The SPEAKER ( Hon. Milton Dick ) took the chair at 12:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
PARLIAMENTARY ZONE
Proposed Works
Ms McBAIN (Eden-Monaro—Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories) (12:01): I move:
That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approve the following proposal for work in the Parliamentary Zone, which was presented to the House on 5 September 2022, namely: West Block new construction and refurbishment works.
In accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, this motion seeks approval from the House for construction and refurbishment works at the historic West Block building, within the Parliamentary Zone, to enable its renewal and subsequent ongoing use as office accommodation. West Block is located at the intersection of Queen Victoria Terrace, State Circle and Commonwealth Avenue in Canberra. It was previously used as offices for Commonwealth agencies prior to its sale in 2017.
The National Capital Authority received a works approval application for the proposal and is seeking approval for the works. The works are a new portico at its entrance, access ramps, a small building to house health and recreation facilities and works to refresh the nearby landscape. The proponent will also undertake works to improve and maintain the heritage values of the current building.
The project has been developed by the owner in consultation with the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water and the National Capital Authority. The owner has met obligations under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and, following consideration by both houses of parliament, the National Capital Authority is prepared to grant approval for the proposed works. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Cheaper Child Care) Bill 2022
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Clare.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr CLARE (Blaxland—Minister for Education) (12:04): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
It is a privilege to introduce the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Cheaper Child Care) Bill 2022. This bill will cut the cost of child care for around 1. 26 million Australian families.
Early childhood education and care is incredibly important. It's also expensive. Anyone who has a child in care knows that. Costs have gone up by 41 per cent in the last eight years.
The cost of child care is a massive roadblock for a lot of Australian parents who want to head back to work, or work more hours or more days.
Last year 73,000 people who wanted to work, didn't look for work according to the ABS—because they couldn't make childcare costs work for them.
Right now, where both parents are working and have two or more children in child care, one parent can lose between 80 and 100 per cent of their take-home pay for working a fourth or fifth day each week. And those parents are overwhelmingly women.
If the cost of child care is almost what you earn for working a fourth or fifth day it's no surprise that many Australian women decide it's not worth it.
What we do here matters.
In 2005 female participation in the workforce was 57 per cent. Today it's 62 per cent.
That's an improvement, but that number hides an important fact.
Australian women are more than twice as likely as men to be in part-time work because of caring responsibilities.
A typical Australian woman with children under 12 works two-and-a-half days a week.
That's paid work.
If we make child care cheaper it will make it easier for lots of women to work more paid hours and more paid days.
And that means they earn more now and have more superannuation when they retire. It's good for careers and it's good for families.
It's also good for our economy.
Making child care cheaper isn't welfare. It's important economic reform.
It boosts participation. If you make child care cheaper, businesses get thousands of skilled workers back at work.
That's good for business and good for productivity.
Treasury estimates that these measures will increase the hours worked by women with young children by up to 1.4 million hours per week in 2023-24. That's the equivalent of up to an extra 37,000 full-time workers.
That makes a real difference for our economy. That's families generating extra income. That's building the careers and the retirement savings of Australian women.
That's why we made cheaper child care a key part of our election campaign, and this bill implements the promise that we made to the Australian people.
It will make early education and care cheaper for approximately 1.26 million families.
Around 96 percent of families with children in early education and care will be better off. None will be worse off.
Schedule 1 of the bill sets out the increase in subsidies for families. From July 2023, families with a combined household income of $80,000 will receive a childcare subsidy up to 90 per cent for their first child in care.
Subsidy rates for families earning less than $530,000 per year will also increase. The rate of subsidy is tapered, reducing as household income increases.
These are real benefits for Australian families. A family on roughly the Australian median combined income of $120,000 with one child in care three days a week will save $1,780 in the first year of this plan.
For second and subsequent children five or under, this legislation retains the higher childcare subsidy. This recognises the increased financial burden on families with multiple children in care and provides a subsidy of up to 95 per cent for eligible families.
