom, Myanmar and Vietnamese communities. They are a large group of south-western Sydney communities. This group intends to provide informal advocacy to engage with Australian governments, members of parliament and other institutions. There were special guests in the audience. I acknowledge the venerable abbots and all the other people, including Sawathey Ek OAM. As part of the initiative, there will be a youth group established, and I really do look forward to speaking with them about the issues that matter to them, their community and the wider Australian community. I really appreciate the hospitality shown at all these events. Thank you for the invitations.
Kinchela Aboriginal Boys Training Home
Mr CONAGHAN (Cowper) (10:21): I recently had the privilege of being invited to meet with elders and community leaders from the Kinchela boys home, a site that gave rise to significant generational trauma for the Aboriginal community in my hometown of Kempsey. The Minister for Indigenous Australians gave acknowledgement to Kinchela in his speech commemorating the National Apology to the Stolen Generations. He mentioned in that speech that the boys were only known by numbers, not by name. That's a testament to the dehumanising reality of the Kinchela boys home and of the many other institutions like it around the country. Those boys who were sent to Kinchela were stripped not only of their names but also of their identities and their connections to their culture.
While I listened to the elders speak of their personal experiences and the hopes and the plans that they had for the future not just of the site but, more broadly, of their community in Kempsey, I was particularly moved by their generosity in their collective desire to ensure 'that the pain stops with them'. These proud Aboriginal men, these survivors of an institution that systematically stripped them of their culture and humanity, were focused not on what had been done but what could be done for their children and grandchildren. There are currently plans in place to develop the site as one of cultural commemoration, where Australians of all backgrounds can come to acknowledge the past and to appreciate the significance of connection to culture and to community.
Jo Kelly, the project manager for the Kinchela Boys Home Aboriginal Corporation and the driving force of the Indigenous Youth Connection to Culture program, IYCC, has also been leading the charge for a community action plan aimed at ensuring that the voices of young Aboriginal people are heard. The plan has been devised after hundreds of hours of consultation with the community, and it will be used as a tool to increase cultural knowledge and understanding as well as to build pride, resilience and self-esteem.
I'm making this speech in this place today to ensure the Kinchela boys home development project and the work of the IYCC team are recognised here. I will ensure that I will assist in any way that I can in supporting their vision. The courage of these men is outstanding, and they should be respected for the work that they've been doing.
Sergeant, Professor Brendan
Larsen, Jamie
Mr DAVID SMITH (Bean) (10:24): I rise today to speak about two extraordinary Canberrans. Sadly, we recently lost Professor Brendan Sargeant to a terrible swimming accident on the coast. Brendan was the head of the highly acclaimed Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian National University. He assumed this position after a long career in the Department of Defence, where he was a widely respected thought leader, rising to associate secretary and acting secretary.
Before becoming the member for Bean, I represented engineers and scientists working in Defence, for over a decade. From that vantage point I was able to witness the trials and tribulations of Defence from up close. While I experienced many frustrations, my interactions with Brendan were always positive and professional. He had the hard-earned respect of the unions representing the defence workforce. He was intelligent and prepared to negotiate genuinely. He was always focused on Australia's engagement with the Indo-Pacific and the important defence elements of that engagement. Indeed, that focus predated the current climate, and regional engagement was not seen by some as a strong priority. In this, he was ahead of his time. Post Defence, we were the other halves of a friendship between our partners. We've lost a truly great servant of Australia. Vale, Brendan. Condolences to Vaidehi and family.
I also want to speak about a young constituent of mine who is facing a great battle. Jamie Larsen wrote to me late last year to tell me about his story. Jamie, who is only 17, is suffering from Duchenne muscular dystrophy, a progressive muscular degenerative disease. At present there is no cure. This insidious disease targets young men and boys, and Jamie was diagnosed when he was three years old. Jamie wrote to tell me that, thanks to medical breakthroughs, there are an increasing number of medicines nearing the end of their trials in the United States that look likely to receive FDA approval. But, without a streamlined approval process from the TGA, it might be years until DMD sufferers in this country get access to the medicines. Last year, the standing committee on health investigated this challenge. The member for Macarthur and you, Mr Deputy Speaker Zimmerman, both great advocates, have supported some changes in this space. As my friend Dr Freelander said:
We are at an inflection point in healthcare in Australia at the present time, because of the rapidly increasing treatments becoming available for conditions previously considered untreatable.
We need to do better for people like Jamie. We need the TGA to have a streamlined process for Australians to access new and life-saving medicines.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Zimmerman ): You almost get an extension for praising the health committee! I call the member for Forde.
Forde Electorate
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Chief Government Whip) (10:27): It's a pleasure to rise and speak about the great range of things that the Morrison government and coalition governments over the past few years have been delivering across the electorate of Forde. Health, hospitals, schools, child care, local transport, infrastructure, sporting and community facilities and, finally, environmental funding: they've all been part of our plan to deliver for the community of Forde.
Since we came to government in 2013, we've increased funding to Queensland hospitals by over 102 per cent, from $2.7 billion to $5.4 billion in Commonwealth funding. The Commonwealth has subsidised, over the past year, some 2.3 million prescriptions through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Since October 2013, 2,847 new or amended items have been listed or will soon be listed on the PBS. This is the equivalent of 30 new or amended medicines a month, with an overall investment of some $14.3 billion.
One of the important issues, sadly, in my electorate and, I know, in many other electorates across Australia, is mental health funding. I'm pleased to say we have delivered on that in the electorate of Forde through the support of not only the existing Meadowbrook headspace but also the new headspace at Upper Coomera, both of which are doing an enormously important job for the youth in our community. Sadly, their services are now more greatly required than ever, and I know that they are busier than they ever have been.
We have also seen tremendous investments in our schools, not just from recurring school funding but also from various grants to improve school facilities. There has been the Marsden State High School oval upgrade, which now sees Souths Logan Magpies train there, and they will play a number of games there this year. Norfolk Village State School and Eagleby State School have benefited from the health and wellbeing hubs. Parents no longer have to travel to the Gold Coast or Brisbane for services for their children. Those health services now have somewhere where they can meet with the parents and the kids on the school grounds, saving enormous amounts of travelling time for parents. We are finding that parents are more readily able and more willing, importantly, to meet with those services to see how their children can be helped at school. There is Kimberley Park State School, with their oval upgrades to provide disability access. All of these are examples of the Morrison government continuing to deliver for the electorate of Forde.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Zimmerman ): Order! In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
BILLS
Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2021-2022
Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2021-2022
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (10:31): We are coming to the end of another term of this parliament. We may only have a few sitting days left to go. It's time to give a report on this government, I think. My electors and people in my electorate have been consistently telling me that this Morrison government deserves an F for failure. It is disappointing that the government, during this last term, and indeed for the almost a decade that they have been in government, have failed to properly understand the needs of people in my community. When we look at this pandemic, right from the beginning this Prime Minister said that it wasn't his job to do so many things. He failed to order enough vaccines. He failed to roll out the vaccines properly. He failed to build fit-for-purpose national quarantine facilities to stop the virus entering the country. He failed to order enough rapid antigen tests. And he fails to ensure that there is a proper national plan. He will talk about a national plan, but the truth is that states and territories do not have confidence in this Prime Minister, and they've actually gone and done it themselves.
Time and time again, when this Prime Minister and this government have been called out about some of these failures, what is the response we get? 'Well, it's not my job. I'm not responsible for this.' Where is the leadership in this? During this pandemic, Australians have been crying out for leadership, and what have we got? We've got a Prime Minister who has constantly picked fights, usually only with Labor premiers but sometimes with his Liberal counterparts as well, and run commentary on their performance but who has never himself taken responsibility. Of course, it hasn't just been when it comes to the pandemic; it's the bushfire recovery, the robodebt, the awful neglect that was already in aged care, the huge amount of rorting schemes—sports rorts, car park rorts. It's just more and more excuses, more and more 'It's not my fault.' This passing of the buck has just got to stop. Australians deserve better. Australians deserve a leader, a Prime Minister, who will take responsibility and not just pass the buck, not just do a fancy announcement and never actually deliver something properly to the community. I mentioned vaccines. If we think about the vaccine rollout, Australia's vaccine rollout left us vulnerable. The lack of supply left us vulnerable as a country. I heard countless reports from constituents in my electorate who desperately wanted a vaccine but just couldn't find one. I heard many reports from GPs who were confused about how to obtain the vaccine and the process of administration.
Earlier this year I still had parents contacting me about how to get a vaccine for their child. As late as this year parents were scrambling for appointments. They were booking in at various places trying to get a vaccine. One local example is Lauren from Morphett Vale, who said that she was very anxious and uncertain about her kids going back to school. This was compounded by the fact that her kids would not get even their first shot before heading back to school. She was unable to secure an appointment earlier.
This just isn't good enough. We also have a booster rollout that is slow and was delayed by the original slow vaccine rollout. When the Prime Minister said it was not a race I think it sent shivers down so many people's spines. It was a race. It still is a race. We need this Prime Minister and government to stand up.
Of course, this is not the only example of where the Prime Minister and this government have been slow to act. It was the same story when it came to rapid antigen tests this summer. Rapid antigen tests have been used in the US, the UK and many other countries around the world to get people back to work safely, to get kids back to school and to start to return to normal life. Instead, in Australia at the most vulnerable stage of the pandemic, when we were seeing case numbers increase significantly here on our shores, we had many people lining up for PCR tests and not being able to get a PCR test. They were driving around. Belatedly it was announced that they could use rapid antigen tests, but they couldn't find any of them because the government hadn't actually planned for this. They hadn't prepared for this. The government belatedly had to be dragged kicking and screaming to announce their program for concession card holders. They left many vulnerable people being ripped off and many people being undiagnosed. People were travelling around suburbs, cities and towns searching in vain for these tests.
Of course COVID has had a massive impact. I think there are a lot of small businesses in my electorate that are feeling quite frustrated about some of the rhetoric of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. If you read between the lines, they're saying that Australians have never been better off. That is not the real lived experience of many small businesses in my electorate. Most recently I met with Chris who owns a cafe in the Colonnades shopping centre. Chris purchased this cafe in the Colonnades in January 2020—not a great time. Since then she and her team of 10 staff have been working hard to continue to service their customers, but trade is tough at the moment with the increased density restrictions in South Australia and low foot traffic because people are scared. Even if people can go to the shops, they are worried and are not going. Chris shared that, throughout the whole pandemic, right now is the hardest it has been for her business. Yes, that's right—lockdowns were better for Chris than now. She told me she just sold her house to keep her small business afloat.
For the Prime Minister to say that the economy is going great guns ignores the real lived experiences of so many small businesses in my electorate. Their businesses may never be the same again. They may not make it through. We need to really understand that, despite some of these headline economic figures, there are people who are really doing it tough and deserve our recognition and our support.
In the pandemic we have been left vulnerable as a result of a health system already under significant strain. Look at my own state of South Australia and at ramping in particular. For those who don't know what ramping is—although it's a term you don't need to explain in South Australia—it is when an ambulance goes out for an emergency, picks someone up and then sits in the driveway of the hospital because there just isn't the capacity in the hospital. Now, ramping in South Australia's hospitals was a problem before omicron, but it is now a significant problem, and it has been compounded by this government's, as well as the South Australian government's, failure to properly prepare for the onslaught of omicron.
I'll give you just one example. Last year I was contacted by a family in Aberfoyle Park who were forced to call an ambulance when they were unable to see the local doctor. After calling triple 0 for an ambulance, the family were left waiting for over two hours for it to come to Aberfoyle Park. This family said it wasn't the first time they'd been left waiting for an ambulance in the last year; the mother said she'd experienced a heart episode and after calling the ambulance she had to wait for the ambulance and then was left ramped and waiting for treatment for four hours.
In addition, we have seen the issues around our hospitals compounded by this Morrison government's failure to properly address the primary healthcare system, particularly in terms of GP shortages. My local communities in the southern suburbs are facing shortages of GPs that are preventing many residents from accessing the basic healthcare they need. Those with regular GPs are waiting too long to get an appointment, and many doctors in the southern suburbs are stretched so thin they've been forced to close their books to new patients. Over 300 residents in my community have gathered together in just a few short weeks to sign a petition calling on the federal government to address this GP shortage. Constance from Morphett Vale says: 'Sometimes I've waited up to three weeks or more. I have heart failure, lung failure and kidney failure. I feel very afraid. I'm unaware when I will need to access a doctor. Please help us in the south.' Milton from Reynella East says: 'I've waited up to two weeks. This is just not good enough. We should not have to wait two weeks to see a doctor.' And Shirley shared her experience: 'I have to wait at least three weeks or four weeks for an appointment. I feel so sorry for our overworked doctors.' Once again, this is a government that has failed to plan for our primary health system, and these are the consequences.