I'm proud to say that this bill also provides additional support for Indigenous Australian families in accessing early childhood education and care. Schedule 3 of the Bill introduces a base level of 36 subsidised hours per fortnight for Indigenous children whether their families meet the activity test or not.
This is an important step in supporting education outcomes for Indigenous families. According to the 2021 Australian Early Development Census, two in five Indigenous children are developmentally vulnerable in one or more domains when they start school. That's compared with one in five children who are from a non-Indigenous background.
Last year the proportion of Indigenous Australian children assessed as developmentally on-track in all five domains was 34.3 per cent. That is a drop from 35.2 per cent in 2018, and that is the first time that this metric has gone backwards. The gap is getting bigger, not smaller.
We need to turn this around.
That's why we have included this measure in this bill. It will help more Indigenous Australian children get access to early childhood education. Six thousand six hundred Indigenous families will benefit from these measures over the first year as their base level of subsidised hours increases from zero or 24 to 36 hours per fortnight. And these measures will make it easier for other Indigenous families to access more early childhood education for their children, or to access it for the first time. We have developed this listening closely to the advice of SNAICC—the Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care, who are tireless in advocating for improved access to early childhood education and care for Indigenous families.
The subsidy measures in the bill commence on 1 July 2023, with the first payment in the childcare subsidy fortnight of the 2023-24 year commencing on 10 July 2023.
The previous government's higher childcare subsidy for families with multiple children policy included another measure which was due to commence from July 2023. That measure reduced the period families could continue to access the higher childcare subsidy for a child after their sibling left care.
That measure is forecast to save $34 million over four years. The problem is that the same measure is forecast to cost more than $89 million to implement. That's almost three times what it was meant to save.
That is an expensive saving. That measure is therefore removed in this bill.
In its place, in schedules 2 and 4 the bill introduces measures to improve transparency and strengthen integrity within the early childhood education and care sector.
Schedule 2 increases transparency around large childcare providers, helping families understand where their childcare fees are going. The bill requires large childcare providers, regardless of the type of service they operate, to report financial information about revenue and profits to the Department of Education. This information can be made available online to families choosing a provider.
The bill also strengthens the integrity mechanisms which underpin the sector.
Schedule 4 requires that payments of childcare gap fees be made electronically. The gap fee is the amount a family must contribute to the cost of child care.
A requirement that these payments be made electronically will work together with existing record-keeping obligations to help test whether gap fees have been paid. It will be a significant obstacle for fraudulent schemes where a service tries to claim the subsidy for care that isn't occurring.
The bill also allows for exemptions to be made to provide flexibility around cash payments in exceptional circumstances. Over the coming months my department will continue to engage closely with the sector on these provisions to ensure appropriate exemptions are in place in minister's rules.
Schedule 4 also strengthens requirements that approved childcare providers have good governance arrangements in place. The secretary may also make rules for information that providers must report each week to receive subsidy payments from the government.
Schedule 5 of the bill supports our early childhood educators by confirming the educator discount agreed to in the 2021-22 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook.
This will give childcare providers the option of offering a discount on childcare fees for the children of their educators, without this affecting the amount of childcare subsidy payable. This will support the retention and attraction of early childhood educators in the sector.
Schedules 6 to 8 of the bill make minor amendments to improve or clarify the operation of the childcare subsidy. These include clarifying the impact of gap fee waivers on the amount of subsidy payable, allowing discretion around the payment of subsidy for absences in exceptional circumstances, and extending time periods for services to pass on subsidy amounts to families in certain situations.
The government has proposed that the bill be referred for inquiry by the Senate education and employment committee, and my office has foreshadowed this approach with the shadow minister for education's office and the shadow minister for early childhood education and youth's office. I look forward, as I'm sure we all do, to the report from that committee.
This bill is only one part of the government's work in supporting Australian families with young children.
Prior to the election we also announced that we would ask the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to look at childcare costs. Last week with the Treasurer, I announced that this inquiry will kick off on 1 January and deliver its interim findings before 1 July to guide the implementation of this legislation. It will deliver its final report by the end of next year.
We will also task the Productivity Commission to conduct a comprehensive review of the early education and care sector with the aim of implementing a universal 90 per cent subsidy for all families. This review is expected to commence in the first half of 2023, with a final report in 2024.
I want to acknowledge and thank all of those who have had a hand in the creation of this bill.
We have consulted with the sector through the Early Childhood Education and Care Reference Group, and I want to thank all of these organisations for their insights in the drafting of this legislation:
the Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care;
Early Childhood Australia;
Goodstart Early Learning;
Early Learning and Care Council of Australia;
Australian Childcare Alliance;
Outside School Hours Council of Australia;
the National Out of School Hours Services Association;
Queensland Children's Activities Network;
Community Early Learning Australia;
New South Wales Family Day Care;
New South Wales and South Australia In Home Care Support Agency;
KU Children's Services;
Community Connections Solutions Australia;
Junior Adventures Group;
Early Learning Association Australia;
Family Day Care Australia;
Community Child Care Association;
Lady Gowrie Tasmania;
the Australian Local Government Association;
Outside School Hours Council of Australia; and
TheirCare.
It's important that we listen to experts and that is what we have done.
Their feedback and their advice through this process have made this a better bill.
I also want to add my sincere thanks to my friend the Minister for Social Services, Amanda Rishworth, who crafted this policy in opposition, and can I also add my thanks to my friend the Minister for Early Childhood Education and Minister for Youth for her work in helping me to bring this bill before the parliament.
I also want to thank the Prime Minister because it's his vision and his willingness to prosecute the case for greater investment both in female workforce participation and in our children's futures that has brought us to this point today.
As the Prime Minister said at the CEDA conference in this building only a few weeks ago:
Equality for women—in participation, in pay, in leadership opportunities, in financial security—is an essential precondition for Australia's future economic growth.
… … …
A key part of this is re-framing the national conversation about child care, recognising its power and value as an economic reform.
An investment that benefits two generations of Australians, simultaneously:
1. Early education for a great start in life
2. Flexible support for modern families
3. And a multi-billion dollar boost to productivity and participation—without adding to inflation.
That's what this bill does. It's good for children. It's good for parents. And it's good for our economy.
I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Anti-Discrimination and Human Rights Legislation Amendment (Respect at Work) Bill 2022
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Dreyfus.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Attorney-General and Cabinet Secretary) (12:19): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Anti-Discrimination and Human Rights Legislation Amendment (Respect at Work) Bill 2022 marks a significant step in fulfilling the government's election commitment to implement the recommendations of the Respect@Work report.
The Respect@Work report was a watershed moment in recognising the impact of sexual harassment in Australian workplaces and setting out a clear path to reform. The National Inquiry into Sexual Harassment in Australian Workplaces found that 33 per cent of people who had been in the workforce in the preceding five years had experienced workplace sexual harassment. The national inquiry found that almost two in five women said they had experienced sexual harassment in the workplace in the last five years. Gender inequality is a key driver of sexual harassment in the workplace, which is borne out by the disproportionate impact this behaviour has on women.
The government acknowledges the work of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins, and the work of the commission more generally in producing the Respect@Work report and also the work that Commissioner Jenkins and the commission have done since the report was published to implement the report's recommendations, including through the Respect@Work Council.
This bill would not have happened without the individuals and organisations who contributed their stories, advocacy and expertise to inform the findings and recommendations in the Respect@Work report.
The Respect@Work report made 55 recommendations to federal, state and territory governments, independent government agencies, the private sector and the community more broadly, all driven by the same impetus—to put an end to sexual harassment and make Australian workplaces safe for all.
The government is moving decisively to implement the outstanding legislative recommendations of the Respect@Work report, as these changes will have an immediate impact in setting cultural norms around preventive efforts and are essential to eliminating workplace sexual harassment, discrimination and victimisation.