Then, of course, as we've heard throughout the media recently, on our aged-care system—which, we know, has been neglected by this almost-decade-old government—the pandemic has opened our eyes to the existing problems in aged care and has exacerbated them significantly. There have been over 600 deaths this year. There are a thousand outbreaks right now in aged care. Tens of thousands of aged-care residents have not got their booster shots. Over half the aged-care workforce have not got their booster shots. And, as I speak, 12,000 residents and workers are infected. This is just not good enough. Where is the government? I will not accept from this government: 'It's not my responsibility.'
So, when it has come to the pandemic, this government has failed to plan and failed to act. It has loved the announcement, but has never been there to actually deliver.
But the failures stem from many, many years back. Let's look back at some of the issues that I have had to constantly fight on for my local community. The NBN has been an issue and is still, after this government came to office in 2013 and ripped up a plan that was starting to deliver proper long-term results for communities by building the infrastructure right, first—first time. But of course, no; Tony Abbott, the then Prime Minister, thought that this was just about watching Netflix; he failed to understand the absolutely critical need of small businesses for at-home internet. Of course, this has been exacerbated by the pandemic, when many people have been told that they have no other option but to work from home. I've heard countless frustrations from those my community who have had to rely on this government's infamous copper to the node, where new copper was laid where the old copper was. It is failing to deliver the results that so many residents need.
Of course, the government have sheepishly put out that, yes, they realise it's been a bit wrong and they're going to go back and pull up the copper they just laid and replace it with fibre. But only 10 per cent of households that are relying on this copper and the failed HFC network are actually going to benefit from this. That leaves the suburbs Aberfoyle Park, Flagstaff Hill and many others. Having had new copper laid, every time there's rainfall they lose their internet. They get promised speeds of up to 100 megabits by internet companies but can't get past 10 or 20 megabits. This is failure on a grand scale and shows the lack of vision that this government has had.
On more local issues, we've had failure in many grants programs. I think very much of the South Adelaide Football Club. It's a great football club. It wants women's change rooms. It dutifully applied for federal government funding for women's change rooms, and, I'm sure, was rated very highly by Sport Australia, but it was dudded during the sports rorts fiasco. It did not get the money it deserved for women's change rooms. Instead, the funding went to a rugby club in South Australia without women's sport, yet it was for women's change room facilities. My community, rightly, have given this government a big F for failure on the report card for this term. I'll be working hard as we approach the next election to make sure the positive alternative is put out there, and we will let the Australian people decide.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (10:46): We on this side of the chamber always support appropriation bills. It's a legacy of the dark days when a Labor government was held to parliamentary ransom by a coalition that wouldn't respect the House of Representatives. We have a strong, principled position that we support appropriation bills even if we don't agree with every single thing that's in the particular bill. This is an appropriation of nearly $16 billion and covers a whole range of portfolio areas—from agriculture to defence to the digital economy and a whole range of other areas—but in relation to this bill, Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2021-2022, I want to take the opportunity to speak generally about where the economy stands and where this government has, in my view, failed dismally.
Before they came to power, nearly a decade ago, the government promised there would be surpluses in every budget year, certainly in the first year and in every year thereafter. That's what the then member for North Sydney and shadow Treasurer, Joe Hockey, said. They haven't delivered one. It has been the longest period of consecutive deficits that this country has seen for 40 years or more. We on this side of the chamber, who have constantly been criticised on debt and deficit, won't take lectures from a government that has racked up a trillion dollars in debt, that has delivered deficit after deficit, and that wasted $20 billion on JobKeeper for businesses that didn't deserve it and didn't need it—that had made profits—when it wouldn't support casual workers or people in this country on visas, who had to rely on the generosity of the Australian community to maintain themselves.
This is a government that prides itself on being, allegedly, a low-taxing government. It's the second-highest-taxing government in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia, and it has had multiple failures. My community has seen that writ large. In the digital economy, as the member for Kingston talked about, there are whole suburbs in regional areas where they're going to have to rip up what they've done and, eventually, bring in fibre to the premises. One of the terrible legacies of the former Prime Minister and member for Warringah, Mr Tony Abbott, and the subsequent Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, is the failure of the NBN, which has disadvantaged regional and rural communities massively. It's a point of equity and equality in this country: we need to have a digital economy that will help farmers, students and other people living in regional and rural communities to have the same opportunities as people living in Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane. But that's not happening. A government that have spent over $50 billion, when they promised that it would cost $29 billion and that they would have it all done years and years ago, are going to have to rip it all up again, in large part—and the HFC connections—and do it all over again. They should never have done it, the policy decision they undertook years ago. They should have done it once, done it right and done it with fibre, as Tony Windsor once said. So we need investment in roads and rail and digital infrastructure to improve the economy.
This government have failed on so many levels in terms of the economy. One of the things I want to talk about is their failure to accurately support wage claims and improvements in wages and conditions for workers. They have failed on 52 of the 55 forecasts when it came to wage increases. They have constantly failed. Even now they can't bring themselves to support wage increases in the aged-care sector. The election sweeteners that they'll dole out right up until the day of the election in May will only benefit six per cent of aged-care-sector workers, because the overwhelming majority of people who work in the aged-care sector who will get the benefit of this funding, this almost wage tokenism, are full-time workers—only six per cent. So many people will not benefit in any way whatsoever because they're casual workers and because they have been disadvantaged by a system that has been let down by the coalition. Whether you look at MYEFO 2015-16 or budget 2016-17, they indicate nearly $1.7 billion in cuts to the aged-care sector, a sector which has been put under tremendous strain by this government and its failures in terms of quarantine, vaccinations, the booster program, PPE and rapid antigen tests.
I have been to aged-care facilities in my electorate that are feeling the strain, with people losing jobs, shifts not being filled, people not getting the kind of support and care they need, and people struggling with COVID. The government has monumentally failed across this space, with a minister who thinks that the aged-care sector is doing exceptionally well. Over 700 people have died since January, and the minister thinks the sector is doing exceptionally well! Well, come and visit the aged-care facilities in my electorate. I was at one last Friday, Cabanda in Rosewood, which is a rural town in my home city, the City of Ipswich. Cabanda is struggling with PPE and RATs, increased costs because of COVID and a classification that's wrong—and I've raised that issue on a number of occasions in this chamber. But, when it comes to this, the government wants to take credit for everything and responsibility for nothing. They constantly talk up their achievements but fail to deliver. I want to give a couple of examples of that when it comes to the areas that I deal with as shadow minister for defence personnel and veterans' affairs.
I want to pay tribute to people like Glenn Kolomeitz, a lawyer who's been helping Afghan veterans, veterans in this space, and so many other people who've been supporting them in this area. They feel let down by a government that talked about their achievements in Afghanistan and the evacuation. We're thankful for everyone who has been evacuated and our ADF personnel who did it. But we have a moral obligation. This government didn't evacuate people quickly enough, and they didn't take up the offer from the Americans to evacuate people, and we're letting them down. There are still people over there—security guards, Afghan interpreters, people who worked with our embassy, people who worked with our people over there—who are still languishing under the Taliban and the despotic rule of the Taliban. What are we doing to get the out? Very little. It's not only a national security responsibility for this country to not let down those we supported in war and peacekeeping operations; it's also a moral obligation and an ethical obligation.
The impact on those veterans and the ADF is now writ large for all to see, because we now have a royal commission that was established after the work and advocacy of people like Nikki Jamieson, Karen Bird, Julie-Ann Finney and so many other people who pushed hard for a royal commission. It's sitting in Sydney right now. It was in Brisbane last year.
What have we heard during that time? We have heard about mental health issues, suicidal ideation. We have heard about bullying, bastardisation. We have heard about harassment, sexual assault. We have heard about people who have committed suicide and the impact on their families. This has been going on for quite some time. These are confronting issues, and they will confront not just the ADF but governments in the future. But this government has let us down and let the ADF and the veterans community down. Waiting times for the processing of claims are blowing out. The 100-day rule is just a nonsense. Twenty-eight per cent of applications for compensation are being dealt with within 100 days. Last year the Senate finance and public administration committee was given overwhelming evidence that, under the MRCA legislation, the DRCA legislation and the VEA legislation, claims are blowing out. There are 50,000 claims currently waiting to be processed. That came out in evidence to Senate estimates last night. This is having an impact on the mental health of our veterans and their families.
I want to finish on a bit of evidence that came out last night. We've got to go back to October last year, when the minister announced a McKinsey review. The government love privatising, labour hiring and outsourcing. One of their favourite organisations is McKinsey. So they spent $1.3 million on this external review. The minister said it was his action plan, which was going to be delivered by the end of last year. It was an action plan that was going to reform the Department of Veterans' Affairs, where still 34 per cent of the people who work there are labour hire, working for one of the 46 companies that the current government engage to deliver services. Why they don't lift the ideological cap and employ public servants who are experienced in the Public Service and the Department of Veterans' Affairs to complete the process in time I'll never know. But they spent $1.3 million on this McKinsey action plan. They've never released it. I've called for it multiple times, and they've never released it. In the House of Representatives chamber, the minister sat opposite me, and I called on him to release it. They still haven't released it. So the processing times keep blowing out.
We heard in Senate estimates last night that this review is a complete dud. It interviewed a total of two families and received only three formal submissions and 33 emails from the public. They spent $1.3 million of taxpayers' funds on this report to overhaul DVA claims in that period of time. Three months after it's been completed, we're told, its findings and its recommendations remain secret. That's one example—I could give so many—that says it all. The backlog of claims is getting worse in the Department of Veterans' Affairs, and the evidence shows the outstanding number growing to 50,000 claims, as I said. A royal commission has heard evidence about veteran suicide being linked to the backlog of claims, and the royal commission said the backlog of claims is 'unacceptably high'. We've got a review that cost $1.3 million of taxpayers' money, and it is not being released. The recommendations are secret. As I say, there were three formal submissions and 33 emails and they interviewed two families. What did they do for $1.3 million? Two families! I say to the minister: release the report and the recommendations. This is the action plan. It reminds me of the mental health strategy they were going to do following the Productivity Commission report that came out on 2 July 2019. The response had a lot of blank pages and pictures and was a recitation, a litany, of government programs, with almost no recommendations, no action to be undertaken.
That's the legacy of this government with respect to the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the hundreds of thousands of people they interact with every day—$11.7 billion is spent every year by this department on hundreds of thousands of people. There are approximately 60,000 people in our ADF including reservists, and this government has let them down. They can't deliver submarines. They can't deliver defence platforms. They cancel future programs at huge costs. When dealing with our trusted allies and friends, like the French, they don't do the right thing in many respects in the way they deal with them. They also let their contractors down.
I say to the minister, when it comes to the Department of Veterans' Affairs, 'You're not achieving your defence personnel requirements.' In all the reviews we've been told that in not one year since 2016 has the ADF recruited the optimal number of people. Why? Because the government can't deal with them when they exit and transition in terms of housing and homelessness, in terms of employment and job opportunities, in terms of support for rehabilitation and compensation, in terms of claims. The Department of Veterans' Affairs has outsourced and privatised and used labour hire more than any other Commonwealth department. I say to the minister: 'Lift the ideological cap, reduce the backlog, release the McKinsey review and engage with the Labor opposition. Let's work with the recommendations of the royal commission and veterans communities around the country to improve the situation. Minister, do your job.'
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (11:01): by leave—To wrap up my remarks from last night, I had been talking about a very special constituent of mine, Mr Damien MacRae, and his son Aiden. In 2017 I brought some private member's business to this chamber highlighting that Damien, who unfortunately had been diagnosed with melanoma, was seeking to pursue some sort of initiative with his son to raise awareness of melanoma in a uniquely Australian way. They developed a sun smart beach themed LEGO project called 'LEGO Surf Rescue'. They managed to get the 10,000 supporters required for LEGO to consider this is as something that they would mass-produce. Unfortunately, LEGO turned them down. There was bipartisan support in this place for that to be acceded to. This project made the news recently when it was revealed under a headline on 11 February in the Sydney Morning Herald 'Lego accused of stealing beach set design from cancer patient and son':
… Mr MacRae was astonished to learn last week that Lego had released onto the market its own Beach Lifeguard Station …
… … …
Unlike the MacRae design, nobody was wearing a hat or sunscreen.
Probably unbeknownst to LEGO, Damien MacRae happens to be an intellectual property lawyer, so he's well aware that what could be minor changes in design would avoid breaches of copyright.
In my remaining time I'd like to implore LEGO to do the right thing and be good ethical citizens. I suspect that they have done very well—as some organisations have—out of the pandemic, being a time when globally LEGO, a very popular brand, has been turned to by people at various stages of lockdown not only for play but for mental health, in many cases, and good luck to them. But that's all the more reason that they should be good ethical citizens in this instance.
As was true, unfortunately, when I made those remarks in this place a number of years ago, Australia still has one of the highest rates of melanoma in the world. Melanoma is often referred to as Australia's national cancer, and I want to acknowledge the member for Blaxland, who since that time has become a melanoma sufferer and is recovering. He has become a great advocate for melanoma prevention and awareness as well. Melanoma is the deadliest form of skin cancer, and it's estimated that 1,300 people will die from melanoma in Australia this year. Early education designed to inform children in particular in a fun and innovative way, like using LEGO, could change these statistics for the better. On behalf of the people who live in Greenway, I implore LEGO to do better.
We recognise Damien and Aiden for their ongoing dedication to making the world a safer, more sun-smart place to live. I want to end with a few words that were provided to me:
I am angry and disappointed in LEGO now. When I told Aiden, who is 12 now, what has happened now he simply rolled his eyes. He doesn't want anything to do with LEGO now after this experience. I fear that the lesson I've now taught my son is not "to follow through on your ideas" but "don't bother following your ideas because some bigger fish will steal them from you for themselves".
The only other thing I'd say is that if LEGO had any decency they should also give some credit to my then 5-year-old son whose idea this project was.
I still love LEGO bricks. And I think there is still a place where we can have a win-win here. We don't want money, we just want LEGO to add sun safety features in their beach sets such as faces with sunscreen and sunscreen bottles. This would help educate kids and parents around the world including Denmark, which has the 4th highest rates of skin cancer in the world after Australia, New Zealand, and Norway. If Crown Princess Mary is Denmark's biggest supporter of teaching Danes about skin cancer and sun safety, surely Denmark's largest company can get behind this same message.
I certainly echo that. I thank Damien, Aiden and their family for their incredible resilience. Damien has survived to this point. I hope he continues to have a long and fulfilling life and that Aiden continues to have such a fantastic father.
In the meantime, LEGO, do the right thing. Even if it is not recognising in a monetary sense and in an intellectual property sense who actually had some contribution towards this, do exactly as Damien says—put sun-smart features on those creatures and put a sunscreen bottle there. If it prevents even one family from losing someone they love then that will be time and effort well spent.
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (11:06): Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2021-2022 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2021-2022 are about appropriations and appropriations, as we all know, are about funding. Funding defines a government's priorities, its ideologies and its competency. That's what I will focus much of my remarks on today. On Wednesday in my three-minute statement I summarised some of the defining features that best characterise the past nine years of coalition governments. The list of matters I referred to was not comprehensive, so today I will restate those matters and provide some additional observations about our nation today.
We have a government that is beset by disgraced ministers, that has presided over the continuous mismanagement of the COVID-19 pandemic, that has failed to secure adequate vaccine supplies, that has failed to secure personal protective equipment and that not only has failed to provide the latest rapid antigen test kits but did nothing about quarantine facilities. Then they paid billions of dollars in JobKeeper payments to very profitable companies that didn't need the money and whose profits soared while many deserving workers got absolutely nothing. It is estimated that the amount of money paid to profitable companies was around $20 billion—perhaps the biggest waste of public money that I have ever heard of.
Let me go to some of the other matters. We then had the $1 billion robodebt debacle, which not only cost $1 billion but I understand also cost the lives of people. Then there is the ongoing crisis in aged care. When you have to bring in the Army to assist in the aged-care sector that tells you that it is more than a crisis. I have never known of anything like that ever having to be done in the past. Yet we have a government that seems to want to just brush it to one side.
Across the country we have deterioration in our national health services. We have worsening inequality, with the highest 10 per cent of households by wealth now owning almost half of all wealth and the lowest 60 per cent owning just 16 per cent. Australian education outcomes have markedly fallen when compared with other countries. On climate change Australia now ranks near the bottom of 61 comparable countries on a global performance index. Australia now has the second-highest level of biodiversity deterioration in the world.
Then there is the Morrison government's total mismanagement of the NBN rollout which not only nearly doubled the cost from around $29 billion to well over $50 billion; NBN speeds in Australia are among the slowest in the developed world. The Great Barrier Reef is at serious risk, and we saw some acknowledgment of that a couple of weeks ago, when the government finally acknowledged that it needs to spend some money—too little, too late. Australian foreign aid contributions are at an all-time low. After nine years in office and now into its third proposal, the first nuclear submarine is not likely to be in service for another two decades, again leaving Australia vulnerable.
Whilst Australians call for more honesty in government, the Morrison government refuses to have a national integrity commission, but it has stacked the courts and the Administrative Appeals Tribunals with its mates, many of whom are underqualified for the job. In other attempts to avoid scrutiny, the Morrison government has cut $783 million from the ABC, and $14 million from the Audit Office. The coalition killed off Australian car making, but now pretentiously talks about backing Australian manufacturing. At a time that it is talking up national security, it has presided over the 99-year lease of the Port of Darwin.
I go to some of the rorting—and, again, this is not a comprehensive list but some of the issues perhaps more publicly talked about. There was the $660 million car park fund, primarily used to fund questionable car parks in coalition held marginal seats. We had the $100 million sports rorts, again used to fund projects in coalition seats. There were millions of dollars in water buybacks, sometimes paid out at rates well above the market rate and, not surprisingly, to either people connected to or friends of the current government. We had the $220 million regional rorts program; the $3 billion road rorts program, where some 83 per cent of the funding went to coalition held seats; and the $150 million pool rorts fund, where again just about all the money went to coalition seats.
There was the $440 million Great Barrier Reef Foundation allocation, criticised by the Auditor-General and without any justification whatsoever. There's the $30 million paid for the Leppington Triangle airport land, again purchased at an estimated 10 times the market value. Even more concerning, the land was then leased back to the buyers at a value of less than $1 million. There's the $39 million allegedly improperly paid to an Australian shipbuilder, and the $1 million wasted on Clive Palmer's High Court challenge to the Western Australian border closures.
In the course of this debate, I've heard coalition speakers come into this chamber and boast about the number of projects they've been able to secure funding for in their electorate. What they were really doing was acknowledging the rorts of this government and how it channelled all of those funds into coalition held seats. The question today is whether Australia is in fact a better place after nine years of coalition governments and whether we could have done better over that time. More importantly, people are now asking, 'What are the emerging difficulties into the future, and who is best able to lead us through those difficulties?' Navigating difficulties takes good leadership, something that is sadly lacking in this government.
I begin by talking about the economy. The government claim that they are better economic managers. The claim is simply untrue, as many speakers from this side of the House have pointed out in their contributions to this debate. After this government has been in office for nine years, as has been pointed out by other speakers, national debt not only doubled before COVID but today is getting close to a trillion dollars. This is a government that has had nine years to get its house in order, to gets its economy in order and to get its budget in order—nine years. The excuse 'we had to correct the mistakes of the previous governments' ran out years ago. If they can't do it after nine years, when will they be able to do it? The reality is that they can't, because they do not have the competency.
We then go to housing ownership. That's one of the most critical issues in most people's lives. It's probably the biggest investment they will make. Ownership rates in Australia are falling. House prices are now skyrocketing. It's likely that most first home buyers who want to get into the housing market will never be able to do so unless they have very rich parents or are on very high incomes. For those who can get a loan, future interest rate rises are likely to cripple them. At the same time, public housing numbers across Australia are falling. Three decades ago, in my own state of South Australia, there were over 60,000 public houses available. Today the number is just over 30,000. Even if you add to that the community houses that are available, the figure for social housing is well below what it was three decades ago. No wonder we have people that are homeless and no wonder people are struggling to get a roof over their head. Housing security matters. Housing security, whether it's public housing, private rental or personal ownership, creates stability and certainty in life. That's why Labor's $10 million commitment to social and affordable housing, where 30,000 houses will be built, is so important.
The Morrison government also talks about building up the economy through immigration and the like. Again I see a government that constantly relies on population growth to grow the economy. If you look at the forward estimates, where economic growth is projected, it's all based on population growth. Economic growth should not be dependent on population growth. The 10 most livable countries in the world all have relatively stable populations, and most of them have a population of fewer than 10 million people. We should have a strong and growing economy, and population growth should not be used to prop up the economy but to allow further expansion of economic opportunities where workforce shortages are a constraint.
We then look at unemployment. The statistics on unemployment don't reveal the real situation. As is said time and time again, an hour of work a week is not employment. Today we have people that are working multiple jobs to make ends meet. And, even worse than that, those multiple jobs, even full-time jobs, have never been more insecure. Wages are stagnant. My concern is that, whilst unemployment rates appear to be falling, once the borders are fully open and overseas temporary visa holders, backpackers and students come back into the country, they will absorb many of the jobs that are currently available. So, unless we do something about securing jobs for people today, the situation will change again in future, as it has been doing for the last decade, where unemployment rates were much higher and underemployment rates were even worse.
Job security is critical for people's futures. It is the one thing that people care about more than anything else, because, without job security, they see no future. Yet again, I see a government that is prepared to allow people to come in, and rightly so in many cases, not only without ensuring the jobs in this country are secure for those people—because many of them are exploited when they come here and get work, and we have had plenty of evidence of that—but also without ensuring that people within Australia have the secure jobs that they are looking for. The situation is deteriorating. Most Australians do not have secure work. Even when people have full-time work, because of the changing nature of the economy, there is less security in any job today than ever before.
We now have a government that is clearly in its dying days. As I said in my three-minute statement, it has reached its use-by date. It has become an incompetent rabble, where even its own members are turning on each other and turning on their prime minister. Its rorts over the last nine years have become a lead weight around this government's neck. That's why they don't want an anticorruption commission. They have fought, tooth and nail, to stop that from happening. They talk about it, as we all know, but they don't really want it. They don't want it, because they don't want it to expose and inquire into their very own rorts. But that will change if we get a change of government.
I have no doubt that the coalition government of today will try to buy its way back into government when it hands down its budget next month. It will run a smear campaign against the Labor leader, Anthony Albanese, as it has been trying to do over the last few weeks, and every day in question time in this chamber. It will run a fear campaign against Labor on national security, international security and taxation, and, again, we have seen that day in and day out. It is all they have left to campaign on. But it will take a lot more than that to save the Morrison government. It's time for an Albanese-led Labor government to take office in this country.
Ms THWAITES (Jagajaga) (11:21): I rise today to highlight some of the many areas where people in my community are being failed and let down by the Morrison government, and the very real impact that is having on their lives. I'm sure that I am not the only one in this place whose office is currently inundated with NDIS participants and their families who are desperate for help. It is an absolute indictment on this government and the way it runs the NDIS that I currently employ a full-time staff member whose entire role, essentially, is taken up with helping participants and families navigate the NDIS system. The system is just not working as it should.
From the experiences people are relating to me, the story I'm hearing is one of parents lying awake at night with anxiety about what's going to happen when their child's plan comes up for review. It's a story of families breaking down because of the level of stress and anxiety they are carrying. And these are stories in one electorate alone. Imagine what is happening across our country because of this government's failure to take the NDIS seriously, to resource the scheme as it should and to respect people with disability, their families and their carers.
Some of the themes of what I'm hearing from NDIS participants and their families are of parents overwhelmed and in some cases emotionally beaten by the administrative barriers to getting support for their children. I'm hearing about long delays in decision-making. Sometimes, but not always, those delays can be overcome when my office intervenes and makes a representation, but it shouldn't take that. It shouldn't take people in our community having to go to their federal MP to be able to navigate a government system and get the support they need for a child or adult with disability. I'm hearing from parents who are at a point where they have actually just decided to disengage. The emotional trauma and the efforts they are going to are not worth it, so they are actually giving up on the system. What an indictment! Of course, like so many around the country, I am hearing of packages that are being slashed by tens of thousands of dollars after review and of the very real consequences that is having, particularly on children.