H ostile Work Environment (Schedule 1)
Schedule 1 to the bill introduces an express prohibition in the Sex Discrimination Act to protect people from hostile workplace environments on the ground of sex. This protection will not require that conduct is directed at a specific person but instead prohibits conduct that results in an offensive, intimidating and humiliating environment for people of one sex. As noted in the Respect@Work report, sexually charged or hostile workplace environments can increase the risk of a person experiencing other forms of unlawful discrimination, including sexual harassment. This new provision will provide clarity to employers, employees and other people in the workplace on their obligations to create safe and respectful workplace environments. This will implement recommendation 16(c) of the Respect@Work report.
Positive Duty (Schedule 2)
Schedule 2 to the bill creates positive duty on employers to take reasonable and proportionate measures to eliminate unlawful discrimination, including sexual harassment, as far as possible. This will implement recommendation 17 of the Respect@Work report.
The Australian Human Rights Commission will also be equipped with appropriate compliance powers to enforce the positive duty. The commission will prepare and publish guidelines for compliance with the positive duty and will educate businesses and employers to better understand and comply with their obligations. This will implement recommendation 18 of the Respect@Work report.
This cornerstone of the Respect@Work report recommendations is a key step to focusing actions on the prevention of sexual harassment and discrimination, looking beyond remedies for misconduct. The focus on prevention of workplace sexual harassment and discrimination also shifts responsibility from those who experience that discrimination and harassment to those who are best placed to prevent it: employers. The positive duty will complement the existing work health and safety framework, which also requires employers to ensure, as far as reasonably practicable, the physical and psychological health and safety of workers.
The bill will enable the commission to monitor and assess compliance, working with businesses along the way to support their compliance. The commission's functions will include:
conducting inquiries into a person's compliance and making recommendations to achieve compliance;
giving a compliance notice specifying the action that must be taken to address noncompliance;
applying to the courts for an order to direct compliance with a notice; and
the ability to enter into enforceable undertakings.
Inquiries into systemic unlawful discrimination
Schedule 3 to the bill will provide the Australian Human Rights Commission with a function to inquire into systemic unlawful discrimination. This will implement recommendation 19 of the Respect@Work report.
The Respect@Work report found that there are significant cultural and systemic factors that drive sexual harassment in the workplace and that addressing these drivers can be challenging.
This function will enable the commission to inquire into any matter that may relate to systemic unlawful discrimination or suspected unlawful discrimination.
Suspected unlawful discrimination is unlawful discrimination that affects a group of people and is continuous, repetitive or forms a pattern. The commission can undertake an inquiry where requested by the minister or when the commission considers it would be desirable. At the conclusion of an inquiry, the commission may publish a report and provide it to the minister, which may include recommendations.
Representative actions
Schedule 4 to the bill will enable representative actions to proceed from conciliation at the commission to make an application to the courts and will implement recommendation 23 of the Respect@Work report.
Currently a representative body is able to make a representative complaint to the commission on behalf of one or more persons; however, where a complaint is not resolved, the representative body is not able to initiate court proceedings.
This bill will enable a representative body to progress a complaint on behalf of one or more affected persons from conciliation at the commission to application to the court. This will improve support for people who experience harassment and discrimination to navigate the legal system and resolve their complaints. It will also better enable issues of systemic discrimination affecting a broad range of people to be addressed.
Costs protection s
Schedule 5 to the bill will insert a costs protection provision into the Australian Human Rights Commission Act to provide greater certainty in relation to the cost of pursuing legal action. This will implement recommendation 25 of the Respect@Work report.
The Respect@Work report heard that concerns about adverse cost orders deter applicants from seeking to resolve complaints through the courts. Cost reforms will give both applicants and respondents greater certainty in terms of the costs they may face while not impacting their access to legal representation.
The cost reform in this bill is the model supported by the Australian Human Rights Commission in their 2021 Free and Equal Position Paper, and these reforms will apply to all applications under Commonwealth anti-discrimination law. The approach balances the need for certainty and the clear impact costs can have on applicants taking action in the courts against the unintended consequences of costs reform, such as impacting access to legal representation.
Public sector reporting to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency
Schedule 6 to the bill will amend the Workplace Gender Equality Act to require the Commonwealth public sector to report against six gender equality indicators to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency. The Respect@Work report found that improved data collection is important to ensure that there is robust understanding of gender inequality in Australian workplaces. This will implement recommendation 43 of the Respect@Work report for the Commonwealth public sector.
Victimisation
Schedule 7 to the bill will clarify that victimisation can be the basis for a civil action of unlawful discrimination against Commonwealth anti-discrimination law, being the Age Discrimination Act, the Disability Discrimination Agent and the Racial Discrimination Act.
The Respect at Work Act 2021 included an amendment to clarify that victimisation can be the basis of a civil—and not just a criminal—action of unlawful discrimination under the Sex Discrimination Act.
It had always been the intention that the provisions in relation to victimisation in the Sex Discrimination Act—and the equivalent provisions in other Commonwealth antidiscrimination acts—could form the basis of either a civil or criminal cause of action, but the clarifying amendment in the Respect at Work Act 2021 was made necessary by a number of court decisions which gave rise to uncertainty around whether the relevant provisions achieved their intent.
The amendments in schedule 7 would address the same potential issue in other Commonwealth antidiscrimination acts by ensuring that the victimisation provisions in those acts reflect what has always been the intention—which is that acts of victimisation can form the basis of both civil and criminal causes of action.
Objects clause and termination timeframe alignment (Schedule 8)
Schedule 8 to the bill will amend the objects clause of the Sex Discrimination Act to state that an object of the act is to achieve substantive equality between men and women. This will implement recommendation 16(a) of the Respect@Work report.
The bill will also insert a new objects clause to support the operation of the new hostile work environment protection. The addition to the objects clause will state that an object of the act is to eliminate, so far as is possible, discrimination involving workplace environments that are hostile on the ground of sex.
This schedule will also change the timeframe for when a complaint under anti-discrimination law may be terminated by the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission from six months to 24 months.
The Respect at Work Act 2021 amended the time frame for complaints made under the Sex Discrimination Act, but not for any other antidiscrimination law. This has led to procedural challenges and complexity for people who are entitled to make a claim under more than one Commonwealth antidiscrimination act.
The president retains a discretion to consider complaints beyond the statutory timeframe, but this change will give greater certainty to complainants that intersectional aspects of an antidiscrimination complaint can be considered without procedural obstacles.
Conclusion
Sexual harassment is a serious and pervasive issue that affects all industries and all professions and demands a fundamental rethink in how our laws are shaped to prevent and respond more effectively. The Respect@Work report represents a paradigm shift in how public policy and the legislative framework support people who experience sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace. This bill takes those steps as set out in the Respect@Work report, makes that paradigm shift and signals to all workers that they deserve to be safe at work.
Sexual harassment is by no means inevitable. It is preventable. And this government will continue to work to ensure it is addressed.
I am both pleased and proud that the government is taking this next crucial step in fully implementing the Respect@Work report.
The Attorney-General's Department consulted with a number of key stakeholders in relation to the measures contained in this bill, including members of the Respect@Work Council. I would like to thank the unions, business groups and other individuals and organisations that provided constructive feedback to the Attorney-General's Department as part of that process.
I expect the bill will be referred to a Senate committee for an inquiry. Given the range of views about how best to implement the recommendations of the Respect@Work report, I have no doubt that the committee will receive a number of thoughtful and constructive suggestions for refinements and improvements to the bill. The government looks forward to engaging, through the Attorney-General's Department, with that important parliamentary process.
Debate adjourned.
DELEGATION REPORTS
Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the 65th Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference in Halifax, Canada
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle—Deputy Speaker) (12:34): by leave—I am very pleased to be able to present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the 65th Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference, which was held in Halifax, Canada, last month. The delegation was led by the President of the Senate, and the other members of the delegation were Senators Helen Polley and Linda Reynolds and the member for Fisher and me. The delegation worked very well together, along with other Australian delegates to the CPA Conference from the states and territories—particularly in advancing our region's interests during the conference.