I want to go into some of the specifics of what families are raising with me, because I think it's important that they are aired in this place, but I'm not going to use names or any identifying factors, because those families have rightly asked me to respect their privacy. I can tell this place about a boy under 10 with autism spectrum disorder. He's had a reduction of tens of thousands of dollars on a previous plan. His mother said that, when she was needing to interact with an NDIS planner, those interactions came at times when she was caught feeling unprepared and off guard, and that had a negative impact on the outcome of her plan review. Since the plan has been slashed by tens of thousands of dollars, the boy's therapists and the boy's school have observed an escalation in concerning behaviours and a regress in his general coping.
His mother says: 'The lack of empathy and of a person centred approach exhibited by the NDIA towards my son and me has been cruel and dehumanising. This decision disregards his needs, shuts him down and keeps him separate from society. The lack of funding and formal support has left me having to decide which of my children's needs are more important. Without these supports, I must make heartbreaking decisions, as a mother, that could drastically change the future for my children.' She says: 'We are on the brink of a monumental breakdown, as a family unit, due to the sudden and extreme reduction in funding without explanation from the NDIA, despite us repeatedly asking them for a reason behind the decision. My family and I are literally drowning—emotionally, physically and financially—as a direct result of the sheer disregard and lack of support we've received from the NDIA.'
That should not be the case. This is not what the NDIS was set up to do. It was set up to give children and adults with a disability and their families the opportunity to live the best lives possible. Instead, it is causing families to break down—and that is on the Morrison government. A participant's wife contacted my office in December last year because, despite submitting plans and an application for a bathroom modification in March last year, they'd heard nothing from the NDIS. They submitted the plans in March. By December they still hadn't heard anything back from the NDIS, and all the while her husband's mobility was declining. In her email to my office she said, 'We don't usually send complaints, but this time I felt I needed to.' That's absolutely fair enough. How is it reasonable that she was waiting from March to December for a decision from the NDIS on a bathroom modification which had serious consequences for her husband's mobility?
A mother was told by the NDIA that there were no funds left in the plan of her son, who has a severe intellectual disability and complex behaviours. This meant he could no longer access his carers, therapists, day programs or any of his support services. This also meant his family were unable to attend or perform their usual occupations, due to having to take on the role of full-time carers. Obviously this led to high stress levels for the family, and there were wellbeing and safety concerns for both the NDIS participant and the family, given the extreme complex behaviours. This woman said that it meant limited access to the community, because of these complex behaviours, and that there were safety concerns for them. She was ringing the NDIA daily to try and get this addressed, but she didn't hear back. In desperation, she had to turn to my office for support.
As I said, it shouldn't be like this. The NDIS is a great system. It could be an even better system—one that supports all of these families, that doesn't tie them up in red tape, that doesn't send them down a bureaucratic rabbit hole that they can't get out of without contacting their federal MP. It could be a system that doesn't leave mothers lying awake at night, thinking: 'Which kid can I prioritise? What's the impact on my family? Are we all going to fall apart because I can't understand what's going on here?' It could be a system that doesn't mean that supports are ripped away from children, leaving families to deal with complex behaviours on their own.
As I said, the NDIS is a great Labor legacy, but it should not be operating in the way it does under this Morrison government. It's an urgent problem and it does need to be addressed urgently. Unfortunately, in the past fortnight in parliament we've seen nothing from the Morrison government that would address any of these issues in the NDIS and in the way they operate the scheme. So I call on them today to do the work. Listen to the families, which I'm sure are in communities on the other side as well. Make sure the system works as it should. It just shouldn't be this hard for all of these families. The NDIS should not be putting extra burdens and extra complexity on people.
Of course, it's not just the NDIS. We also know that aged care is in crisis in this country. And, once again, this government's response has been abysmal. Every elderly Australian should get quality care. All of the amazing people who are currently working in our aged care system should be supported. But that's not what's happening under this government. Have we been debating how we fixed aged care this fortnight? Has this government brought into this parliament urgent plans or urgent legislation to fix aged care? They have not. We got an announcement, about the ADF needing to come in—because the government had failed to fix the system, and we really are at crisis point—but now we know there's also an issue about the pace at which the ADF are being rolled out into nursing homes. And, obviously, using Defence in nursing homes is a short-term plan. There is a deep structural problem in aged care at the moment, and that means that older people in these aged-care facilities are not getting the dignified quality of life that they should.
I've spoken in this place before about one of the most heartbreaking things I've had to do as a local member, when, two years ago, I had to speak to families in my local community who'd lost loved ones in aged care at that stage of the COVID pandemic. It was a horrible thing for me to have to do, but it was obviously devastating for those families to have to understand what had happened and why their loved ones had died. That was two years ago, at the beginning of the pandemic. We've had two years. We've had an entire royal commission. And still this government fails aged care. This government seems comfortable with people dying in aged care. This government seems comfortable with people not being able to visit their loved ones for months and months because homes are locked down. This government seems comfortable with overstretched, overstressed workers who are carrying a very, very difficult burden that they just should not have to—would not, if this government would do its job.
Well, I want to assure everyone in my community: Labor gets this. We know that aged care is in crisis. We know that this system needs the attention and support that it should have. We know that families in my community should not be worrying about their parents in aged care; they should know that those parents are safe and are having the quality of life that they deserve. Aged-care workers in my communities should not be doing 30-hour shifts while trying to run from bed to bed because there just aren't enough workers in the facility. This is not acceptable. We talk a lot in this place about respecting older Australians and about the work they did to build this country. Well, the way we honour that, the way we recognise that, is to have an aged-care system that works.
I urge the Morrison government to make this a focus, because Australians are watching. Australians know that you have failed, that you have left a system in crisis and that, more than two years into a pandemic, you have failed to make the changes we need. In fact, the minister responsible, instead of talking about what was going on in the system, went to the cricket—not just once, but for three days.
An opposition member: Shame.
Ms THWAITES: Unbelievable, actually; unbelievable—if you think again about all the families in my electorate calling my office, asking: 'Can you help me to get in and see my mum? I can't understand why I can't get in,' or, 'I'm really worried because my dad hasn't had his booster shot yet and it's been pushed back for three weeks; can you help me understand why?' The minister wasn't providing my office with information around that; he was at the cricket. And this Prime Minister seems comfortable with that, despite being asked numerous times, this week and last week in this parliament, whether he retains confidence in his minister for aged-care services. Scott Morrison seems to be fine with that; he's not taking any action against that minister.
This points to a pattern from the Morrison government: a pattern of not looking out for everyone in our community; a pattern of not caring when the things that they are responsible for—the things that we should be able to rely on in our community—break, when they haven't been up to the job. This government hasn't stepped in and worked it out. This Prime Minister hasn't 'held a hose'. He hasn't done his job. The effects of that are being felt, still, in all of our communities—in my community, with families lying awake at night wondering what they're going to do with their young child with a disability, or how they're going to withstand the pressures that they're feeling at the moment, or if their mum in aged care is safe and when they'll be able to get in and see her again. This goes to the heart of what sort of country we want to be, of what sort of society we want to be.
Do we want to be a society where we leave people who are elderly and people who have a disability on the edges, or do we want to be a society where we make sure that everyone is treated with dignity, where all of us know that, no matter what situation we end up in, we will be supported as we should be and we will have a government that cares for us and understands that our community, our society, functions best when we respect everyone in it, and, most importantly, a government that just does its job, doesn't go to the cricket when there is an aged-care crisis, does hold a hose and does not play the ukulele and pull family stunts for a 60 Minutes special, a government that is interested in what's going on in people's lives in Australia and is concentrated on making those lives better? That is what a Labor government will provide to this country, and that is why we need an Anthony Albanese Labor government—to fix the mess this government has left us in.
Ms McBRIDE (Dobell) (11:35): I'm pleased to follow my colleague the member for Jagajaga and echo her sentiments. No person should be lying awake at night worried about their elderly family member in aged care. No parent or caregiver should be distressed about opportunities for their child living with a disability. In a country like Australia, everyone deserves a fair go. Everybody should be treated with respect and dignity. The COVID-19 pandemic has really shone a light on the existing disparities that we have in Australia. They've only been amplified by this crisis. There are stark inequalities that we have within communities and between communities. My colleague here represents large parts of the Northern Territory, but we don't have to go as far as rural or remote Australia to see the problems that so many people have faced.
In my community, on the Central Coast of New South Wales, which is an hour and a half north of Sydney and an hour south of Newcastle, local business owners and families are just fed up with being neglected and left behind by this government. This started well before the failures of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the failures of quarantine, the bungled vaccine rollout and the desperate scramble for rapid antigen tests because the government just didn't shore up enough supply. After eight years of this government, the north end of the Central Coast, which I represent, always seems to miss out when it comes to jobs, road funding, skills and training scholarships, quality health care close to home, aged care—the list goes on and on and on. People in my community are hardworking people. They're capable. They've pulled together during this pandemic. But there are times when strong communities like mine need support, when they need a proper government that acts in their interests, where they're not left to a postcode lottery or a spreadsheet deciding who gets things and who doesn't.
How can we have a budget which has $1 trillion of debt and yet people are dying alone and afraid in aged care, young people are having their NDIS plans slashed and people who are looking for a secure place to live can't afford the rent? How can we have $1 trillion of debt and so many vulnerable people at risk and left exposed by the decisions of this government? Communities like mine deserve better. Communities across Australia deserve better. They deserve a government that governs for everyone. They deserve a government underpinned by respect, empathy and dignity. They shouldn't be left like this. The most vulnerable people in our community—frail elderly, young people with disability, people looking for work, women fleeing family violence—shouldn't be at risk and exposed because of the decisions or inaction of this government.
In a country like Australia, everyone, wherever they are born, live, grow up and age, should have a fair go to be able to live with dignity and respect. They should have a fair shot at education and training. They should have a secure job. They should have the opportunity to have their own home and to be able to support their own family. What do we need to see? We need to see access to quality education and training close to home. We need to see secure work, better conditions and steady careers. We need to see health care that you can afford when you need it and aged care at the end of your life. And yet what we're seeing is the exact opposite.
For example, in my community, when it comes to road funding, or any infrastructure funding, we constantly miss out. According to the NRMA, the Central Coast has one of the worst infrastructure backlogs in New South Wales, yet, at the same time, there are no local projects on Infrastructure Australia's priority list. The last major infrastructure project on the Central Coast was kicked off by the member for Grayndler when he was infrastructure minister—the last major infrastructure upgrade on the coast. In the 2021 budget the Morrison government announced more than $3 billion in priority road projects across the coast, but not a single cent was spent in Wyong, Tuggerah or Warnervale. In the 2019-20 budget, close to $70 million was allocated to the so-called Central Coast Roads Package, but a breakdown of the funding shows most of the money went to the neighbouring seat of Robertson, just south of my electorate. In fact, more than 90 per cent of the funding went to roads in Robertson. If you look at it per head, $419 per person was spent on roads in Robertson, but $39 per person was spent on roads in Dobell.
The north end of the Central Coast is the growth region. The north end of the Central Coast is where we have young families, and people ageing in place. The north end of the Central Coast has the biggest backlog of most regions in New South Wales, and yet what have we seen from this government? We've just been overlooked and left behind. Locals are crying out for investment to fix the Pacific Highway through Wyong and Bryant Drive at Tuggerah—two major bottlenecks in my community which are in desperate need of an upgrade. Transport projects like these would ease congestion, improve safety and create more local jobs, and they'd open up employment zones across the Central Coast. But this government is sitting on its hands and failing to invest in my community, and it's local people that are bearing the brunt of this government's failure.
Earlier I mentioned jobs and education. There are many people on the Central Coast, including young people, school leavers, looking for local jobs or, if they've got a job, looking for more secure work or more hours or a certain roster. At the same time, local businesses tell me they are looking to hire. But what everyone has said to me is that there aren't the affordable training opportunities close to home for people to gain the skills they need. I was talking to a young person I was on surf patrol with. I asked him what he was doing, and he said: 'Through COVID, I dropped out of school in year 11. It just got too tough. I've taken up a job with a local landscaper.' I said, 'Do you have an apprenticeship?' He said, 'I'd really need to travel to Ryde to get the training I need, so right now that's just not something that I can do.' Why should a young person have to travel an hour and a half to do a TAFE course to pick up the skills he needs to be able to get a steady job, to have a good career, to be able to support himself and contribute to our community and the local economy?
The government protest, but they have cut $3 billion from TAFE over the past eight years. My late father was a builder and an engineer and a TAFE teacher, and he was really proud of the quality of technical training that TAFE provided. He taught both at Ultimo TAFE and closer to Newcastle. But what we've seen under this government, and in New South Wales under the Liberal government, is that skills and training have been eroded across Australia. It's especially seen in regional and remote communities, with the costs involved for someone to travel to training or to move to Sydney to get those skills. They can't afford it on an apprentice's wage or in a traineeship. It just rules them out. It just means that they don't have the same shot, that they don't get a fair go—and from the get-go.