The theme of the 2022 conference was Inclusive, Accessible, Accountable and Strong Parliaments: The Cornerstone of Democracy and Essential for Development. The conference encompassed a number of components, including: meetings of regional groups of the CPA, the 38th CPA Small Branches Conference of members from small legislatures, and meetings of the Executive Committee of the CPA; 10 workshops; the General Assembly of the CPA and the meeting of the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians.
With other delegates, I attended the meeting of the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians, and I represented the Australian region at the CWP Steering Committee and participated as a speaker and panel member in a workshop on effectively combatting all forms of abuse and harassment in parliament. With the strong support of the Australian delegation, the General Assembly agreed to a proposal by the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians that at least one-third of delegates to future CPA conferences should be women. Other decisions included a new officer role for the Chairperson of the Commonwealth Parliamentarians with Disabilities Network and a change to the rules for future appointments to the role of CPA Secretary-General.
On behalf of the delegation, I would like to extend our thanks to the members of the CPA Canadian region and the parliamentary staff who provided such enthusiastic assistance in hosting the 65th Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference. The delegation was grateful to His Excellency the Hon. Scott Ryan, Australian High Commissioner to Canada, for travelling to Halifax and providing valuable briefing and support to the delegation.
Finally, I would like to thank the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for assistance provided, and the staff of the International and Parliamentary Relations Office for coordinating all arrangements for the delegation. I extend special thanks to Alex Cullum, the Director of IPRO, who provided enormous support in the lead-up to and throughout our time in Halifax. Her sound advice, calm approach and professionalism were always appreciated.
Likewise, I want to thank Peter Banson, our Deputy Clerk from the House of Representatives, who was especially helpful to me during the Commonwealth women's parliamentary conference and then backed up to support the whole delegation for the CPA Conference that followed. Thank you, Peter, for your hard work and dedication; your commitment, good spirits and attention to detail were especially welcome.
In summing up, the 65th Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference presented a valuable opportunity to strengthen bonds with the Commonwealth parliaments, and we were pleased to be able to make useful contributions to debates and discussions and to promote matters of importance to Australia. I commend the report to the House.
BILLS
Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (AFP Powers and Other Matters) Bill 2022
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson) (12:39): I rise today to speak on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (AFP Powers and Other Matters) Bill 2022. The threat of terrorism continues to evolve globally and for Australia. Disruption associated with the pandemic has seen the emergence of new conspiratorial narratives, some of which may provide false justification for violent activities.
In 2022, as we continue to emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic and once more gather in crowds, we cannot become complacent about the terrorist threat. This bill would extend the sunset date for the following counterterrorism powers utilised by the Australian Federal Police by 12 months so that they do not sunset on 7 December 2022: the stop, search and seizure powers contained in division 3A of part 1AA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Crimes Act), the control order regime in division one 104 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Criminal Code), and the preventative detention order regime in division 105 of the Criminal Code.
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, known as the PJCIS, provided a statutory review on the powers central to this bill in October 2021, unanimously recommending the powers be extended provided amendments were made, including additional safeguards. I note that the Attorney-General indicated to the House that the government would be looking to draft legislation and consult with the states and territories after providing their response to the PJCIS's report.
We look forward to the government also engaging with the opposition on potential legislation in the interests of continuing the tradition of bipartisanship when it comes to national security in this place. And I look forward to working closely with the Attorney-General. It is a very genuine offer made on my behalf and on behalf of the coalition to work very constructively on matters of national security, particularly in relation to terrorism matters.
Australia's counterterrorism arrangements include three national objectives: countering violent extremism in all its forms by preventing radicalisation of individuals before an attack takes place, and rehabilitating and reintegrating violent extremist offenders; equipping our law enforcement, security intelligence and other operational agencies with the resources and powers to tackle terrorist threats; and ensuring that our counterterrorism arrangements are resilient, collaborative, consistent and proportionate both nationally and internationally. These pillars have guided our response over the past 20 years and will continue to do so over the next 20.