They government spruiked JobKeeper and JobSeeker and their success, though they were pushed to do it and lots of people were excluded. At the height of the pandemic, when work was scarce in my community, we were inundated with people who didn't meet the eligibility criteria, because it was so narrow or who, even though they were eligible, couldn't access the support when they needed it. I heard from a local hairdresser who was meant to open her business in June, in the peak of the pandemic on the Central Coast. She told me that she then had to use different credit cards and personal loans to be able to cover her costs, and she ended up driving for Menulog. She's got two children at home and she had a business that was set up and ready to go, and that's what she had to do during COVID to get by—and she did it. She is a hardworking, capable person, and now her business is open and doing well. But that was her experience, and that was avoidable. The distress because of the financial insecurity was avoidable, as it was for so many people like her, businesswomen across Australia. So, instead of making it easier for people to access the training or support they need to upskill, to get into the job market or to progress their career, the government are only making it harder for people. It's just not good enough.
We have to fix this. We need to fix this. Communities like mine, or anyone living outside of a big city, whether they're in the outer suburbs, the regions or remote Australia, need better than this. The government needs to make it easier for people to find work, for communities to get the funding they need and for locals to access quality health care.
Before I was elected, I worked at Wyong hospital in my community on the Central Coast of New South Wales. I just want to say this at this time. The government have praised health workers, and they've commended them, but do you know what healthcare workers are telling me? They're saying that the time for cupcakes and applause is over. What they need is proper pay and conditions. What they need is proper support to be able to do their jobs.
I heard from a father recently who spoke to me about his daughter who had to leave nursing. She was someone who loved her job. She was dedicated to supporting people and caring for them and working with our local community. She's receiving counselling and mental health support at the moment—and I understand she's doing better. But, because of the conditions that she had to work under, because of a role she had to step up to because others weren't able to do it, she's ended up in a mental health crisis.
This is avoidable. How can our government, our health minister and our aged-care minister say how much they value aged-care workers, disability support workers and healthcare workers and at the same time underpay them or have them working in conditions that are not safe for the people that they're trying to care for, the people that they're working with? It's a risk, and it has to change. It just cannot go on for people in my community or other communities like it. We need a government that genuinely cares about people. As someone said to me recently—they were reflecting on the government and their decision-making—'They just don't have any empathy. They just don't seem to care.' If you don't care and you don't know that these people are struggling, how are you going to be able to do anything about it?
What people in my community want is what anyone wants. They want to be able to have a place to live, a roof over their head. They want their children to be able to have a good education close to home. They want to be able to see a future for communities like mine, where communities are thriving. In my community our people are its strength. But there are times when even strong communities need support, and this is one of those times. We're going into the third year of a pandemic. People are exhausted. They're burnt out. They're vulnerable. Some of them are alone and afraid. And what has this government done? They've neglected them. They've abandoned them. When people most need a government, the government says, 'We need to get government out of the way.' What people need is a good government that acts in their interests and provides the proper support that they need.
Under a future Labor government Australia will be a country where everyone has a fair go, where, wherever you live or were born or grow up, you'll have a chance. Under a future Labor government we'll be a country that makes things again.
I met with a machinist recently, and he took me into his workshop and showed me the things that they used to make, including a weighing scale that they made for shopping centres. He said to me, 'I've been working as a machinist for 40 years. We had quality training. We had the most capable and skilled technical people.' He's in this workshop by himself. We've got workshops like that and people like him across Australia. We used to be a country that made things. We were a country that trained technical and skilled people. We should have that opportunity again.
After almost a decade of manufacturing being sent offshore and Australian workers being neglected under this government, Labor has a plan to bring things back to our shores. We once had a proud tradition of a manufacturing industry, creating thousands of local jobs. In a community like mine, we had a history of food and beverage manufacturing. We've got companies like Sanitarium, Master Foods and Kellogg's. What they need is a government that invests in them so that we can see an expansion and growth in jobs, especially outside of big cities. A Labor government will establish a Future Made in Australia Office, because we want to prioritise Australian businesses.
As I mentioned, there are so many talented, capable, motivated people living in communities like mine across Australia that haven't been given a shot. They haven't been given a fair go, and that's what they need. They need a government that will back them in.
A Labor government will also provide 465,000 free TAFE places, to encourage people to study in areas where there are skills shortages—people like the young man on surf patrol I was talking to you about, Madam Deputy Speaker. He deserves the opportunity to have a quality TAFE course that he can afford close to home to get the skills that he needs. He shouldn't be forced to get on a train to Sydney—and he couldn't afford to move to Sydney. People like him deserve a fair go.
What Australians need is a plan for the future, and one that brings all Australians together so that, wherever you're born, live, grow up or age, you have a fair shot and you know you can rely on a government that acts in your best interests. We need a change of government!
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (11:50): I'm pleased to speak on these appropriation bills, Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2021-2022 and its cognate bill, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2021-2022. Labor is not in the habit of blocking supply. As is always the case, we will be supporting these bills, but this is an opportunity to put on record the disappointment of my community in the failure of the Morrison government to follow good governance principles and to deliver on what are core areas of concern for people living in my community.
Certainly, this is a government that has been racked with stories of mismanagement, impropriety, wastefulness and outright corruption. There has been allegation after allegation about the way in which the government makes decisions and, accordingly, appropriates funds. We've seen the colossal distress in our communities caused by robodebt—again, where the government is simply not acting legally—followed up by car rorts and a whole lot of other inappropriate uses of funds. Not just is it wasteful to expend public money in such a shoddy manner; it is downright insulting to people in communities like Newcastle, who seem to constantly miss out. The government are blinded by their blinkers.
I want to go now to an organisation which was caught in the middle of the despicable behaviour that we now identify as sports rorts. Newcastle Olympic Football Club is one of the many sporting organisations that got dudded by this government's infamous sports rorts. It was cheated out of half a million dollars, despite its hard work and excellent submission. An independent assessment gave them a very high score, much higher than many others and one that ordinarily would have enabled them to be granted the funds, but we watched those in government-held seats, some of whom had received much lower scores indeed, get the funding. If the government had done the right thing then, Newcastle Olympic Football Club would have upgraded facilities by now; instead, they will now have to spend years trying to secure money from other sources, all the while watching construction costs skyrocket. This project is going to be infinitely more expensive now than it would have been when they put in their proposal for what, I must say, is a much-needed upgrade of their facilities. Newcastle Olympic Football Club has been selected as a training venue for the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup, which is great, but that is in doubt because of this shameful rorting of public money. Any club that's trying to increase women's sporting participation should be rewarded, in my view, not ripped off by a government addicted to rorting and skewing public funds.
Another example of that has been the use of the Building Better Regions Fund. We know that in the most recent round there was some $300 million in funding available. But $270 of that went to coalition and marginally held seats. These rorts prevent great shovel-ready projects from proceeding, although they should, on any merits based assessment, get the tick. I deeply regret that projects in my electorate have missed out, like the $8.5 million for the revitalisation of the Victoria Theatre, which seems to have been completely overlooked. There's also the $2.5 million small business support centre that is absolutely needed in my community but missed out on funding altogether. You would think that in a post-COVID reconstruction phase shovel-ready projects that have widespread community support and great cost-benefit analysis would be rewarded by this government, but that is sadly not the case.
Another matter that I want to bring to the attention of the House is how appalling it is that in 2022 we find ourselves unable to use mobile phones in our homes if we live in certain parts of even Newcastle, the second-largest city in New South Wales. I continue to get complaints from constituents in the northern part of Stockton who are unable to make use of their smart phones. We all know that every day we are increasingly reliant upon our smart phones. It astonishes me, but it is in keeping with the botching of the telecommunications rollout in this country under this government. We've seen the complete botch of the National Broadband Network scheme. It will take a new government, an Albanese Labor government, to remedy a far from satisfactory attempt to use multiple kinds of technologies to patch together what should have been one of the biggest nation-building projects Australia has seen. We were told it would deliver remarkable results for people whatever they live in Australia.
That was the intent, but it has failed. People like Mr William Snow have been in my electorate office trying to get support for tackling this apparent blackspot in the northern parts of Stockton, in Newcastle. But the Morrison government's blackspot program of course doesn't cover people in my community. Their own program to rectify this problem excludes communities like Stockton from being eligible. It is a pity that we do not see a stronger commitment to ensuring that telecommunications, whether phone services or internet services, are the very best they can be wherever you live in Australia. Heaven help those living in remote rural parts of Australia, if you can't get good telecommunications in the second-largest city in New South Wales.
I'd also like to touch on a matter that has been very distressing for my community, and that is the terrible difficulty that Afghani refugees are having in trying to seek entry to Australia. Like many Australians, I watched with horror as we saw the Taliban resume control of Kabul. I have many, many distressed people in my electorate, including Afghani Australians and defence personnel who had served alongside Afghani men and women, and I share their pain and their heartache. It's been almost six months since people fled Kabul in those scenes of apparent trauma, distress and a state of emergency. Afghani Australians are especially distraught as they have not even received acknowledgement for visa applications they have submitted for their loved ones, who are in life-threatening situations, from the Department of Home Affairs. Six months after the return of the Taliban to power, no humanitarian visas have been granted by the Australian government. The government said that they would prioritise visa applications for people with links to Australia, and women and children, but I have literally hundreds of my constituents contacting me who have submitted urgent visa applications for their family members but are being completely left in the dark by this government. The government has not acted with urgency.
A few weeks ago, after a scathing Senate committee report criticised the government's lack of action, the government announced that it would be allocating 15,000 visas to Afghan nationals. But what was missing from that headline was the fact that the allocation would be made over the next four years and that the humanitarian visas would come out of the already existing annual humanitarian program of 13,750. I also understand that 4,300 Afghans evacuated in August last year will also be counted as part of the 15,000 humanitarian places over the next four years. So we find that this government announcement, like so many when you scratch the surface, actually reduces the number of newly allocated places. This announcement completely fails to address the urgent need for an expansion of protective resettlement of Afghans who are in imminent danger from the Taliban regime. The Australian government can and must do so much more for the people of Afghanistan. For so many Afghans who risked their lives serving alongside our ADF personnel, a four-year wait under Taliban rule will have lethal consequences. They should be able to come and join their families in Australia. That was the priority they were given by this government, and it should be honoured.
In the time remaining, I'd just like to touch on two other issues. One is GP shortages in my electorate and the other is the crisis in housing. In 1975, it was the Whitlam government, of course, that made the historic introduction of universal healthcare to Australia to ensure that your access to healthcare was never reliant on some kind of postcode lottery or dependent on the amount of money you had in your bank account. Ever since, however, we have seen ongoing efforts by consecutive conservative governments to chip away at the universality of our healthcare.
Recent cuts to bulk-billing incentives and Medicare rebates, alongside the despicable closure on Christmas Eve of a GP after-hours service that was attached to the Calvary Mater hospital in my electorate, have resulted in devastating impacts for people in my community. Time and time again, the people of Newcastle tell me they cannot find a bulk-billing GP. That is a direct result of the Morrison government's withdrawal of bulk-billing incentive payments. People who can afford to go to a non-bulk-billing doctor tell me that they can't actually get an appointment see that that doctor. That again is a direct result of the Morrison government's decision to remove areas like Newcastle and the Hunter region from the distribution priority area classification list.
It's made it extremely difficult for local medical practices to recruit and retain doctors. The Fletcher Clinic in my electorate is one of many GP clinics across Newcastle affected by this decision. Madison, the practice manager at the Fletcher Clinic, told me they are in desperate need of a new doctor. They are working overtime to meet demand, which has only been made worse by the pandemic. They are concerned that they can't meet existing need, and there is a whole new housing development proposal for Minmi, and there are other new housing areas that are proceeding in the district, that will bring increased demand. They already have 6½ thousand patients on their books today. This reckless act by the Morrison government will simply add to further health inequality in Australia—and it certainly wouldn't happen on the North Shore of Sydney or, might I say, in the Sutherland shire.
Finally, I want to touch on the fact that Australia, and Newcastle in particular, is facing a housing crisis. Novocastrians are now waiting five to 10 years on social housing waiting lists. Thirty-one per cent of public housing dwellings in New South Wales don't meet basic minimal standards. They're the worst in the country, in fact. Now almost one-third of public housing households live in dirty and unsafe conditions.