We know that we cannot and must not be complacent. The national terrorism threat level remains at 'probable', where it has been since 2014. The probable level indicates that we have credible intelligence and that there are people with the intent and the capability to do us harm. Individuals, groups and ideologies, both old and new, continue to plot and fantasise about doing us harm. Encrypted communications and global digital networks give these people a secure voice to a worldwide audience. Disruption associated with the pandemic has seen many stay home alone with little to do but search the internet for simple answers to complex global questions. The Australian government needs to protect our community from terrorism and provide our law enforcement and intelligence agencies with the tools and resources they need to protect our community. This bill is one of those very tools.
I note that last year the parliament worked to pass the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Sunsetting Review and Other Measures) Bill 2021, in which the sunset provisions were extended until 7 December 2022. That act also dealt with sunsetting provisions for declared areas relating to foreign fighters under the Criminal Code, amongst other matters which are not under consideration in this bill.
The relevant provisions of the Crimes Act 1914 give police the powers required to respond to a terrorist incident or threat swiftly and efficiently. The powers allow police to stop, question and search persons and seize items in a Commonwealth place if they suspect on reasonable grounds that the person may have just committed, might be committing or might be about to commit a terrorist act or effect the same powers, in the same circumstances, but in a prescribed security zone and without reasonable grounds.
The powers allow police to enter premises if they suspect on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to search the premises for a thing and to seize it, to prevent it from being used in connection with a terrorism offence, and that it is necessary to do so without a search warrant because there is a serious and imminent threat to a person's life, health or safety.
Control orders can be imposed by the courts for the purpose of protecting the public from a terrorist act as well as preventing the provision of support for or facilitation of a terrorist act or the engagement in a hostile activity in a foreign country. Control orders can impose a combination of different obligations, prohibitions and restrictions, including but not limited to prohibiting the person being in a specified area or from leaving Australia, requiring they wear a tracking device, requiring them to report to specified places at certain times or even requiring they participate in specified counselling or education.
The use of control orders has served our community immensely. I can cite multiple examples of the Australian Federal Police diligently protecting Australians through their use. In one such example, in 22 April, so just earlier this year, a convicted terrorist offender was sentenced in New South Wales for breaching a Federal Court control order. A year earlier, the man pleaded guilty to the offence after contravening conditions of the control order two weeks—two weeks—after his release from prison by accessing religious extremist material. The AFP has said:
Control Orders are among the legislative measures used by authorities to protect the community from terrorism, by restricting certain actions and imposing other obligations on those subject to the orders.
The AFP's High Risk Terrorism Offenders teams around Australia work tirelessly with our partner agencies to ensure community safety and we take seriously any breach of a Control Order … This sentencing shows any violation of these orders can attract a jail term.
Importantly, the need for these powers comes from the AFP's own statistics, showing 70 per cent of convicted terrorist offenders released on control orders since 2019 have been prosecuted for contravening their orders.
Preventative detention orders allow a person to be detained for a maximum of 48 hours where police reasonably suspect an attack capable of being carried out could occur within the next 14 days or to preserve evidence in relation to a terrorist act. As these powers have not been used to date, this demonstrates that the Australian Federal Police have been appropriately judicious in exercising them.
In my time as home affairs minister, the coalition government ensured that our actions provided Australia's law enforcement and intelligence agencies with more tools to protect Australians from the threat posed by convicted terrorists who cannot be brought back from the brink.
With attacks in recent years in New Zealand and the United Kingdom, we were, and in opposition we remain, committed to doing everything in our power to prevent such a tragedy from occurring here. We know that terrorists seek to create fear and division in our communities. Their ultimate aim is to destroy the ties that bind us together as a nation. That's why there is no greater refutation of their ideology nor proof of their impotence than the free, open and transparent debate that empowers our liberal, democratic norms. The act of passing legislation through a parliament elected by the Australian people and reflective of their diversity is a direct challenge to terrorist ideology. It's also emblematic of our adherence to the rule of law—a concept alien to terrorists, who kill indiscriminately.