In the last 12 months private rentals have increased in my electorate by nearly $5,000 in some suburbs, like Mayfield West. Nurses, teachers and tradies can't take up jobs in our regions because they can't find places to live. Open houses become more like mosh pits because families can't find a place to call home. Police were needed to be called to manage the chaos of crowds of up to 200 people desperate to inspect a property.
The system is broken. For nearly a decade this Liberal government has ignored the urgent need for social and affordable housing, saying, 'It's not our problem.' Well, it is. We need national leadership. No more delays and no more excuses, Mr Morrison. Now is the time to fix Australia's housing crisis. (Time expired)
Mr GEORGANAS (Adelaide) (12:05): I too wish to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2021-2022 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2021-2022. It is an opportunity to talk about the spending of the government but also to look at areas where money isn't being spent properly and areas where money should have been spent.
The Morrison government is all about distraction. Because there could be an election called at some stage in March, these last two weeks of parliament may be the end of this parliamentary session. You would think the government would come to this place with bills that had a better vision for Australia and the betterment of our next generation of Australians, a better plan for pensioners and a better plan for creating jobs and some good infrastructure that creates local jobs. Instead, in the last two weeks of parliament we have seen bills that have been divisive, wedge politics and issues that are not for the betterment of this country. The government is all about distraction, as I said, instead of taking action on the things that matter to Australians. We deserve an economy that works for the Australian people, not the other way round. This country deserves a government that actually puts them first and not politics first. That's all we've seen here in the last two weeks.
In the last two weeks there has been a tirade on the Leader of the Opposition. There have been all sorts of comments about fiscal responsibility, him not having had a treasury position and a range of other things. Our side of politics, the Labor Party, shouldn't be lectured on fiscal responsibility by the most wasteful government since Federation. We shouldn't be lectured by a government that doubled the debt before the pandemic. Before the pandemic the debt had been doubled. Despite the rhetoric from the government, it is one of the highest-taxing governments of the last 30 years. It is now collecting approximately $4,500 more from each Australian than when Labor was last in government in 2013. That is, $4,500 more on average from every single Australian since Labor was in government in 2013.
When you look at their track record over the last three years you see that they have had major failings. They failed on the vaccine rollout. They didn't deliver one new federal quarantine facility. They didn't order enough rapid antigen tests. They presided over a crisis in aged care. They disappeared when workers and small businesses needed help the most. I spoke to many small businesses in my electorate, as many of you would have. They told me of the trials, tribulations and difficult times they were having. We saw the government splash around billions of dollars on JobKeeper payments to businesses. Many did quite well out of it. We saw businesses whose takings tripled still receive billions of dollars in JobKeeper.
The failures aren't limited to budgetary matters either. We know that the economy is suffering under this government's watch. Productivity has been flatlining, and poor productivity performance means a smaller economy that's growing less than it could be. Another decade of failed productivity targets would leave very hardworking Australians—Australian families—worse off.
Something that this Prime Minister and Treasurer and this government will never understand is that you can't rort and waste your way to productivity growth. To really get productivity moving, we need investment in energy, technology, infrastructure and human capital—in people and not politics. We need investment in infrastructure that will propel our economy forward, cleaner and cheaper energy and an NBN that will underpin our digital economy.
We need a plan to train people through the TAFE and university systems and more university places to fill skills shortages, now and into the future. Last week I met with Engineers Australia and they told me that there is not a single course in this country for nuclear engineers—not a single course in this country—and, on the other hand, we're talking about building nuclear-powered submarines. Who's going to do it? And there's no plan in place. There is no training facility. There is nowhere that someone can train as a nuclear engineer to be able to work on the nuclear-powered submarines.
We cannot afford another decade like this. This government has just looked at quick fixes, pointscoring and political fixes, not fixes to get this country on its feet to be a power in the future.
You can see this when you look at different areas, and the pension is an area I've spoken about many times in this place. This government has a very bad track record on supporting pensioners. We've become used to seeing the government try and chip away at people's aged pensions, ever since they've been in government. When we look at them, that's all that they've done when it comes to policies on pensions—pensions for people who have worked hard and contributed to our economy and our society all their lives.
When Labor was last in government, there was an actual increase of $30, on top of CPIs, on top of other increases that come naturally throughout the course of the year—an actual increase. Over the last seven years, this government's track record has been to cut, or to try to cut, the pension, time and time again. And it's on the record. In 2014, in their first budget, they tried to cut the pension indexation, and, as I've said, that cut would have meant that pensioners would have been forced to live on $80 less a week within 10 years. In that same year, they cut a billion dollars from pensioner concessions. Then they axed the $900 seniors supplement to self-funded retirees holding the Commonwealth healthcare card. In 2015, they did a deal with the Greens to cut the pension to around 370,000 pensioners by as much as $12,000 a year by changing the pension assets test. The pension assets test—in other words, the amount that you can have in assets and still receive the pension—since it came into being has always been increased, not decreased, because the cost of living goes up and everything goes up with it. This was the first government that actually decreased it—brought it down. That affected, as I said, 370,000 pensioners—including many in my electorate who perhaps had very small assets and were receiving a part pension and a part income from some of those very small assets. At the same time, the government tried to cut the pension for over 1.5 million Australians by scrapping the energy supplement for pensioners.
The list goes on and on. We can look at another debacle that has taken place, and that is the NDIS—and we heard others speak about the NDIS in this place earlier. When we introduced the NDIS, it was the only national scheme of its kind in the world—something to be very proud of. It was designed to revolutionise disability care and put choice and dignity at the forefront for people living with disabilities. It was the envy of the world. But this Liberal Morrison government, since coming into office, has done nothing but undermine the scheme, through ripping $4.6 billion out of the NDIS; through people receiving services, for example, that they don't need—and I hear this all the time in my electorate—while being denied the services that they actually require to live with dignity; and through difficult, complicated application and review processes, with 1,200 Australians with disability dying while waiting to be funded by the scheme. This is a government that has no real interest in the NDIS. If it did, it would be fixing it. There would be a bill before the House on how to better the NDIS, not the wedge politics we've been seeing over the last few weeks.
This being an appropriations bill, it's obviously about funding and monetary policies, and it takes me to infrastructure. The Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments have made a mockery in my electorate of the North-South Motorway. They've been delaying money in every budget since 2013. I have to say that it was a Labor initiative. I was there with the Leader of the Opposition, Anthony Albanese, in 2013 when we turned the first sod. It was a Labor initiative. We saw the Prime Minister flying into Adelaide last weekend to make a commitment for the North-South Motorway. But South Australians have woken up to this government. We can't trust that this money will ever come, let alone when it was promised, as has been the history since 2013, when they came into government. How many more times will the government reannounce funding for this project instead of actually getting on with delivering it? Infrastructure projects are key job creators. If you want to create jobs and boost the economy, it's done through good infrastructure, and this government has dismally failed on this.
Construction of the final passage of the North-South Corridor has come to a standstill. Last year, documents leaked by members of the state Liberal government showed that the North-South Corridor upgrade may not be completed until possibly 2035, a decade later than was originally planned by Labor. This means that we could experience five federal elections, four Olympic Games, until this upgrade is complete. This means greater uncertainty for businesses and residents. It means people are being left in limbo at a time when business confidence is at an all time low. We have seen a government that again plays wedge politics instead of putting bills before this House in this cycle of parliament to better the economy and to make Australia a better country. They're more interested in politics than the betterment of this nation.
Health care and Medicare are more important areas that this government has neglected. The pandemic has shown us how important our healthcare system is, but this government can't be trusted with it. It recently launched its biggest attack on Medicare in decades. To use the recent Victorian COVID-19 outbreak to sneak in almost 1,000 changes to the Medicare Benefits Schedule is just wrong on so many levels. These changes would radically alter the cost of hundreds of orthopaedic, cardiac and general surgery items. And the Morrison government's plan to cut Medicare rebates means patients must choose between cancelling life-changing surgeries and being hit with huge bills that they can't afford to pay or that they were never told about. Many are finding that surprise when they go for surgery. It's estimated that, in South Australia, patients are paying around 33 per cent more out of pocket for non-referral visits, compared to 2013.
We've seen a government that—from 2013, when they were elected—have said that they have a vision for this nation, but their only vision is that they stay in power. That's their No. 1 goal. As I said, at this stage of the cycle of the three-year term—when we should be seeing debates and bills in this place about our education system, about bettering our training systems, about health care and about giving pensioners some certainty and dignity in their lives—we're seeing the typical wedge politics and scaremongering. We're seeing division, which they want to create, in the community through the bills that they have brought to this House—on what they thought were the most important things to discuss in these last few weeks. Australians are smarter than that. Australians know that the things that keep this country going—the things that matter to them—are education for their kids, a good healthcare system when they need it and secure work. They're the three things that the nation requires at this moment, but this government is more interested in playing politics and staying in power at any cost.
Those opposite have been in government for almost a decade, and over that time we've seen many, many failures, the biggest one of all being the pandemic. As I said, not a single quarantine facility has been built, when all the advice coming from the health bureaucrats and the experts was that we need a facility to house people for a period of time when they come into the country. We saw the spread of the pandemic. Yes, we did do better than most nations at the beginning, but when you see the things that weren't put in place, like the rapid antigen tests—I wrote, personally, to the health minister back in May last year, suggesting that we have rapid antigen tests, and the answer that came back was a no. Unfortunately, we have a government that is only interested in politics and securing its own future, not Australia's future.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (12:20): Today the front page of the Australian tells a story of how, across the nation, 700 BHP workers are facing the sack. Seven hundred Australians are being thrown out of their jobs, and yet we hardly hear a whimper about this from either side of politics. Where is the party of the workers, who say they stand for the workers of this country? Where are they when it comes to arguing for the 700 BHP workers that are being sacked? They're being sacked not for poor job performance or for anything that they've done wrong but because they have decided to exercise what should be their right in a democratic society. Whether you participate in a medical experiment, whether you undertake a medical intervention, should be your free choice in a democracy. Your job should not be held hostage because you've decided not to participate in a medical experiment.
Seven hundred workers across the nation, today, are being thrown out by BHP, and that is on top of the tens of thousands of workers that have already lost their jobs—teachers, nurses, doctors, paramedics, retail workers and truck drivers. Across all sectors of our economy, people have been thrown out of work because they have simply decided to exercise what must be a right in a democratic society. No democratic society should mandate the injection of a substance into your body just to keep your job. In many cases, this is more than just people's jobs; it's people's careers that are being thrown out. Teachers are losing not only their job but their career. Ambulance officers and paramedics, who we rely upon, are today sitting on the sidelines of our economy because they've decided not to get injected with one of these experimental COVID vaccines.
This is the shameful day for our nation. But what is even more shameful is the lack the people in this parliament that are speaking up and using their voice against it. The economy is not doing so well that we can afford 700 mining workers in BHP to be no longer working in that industry. We're looking down the barrel of a $1.4 trillion debt, and we're telling these people that they cannot participate in the economy? The party of the workers is silent about these workers losing their jobs—absolutely silent. It's hard to know what's worse: those in this parliament that actually think that the government and big industry and big medical and big pharma and the bureaucrats here in Canberra know better and should force you, against your will, to be injected—they think that it's okay to have a society where your freedoms are all held hostage to the point of a needle; or, equally, the number of people in this House that know in their heart that that is wrong, that know in their conscience that that is wrong, but come to this parliament and say nothing about it.
To mandate an injection, to mandate a medical intervention—and not just any old medical intervention; a medical intervention with an mRNA vaccine, a substance that has never been injected into humans before, that we have no long-term safety data for—is not only unethical, immoral, a breach of human rights but simply darn un-Australian, and more of us need to use our voices to stick up against it. What's even worse, there may have been an argument six months ago, 12 months ago, when we had all those experts stand up and say, 'If you get injected, you can't catch COVID and you can't spread it'—that was what was told to the general public, where they talked about 90 per cent plus efficacy. That's what we were promised. That's what this was sold upon. We now know that is completely untrue.
It's not only untrue. If we want to see how idiotic and how stupid these mandates are, and how counterproductive they are, just look at the latest data out of the United Kingdom, from the official UK Health Security Agency. In their weekly COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report, for week 6 of the year, 10 February, just have a look at what that data shows. You'd think these mandates would mean that, if you've been injected, you are less likely to have COVID. That is the entire premise behind it. But look what the data shows. Look at the rates of cases reported between week 2 and week 5 of 2022, a four-week period. In the UK, of those aged 30 to 39, there was a 4.9 per cent COVID-positive rate amongst those who were injected not once, not twice, but three times! A 4.9 per cent infection rate over that month amongst those injected three times. But for those not injected at all, those that are vaccine free, that supposedly have a higher rate of COVID, it's actually just over two per cent. So the rates of infection in the UK in the 30 to 39 age bracket are less than half amongst those that are vaccine free, compared to those that have been jabbed not once, not twice, but three times—a 140 per cent difference. It's the same for the 40 to 49 age group, where there's a 172 per cent greater probability of having COVID if you've been injected three times, compared to a vaccine-free person. For my age bracket, those that are 50 to 59 years old, there's a 2.6 per cent infection rate for those injected three times, but for those not injected, those vaccine free, just 1.167 per cent—a 120 per cent higher rate of infection amongst the triple-jabbed than amongst those that are vaccine free.
With that data, how can anyone possibly mandate these injections? It should be a free choice in a free society. Yet here we have thousands of Australians—we saw them here on the weekend, the largest protest ever in this nation's history—protesting just for the right to work in a free, democratic society. We have taken that right away from them. We have the constitutional power here in this parliament to end these insane, illogical, unethical, immoral, un-Australian mandates. We have the constitutional power here today to end them if we want to. But, sadly, there are so many in this parliament that are happy to see these mandates go ahead because they think that it gives them some extra protection. They are prepared to sell out the human rights of other Australians because they think they might get some benefit from it. They think it may somehow be not popular.
We've got to stand up for what is right in this parliament, and it is not right that 700 Australians are losing their jobs today, 700 BHP workers. It is not right that teachers are being told they can't go back into the classroom to teach in front of their children, because they have decided to be vaccine free. It is not right, when our hospitals around the nation are in chaos and the queues are lengthening, that we have paramedics and ambulance officers stood down, unable to work in the hospital system because they've decided to be vaccine free. I would hope that more members of this parliament would speak up. I know that, at the moment, this is not popular, but let me tell you: history will judge us on the decisions that we are making, history will record that this parliament stood by and did nothing, and history will condemn this parliament for those actions.
In the years to come, parliamentarians will look back upon this parliament, look upon the actions of every single member of this parliament, and say, 'What did you do to stand up and fight against those illogical abuses of human rights, those vaccine mandates?' Sadly, there are very few of us that will be able to say that we've stood by to fight the good fight. We weren't concerned about the attacks upon us in the media, because we called it out according to our conscience. And my conscience tells me that what is happening is completely and utterly wrong. It's contrary to everything that I believe in: freedom of choice, freedom of bodily autonomy. If you don't have the freedom to decide what substances you will inject into your body, what's the point of any other freedoms? Our freedoms of medical choice, our freedoms of economic opportunity, our freedoms of personal travel are all subject and dependent and interlinked. When we break one, we break them all.
Turning to the election, there are only a few sitting days left in this parliament. I hope that, in the month's break that we have before budget week, many other members of parliament will look into deep into their conscience and speak out about how wrong this is and stand up for those Australian workers. Every Australian worker that has been sacked because of these vaccine mandates must have their job back. We can do it in this parliament, if only we have the courage.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2021-2022
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (12:34): I move:
That the Federation Chamber do now adjourn.
Electorate of Solomon
Young Australians
COVID-19
Indo-Pacific Region
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (12:34): In this adjournment debate I want to touch on a couple of local issues and some regional, national and international issues—so I'll be moving quickly! I am so proud to live in the place that I do and to represent the people of Darwin and Palmerston.
A divi sion having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 12:35 to 12:52
Mr GOSLING: I was talking about how awesome my electorate of Solomon is—greater Darwin, Darwin and Palmerston. My key focus is to make sure that Territorians have good, secure jobs and also have great infrastructure in terms of roads—and I'll have more to say about roads in the lead-up to the election. I also want to make sure they have good health services, including First Nations health services, and good social infrastructure and sports infrastructure. Unfortunately, although some commitments for sports infrastructure were made to our electorate by the federal coalition government, not a dollar has come to Football Northern Territory for new change rooms for women, for example. I want the government to honour the commitments that have been made. When it comes to cultural infrastructure, I'm a big supporter of the Larrakia Cultural Centre down at the waterfront, which is going to be amazing.
Touching on a couple of national issues, I want to congratulate the member for Hunter, Joel Fitzgibbon, for his fine service to our party and to this parliament. He gave an excellent and honest valedictory speech this morning in the House of Representatives. As he does, I too believe that we need to use to the full the capacity of our young people in this nation. There is nothing as dispiriting for young people as to be born into intergenerational unemployment. We need to give them all the support that we can. People struggle for all sorts of reasons. It's not always their fault that they can't get into employment. We need to give young kids all the help that we can.
I am a big fan of the idea of a national youth scheme, which could be a national community service scheme where we get young people to do residential training so they can learn how to do first aid or fight a fire—generally get some good life skills—and then they're placed in the community. They might find work in a seniors home, they might find work in surf lifesaving, they might go off and join the military or they might be backing up our local fireys or paramedics.
I'm excited that Disaster Relief Australia will be launching in my electorate in the next few weeks. I see them being a great organisation for training young Australians and giving them some good life skills to send them on their way.
I want to thank Territorians for their ongoing work during the pandemic. It has been a difficult time. I also welcome the arrival of the Novavax vaccine, and I hope that it will provide an option for those who have not been willing to get vaccinated to this point.
We will need to reconcile as a community and as a nation. We'll need to bring the country together. That's what I see will be federal Labor's role after the next federal election—to reintegrate people and reconnect people—and I look forward to being part of that. It's going to be very exciting.
I'm passionate about our relationship with the Indo-Pacific region, and I want to thank the Labor leader for giving me the job of leading the Indo-Pacific trade task force during this term. I'm very focused on this work, from the subcontinent through ASEAN and into the Pacific. In particular, tomorrow morning, I'll be speaking at Charles Darwin University in Darwin, opening an 'understanding Indonesia' conference. I'm passionate about seeing a peace park established in Bali to remember the 88 Australians and others who were killed in the Bali bombing, the twentieth anniversary of which is coming up.
The bombing of Darwin 80 years ago—it's great that the Labor leader will be coming to Darwin. I look forward to connecting with Territorians out and about this weekend for that important commemoration. (Time expired)
Groom Electorate: Infrastructure
Mr HAMILTON (Groom) (12:56): It's just a couple of days past a year since I made my maiden speech in the other chamber.
An honourable member: It was a good one as well.
Mr HAMILTON: Very kind words. Thank you. It takes you some time to work out how you can best help your community when you work in this place. I will make mention of the member for Hunter, who was a valuable source, I'm very happy to say, for a young parliamentarian coming in, trying to work out what to do. I think of my home area and what best use the federal government can make of its time to invest and help the Toowoomba region grow.
It's been clear to me that the expanding of our defence economy in the Toowoomba region is a fantastic opportunity for us to capitalise on. I think of the Railway Parklands project, which has been so well supported by the council and the chamber of commerce, and the second road to Highfields, which is a magnificent opportunity to link up that growth area. But we need help. We need help from the state government, very clearly, on two key issues. We've got a hospital that's in desperate need of complete repair. We need a new hospital built. We need passenger rail—and the federal government have put money towards a study for that. But we need to work closely with the state government to deliver them. It's important, when it comes to infrastructure, that we get it right.
This brings me to the quarantine facility at Wellcamp, which has been in the news so much recently. When I first spoke on this issue I was not fundamentally against a regional quarantine facility. What I wanted to know was what the plan was, because I knew that my hospitals, my police, my emergency services, my mayor and my council had not been included in these conversations and that they were asking me to represent them in this place to make sure that they were listened to. We kept at it all the way through, with the community asking, 'What is the plan and how will this impact us?' These were important questions, and they were never answered. Even today they remain unanswered.
At some stage through this process, the Premier of Queensland decided to go it alone. But the feds have acknowledged there is a need, a very important need, for us to have appropriate quarantine facilities in the future. It's a good point, and there was an opportunity for us to work together on this. Sadly, at this point—and I speak with great respect to those involved—this became largely a political issue rather than a health one. That's very sad, because the losers from that were the people of Toowoomba, who were wondering where the nurses were going to come from, where the extra police were going to come from and how it was going to impact our community, particularly at the height of the delta outbreak. This was an important series of questions that we wanted to know the answers to. Unfortunately, it became a political issue because it benefited the Labor Party here in Canberra and in Brisbane. I don't believe at that point it was done for the betterment of Toowoomba or that Toowoomba's safety concerns were listened to.
Quite frankly, I take absolutely no pleasure whatsoever in watching what's playing out across the televisions and newspapers around the country. They tell the story of a farce on our doorstep. A 500-bed facility is being filled with 38. But, don't worry, there's one more on the way. We'll have 39 shortly. And there are another 500 beds to be built. This is the story being told of the Toowoomba region. Forgive me, but this is not worthy of Toowoomba.
We have a fantastic opportunity to grow as a city and to become an inland port thanks to Inland Rail. I recognise the hard work done on this side of the House to establish us in that role. I think of the great opportunities that come from all the wonderful work done on the Warrego Highway to link us to Brisbane and of what Toowoomba can be. Toowoomba can feed South-East Queensland.
We can't do this again. We can't again invest a lot of money in a facility that is going to be underutilised and returned very quickly to private ownership with no fundamental benefit to Toowoomba and that does not address the needs that Toowoomba has in front of it. As I said, a hospital needs to be built. And there is passenger rail. It's incredible to think that you can't catch a train from Brisbane to Toowoomba, but that is where we are. These problems remain unaddressed, but there are 460-odd beds in a soon to be private facility doing nothing for anybody.
Cowan Electorate: Community Events
Dr ALY (Cowan) (13:01): [by video link] Cowan is an incredibly diverse electorate which truly reflects modern Australia. The line in our anthem, 'For those who've come across the seas we've boundless plains to share,' is not just about the multitude of citizenship ceremonies that I attend where I get to greet those who have called Australia home; it's also about the character of the Cowan electorate. I acknowledge the diversity in Cowan and I want to acknowledge the communities of Cowan and thank them not just for sharing their culture through their food and music with me but also for their loyalty to this country and for their achievements. Many of them have achieved really amazing things, despite challenges and despite adversity.
Over the last month I was really blessed to attend a lot of cultural celebrations by cultural groups in Cowan. I want to go through some of them. I want to give a shout-out to Joe Tuazama and Dr Casty Hughes from the Organisation of African Communities. Just last month I attended the Jambo Africa Festival at the Wanneroo Showgrounds. Wow, what a spectacular festival that was. It showcased not just the talent of various African communities in Cowan but also their achievements and the ways in which they've really integrated into the political, social and economic life of Australia.
Just before that there was the very first Kenyan festival, which was also held at the Wanneroo Showgrounds. My brothers and sisters in the Kenyan community welcomed my husband, David, and I with open arms. It was such a pleasure to be able to attend that festival too.
I also attended the Oromo Cultural Night. The Oromo community is driven and powered by its youth, particularly the president, Abdisa. Ninety per cent of Perth's Oromo diaspora live in Cowan. This community is really fighting to continue its culture through language. The Oromo language hasn't been a written language for very long, but it's really part of their identity. I commend particularly the Oromo youth for really embracing their identity and their culture through language.
Of course, I can't forget the Vietnamese seniors. Every time I go and meet with the Vietnamese seniors, it ends in karaoke and dancing. Now don't judge me here, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I've got to tell you: if you've got a microphone and some music, I'm there! And the Vietnamese seniors always step it up. So a huge thankyou to them.
I also attended the Burmese community—the Burmese Association of Western Australia. They've been going since 1965 in Cowan. Again, I got to sing—of course!—and do a bit of dancing as well. But the Burmese community is such a wonderful asset to our community and a longstanding community in Cowan. They've achieved so much and contributed so much to Australia, and I thank them for everything that they've done.
Earlier this month we had the Perth Chinese New Year Festival, which was organised by the Chung Wah Association of WA—a really, really active association for many, many years. I remember, when I was a policy officer at the Office of Multicultural Interests, way back when, having a lot to do with the Chung Wah Association and just how active they were in promoting multiculturalism in WA.
Just last week I got to attend the Chin community national day—a hugely important day for the Chin community. It's a bittersweet day, considering what's going on at the moment with their community in Myanmar, but, still, this community was able to celebrate and, again, to showcase just how important identity is for their young people and for themselves, and how that makes us stronger.
In Australia, we often talk about Australia being a successful multicultural nation. It's really important to recognise that our diversity is our strength, and in Cowan that diversity truly is a source of strength for its residents, but also for those of us who have that opportunity— (Time expired)
Valedictory
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (13:06): There is something to be said for speaking from the heart but also speaking without notes. But if, in your final speech to the parliament, you omit to thank your own daughters and mum, there is something to be said for grabbing some notes and doing it properly! So, for the first time since 2011, I confess there's a very, very important prompt sheet—which, I assure you, has been put together by me, but there has been some oversight.
I wanted to recognise—as I didn't, because I completely lost my way in talking about my wife's incredible journey to this country—my 13- and nine-year-old daughters. Sophie is this remarkably empathic young leader that I wanted to refer to in my final speech. She works so hard just to be good at everything she does, and already, at her age, she is starting to make these tough choices about what she can and can't do, to try and not raise ridiculous expectations—as we often do on teenagers. Isobel, at the age of nine, is delighting us with determination, resolve and insistence on process and fairness—particularly when dad doesn't show it! She just drove past the ASIO building this week and said: 'Dad, is that the spy building? I want a job there. Can you get me a tour?' That's a challenge to the minister!
We all have parents who brought us to where we are, but the particular story with my mum and dad is that they fell in love and went to the far corners of the earth, as we knew it, in the 1960s, which was to Hobart—no offence to Tassie!—and then to the tropical island of Bougainville, and then to the Papua New Guinea highlands, one of the most remarkable places on the planet. Dad took me under the shadows of Mount Giluwe and taught me survival skills—which sometimes came in handy in this building! I learnt how to hunt birds using bows and arrows, with arrowheads made of possum glenoid processes to hunt a bird without damaging its plumage—something that I haven't done here in Australia with our indigenous species, you'll be relieved to know.
Obviously, my dad's career went from being just a local councillor and giving it a go, and winning, when he didn't expect to, to joining the Joh for PM campaign, to being on the National Party Senate ticket with John Stone, and of course then to being a Liberal—mostly in opposition—state MP for a decade. I loved doorknocking for him and learning a bit more about issues that, as a young medical student, I never would have otherwise. And, as you would all know, as anyone in this building knows, those conversations around the table are so important. I remember what that great poet Robert Frost said, when he talked about two paths you can take in life:
And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.
And life is a series of choosing paths. My dad never got a formal education, but he had an incredible journey that was captured in two beautiful novels in the brief period he had between retirement and falling into the thicket of Alzheimer's and Lewy body dementia. We have a story that's autobiography but also probably the only firsthand account of the life of a shearer in Australia, because dad wrote notes and kept a diary. My lovely sisters, Susie and Jules, are sharpshooters. They're fun, and their husbands and partners are incredibly hardworking. One of them lives in Portsea, and, if that isn't heaven, you can certainly see it from there. And Julie and Simon live in my ancestral home, the Sunshine Coast, where they run a strata building as part of the tourism sector.
Just to conclude, I want to mention some people in my electorate: in the transport sector, Phil, John and Caitlin Richards; Jennifer Parsons; and Chris and Ginni Anderson. Chris is an absolute visionary. Dawn, Scott and Craig Hogan have the only family owned pub in my electorate. I also want to mention Lynette and Doug Barton; Rob Jones; Jason and Kath Bradley; Jan Goetze; David Paterson; Albert and Lyn Benfer; Bill Stoddart; Warren and Julienne Pryde; Steve and Selina Lambourne of SS Signs; IGA's Tyrone and Leanne Jones; Brian and Esti Seiberts; Damien Smart; Ian Neil; Jon McCarthy, in the law; Bruce Durie; Steve Gibson; Victoria and Aaron Meyers; Rebecca and Justin Young; Susie Tafolo.
I also want to mention my mentors, Don and Wendy Seccombe, Don being a former cricketer and mayor; Bill and Jeanette Vaughn; Ron, Matt and Mike Loney; Dan and Jacqueline Rigney, at IGA Alex Hills, famous for taking on a thief with a flamethrower; Mark Jones; Aunty Margaret; Uncle Norm Enoch; Dale Rusker; Kate Adams; Nat Manzoni, on Straddy; Darren Cole; Milly, Dave and Sam Nielsen; the tooth fairy Stephanie Roper; Debbie and Michael Leong; Dr Luke Katahanis; Pat and Sue Gaye; Ryan and Jess McCann; Todd and Emily Howard; Steve and Emily Baxter; Perminder and Julianne Thind; Rohit Pathak; Mary Gibb, in hospitality, such a tough path they've had; AITC's Mark Hands; Louise and Shane Peters; Brett and Melissa Webster; educators Dr Lyn and Bob Bishop; Dave Goodwin; Mick and Ruth Bentham; Jason Goodwin; Mick and Moira Goodwin; Steve and Cheryl Lawie; Tanya and Jarrod Bonney; Wolfgang Nespor; Paul and Cherie Luxton; and Mel and Janna Price-Jones. They bit off more than they could chew, chewed like hell and made it happen.
E-Cigarettes
Ms COKER (Corangamite) (13:12): I rise to speak on an important emerging health issue in Australia, the explosion of vaping—the very concerning increase of this phenomenon in Australia—and the lack of regulation around it. The electronic cigarette is revolutionising the tobacco industry. It's creating new pathways to smoking and attracting new smokers, especially young smokers. Whilst there is still need for more research around the health impacts of e-cigarettes, it is already known that e-cigarettes are unsafe. The federal government's own health department has declared:
Hazardous substances have been found in e-cigarette liquids and in the aerosol produced by e-cigarettes, including these known cancer-causing agents …
Some chemicals in e-cigarette aerosols can also cause DNA damage.
That's the view of the federal Department of Health.
Given this, alarmingly, I recently had a constituent contact me. He was a very distressed father of two boys, a five-year-old and a seven-year-old. His two children had vaped at school when another seven-year-old had brought a vape to school. The vape had no labelling on it, and who knows what was in it? The five-year-old, who has a predisposition to chest complications, is still coughing a week later. He can't stop coughing, his father said. This is not an isolated incident. Many parents are concerned and have spoken to me about children accessing and using vapes. Because of this, I'm calling on the Morrison government to immediately tighten legislation and regulations to protect children and the broader Australian population.
The Morrison government's weak regulations are clearly not working, and vaping and vaping products are now getting a firm grip among children under 18. Effectively we've got very poor regulations and virtually zero compliance. These products are advertised all over the internet and are designed with packaging to directly appeal to children. One online supplier is now advertising a 'lolly bag sampler pack'. Each pack includes rainbow sherbet, marshmallow, cola bottle candy, gummy bear and fruit gum flavours. If that's not appealing to children, I don't know what is. These products and promotions are lawful within the current weak regulatory environment put in place by the Morrison government. They are designed by big tobacco companies to specifically put young people on a path to smoking tobacco. It is absolutely disgraceful. The Morrison government needs to act decisively, not tinker with weak regulations.
Yes, the coalition, after a pitched battle in their caucus, did restrict e-cigarettes to prescription-only, but there's no compliance. A policy is just smoke and mirrors without compliance and accountability. You get one pop-up asking you whether you're 18, which any five-year-old can click on and say yes. Then you just go on and order the product online. There should be either a complete ban on advertising of vape products or the strictest possible labelling and advertising laws, as there are for cigarette smoking, and heavy fines for anyone breaching those laws. A normal cigarette has 10 to 15 milligrams of nicotine; many e-liquid bottles contain 24 milligrams. E-cigarettes are very powerful.
Nearly all the global tobacco manufacturers, including Imperial Tobacco, British American Tobacco and Philip Morris, aggressively advertise these products via social media, and it's having a significant impact. According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, e-cigarette use by Australians aged 14 or older more than doubled from 2016 to 2019, and it's most common amongst smokers aged 14 to 24.
I repeat: the Morrison government needs to protect Australian children. We know the coalition still receives donations from big tobacco, from Philip Morris. This is disgraceful. The coalition must reject the manipulative methods of big tobacco and their attempts to put our children on a path to smoking via vaping and e-cigarettes. The Morrison government must act to restrict and shut down the unscrupulous promotion of these products to children. This is the role of our federal government, and action must be taken now.
Swan Electorate
Sex Discrimination and Other Legislation Amendment (Save Women’s Sport) Bill 2022
Mr IRONS (Swan) (13:16): As this will be one of my last speeches before I retire at the upcoming election, I want to take the opportunity—and the guidance from the member from Bowman—to thank and acknowledge a few people and organisations which I won't be able to fit into my valedictory speech, which is scheduled for 31 March. There have been some fantastic valedictories already delivered by retiring members, some with plenty of humour, some with bouquets and some with some serious whacks, but the ability to deliver a valedictory as a retiring member will be a privilege. I will get to do what many defeated in elections don't enjoy.
There are five councils in the electorate of Swan, and they have all been fantastic bodies to deal with. To all the CEOs, mayors and councillors I've dealt with over the past 14½ years: thank you for all your input to my office, which has enabled me to deliver funding to projects that matter. The small community grants, volunteer grants and sporting champion programs have all been fantastic opportunities to provide funding to small groups and individuals that desperately need inventory and/or equipment or travel to enable them to exist and compete. The five councils in my area—in no particular order—are City of Belmont, City of Canning, City of Kalamunda, City of South Perth and Town of Victoria Park. City of Swan has a small corner of the electorate, but it's a recent inclusion, only since the last distribution. These areas have been the beneficiaries of over $2 billion in funding, through infrastructure and previous grants I've mentioned, during my time as the member for Swan.
During my life I've been surrounded by women who have nurtured me, loved me and laughed at me, and I have learnt many things from them—particularly the art of listening, from my three older sisters, when I was a young boy. My foster mother, Mary Irons, passed away in January 2020 after a long period of dementia, and I sincerely thank staff at the aged-care facility in Croydon, Victoria, who looked after her so well for many years. Unfortunately, I couldn't attend her funeral, and I hadn't seen her for 18 months prior to that because of travel restrictions due to COVID-19 regulations. Mum loved playing golf, as I do, and we had some fabulous times together on the golf course. Fortunately, my wife, Cheryle, has also taken up the game, and we find this one of the best ways to exercise and spend time together.
As you can see, Mr Deputy Speaker, sport and family have important links. Sport has been a big part of my life, and since becoming the member for Swan I've worked tirelessly to make Swan the sporting capital of Western Australia. In the electorate, we have Optus Stadium, which held last year's AFL grand final. We have two racetracks. We have the Eagles at Lathlain oval. The new home of Football West is being built right now at Queens Park. We have the Royal Perth and Collier Park golf courses and many more sporting facilities and clubs, which all add to the fabric and community spirit of Swan.
The last part of my speech is about Senator Claire Chandler's bill, which would allow women and girls to have the right to play single-sex sport, and my support for Senator Chandler's efforts. As Senator Chandler has said, it's important for everyone to be able to participate in sport, but there should always be a single-sex female category available so that women and girls can compete on a level playing field. Single-sex sport allows women and girls to participate and compete in sport from local level right up to national and international competition. Unacceptably, under current Commonwealth laws, sports clubs and associations can be threatened with legal action for offering single-sex sporting events and competition exclusively for females.
The Sex Discrimination and Other Legislation Amendment (Save Women's Sport) Bill 2022, which was introduced by Senator Chandler, will make clear that single-sex sport for women is lawful and encouraged and supported by the Parliament of Australia. The bill will allow sporting codes to embrace single-sex sport for women without the threat of legal action under the Sex Discrimination Act. It does not seek to ban anybody from playing sport. It seeks to restore respect for women's rights and show that categorisation by sex is important in the vast majority of sports.
The recent case of transgender swimmer Lia Thomas in the USA smashing women's records is an example where the system has failed the basic tenet of sport that competition should be fair. Caitlyn Jenner, formerly Bruce, this week called on the NCAA to immediately stop transgender athletes like Thomas from competing against their biological counterparts. Jenner said on Wednesday that there was no doubt in her mind that the rules needed to be changed. 'All of this woke world that we are living in right now is not working,' said Jenner, who won a gold medal as Bruce in the men's decathlon at the 1976 Montreal Olympics before transitioning to female in 2015. She said:
I feel sorry for the other athletes that are out there … she's competing against because in the woke world you have to say,'Oh, my gosh, this is great' … No, it's not.
Last week champion swimmer Michael Phelps said:
I believe that we all should feel comfortable with who we are in our own skin, but I think sports should all be played on an even playing field.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 13:22