Taking decisive action to prevent, detect and deter terror attacks should be the priority of any government, as it was under the former government. The coalition government delivered record funding in the fight on terror, including an extra $1.3 billion for the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, ASIO, and boosted the Australian Federal Police's annual budget to more than $1.7 billion. We strengthened laws to ensure that our highest-risk terrorists remain behind bars and that terrorists serve their full sentences even when weak state laws provide discounts, and we strengthened laws enabling us to cancel the citizenship of dual-national terrorists. We listed terrorist organisations under our Criminal Code, including Hezbollah and Hamas in their entirety and other extremist groups such as the Base and the Sonnenkrieg Division, making it illegal to be a member or supporter.
With an emphasis on fighting international terrorism offshore before it reaches Australian homes, the coalition's counterterrorism approach included active participation in countering online radicalisation and recruitment, terrorist financing, disrupting terrorist activity before it occurs and finding terrorists after they strike. The former government proudly co-chaired with Indonesia the Global Counterterrorism Forum's Countering Violent Extremism Working Group as a direct protective measure.
On the matter of countering violent extremism, the coalition invested an additional $61.7 million in Australia's countering violent extremism programs, keeping Australians safe from the full range of violent extremist ideologies and nearly doubling the total investment in CVE, countering violent extremism, since such initiatives began in 2013. This funding included five key measures: investing $24.5 million to expand intervention programs in rural and regional areas; establishing a $13.8 million national program to rehabilitate and reintegrate violent extremists in custody; providing $8 million to found an international centre of excellence for CVE research, risk assessment and training; establishing a new $10.7 million CVE community grants program; and providing a $4.7 million dollar boost to strategic communication programs that rebut extremist narratives and provide positive alternative stories about life in Australia.
Ensuring Australia remains a peaceful, tolerant and harmonious country needs to continue to be a government priority, but we cannot be blind to the fact there are those among us who seek to sow hate, fear and discord. Violent extremists may have a range of ideologies and motivations, but none of them are welcome in this country. And the former government's CVE programs delivered strong results, but these programs had to keep up with changing extremist ideologies, methodologies and narratives. We all know that terrorists can benefit directly from organised crime, particularly by being funded by proceeds of crime. The threat of transnational, serious and organised crime, including gangs, is real. It's estimated that serious and organised crime costs hardworking taxpayers up to $60 billion a year.
The coalition government also introduced world-first powers to put high-risk mafia, triad and other gang leaders behind bars. We invested in the Australian Federal Police to boost their capabilities to keep communities safe from criminals and the threat of drugs and violence, including through the use of organised crime strike teams and the Criminal Assets Confiscation Taskforce. The coalition's tough stance on crime meant more detections and seizures, taking drugs, guns and other weapons off our streets. We cracked down on firearms trafficking with new laws, increased penalties and mandatory minimum sentences. We also boosted the resources of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, the Australian Border Force and AUSTRAC as part of our plan to combat transnational, serious and organised crime.
Aside from the introduction of continuing detention orders and control orders to keep our highest-risk terrorist offenders behind bars, and to restrict the movement of offenders when released, some of the specific counter-terrorism achievements under the coalition included: 150 people charged as a result of 77 counterterrorism related operations since September 2014, when the national terrorism threat level was raised to probable; laws to ensure terrorists serve their full sentence, even if weak state laws provide a discount; the revocation of the Australian citizenship of 22 former dual nationals under the terrorism-related provisions of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007; $86.7 million to protect the community from the threat of high-risk terrorists, including $19.8 for a national terrorist register; $61.7 million to prevent radicalisation through programs to counter all forms of violent extremism and to promote social cohesion; the listing of 29 groups as proscribed terrorist organisations under the Criminal Code, including the Base and the entirety of Hezbollah and Hamas; and criminalising the hosting and streaming of abhorrent violent material online, such as acts of terrorism.
The three pillars Australia built its counter-terrorism response on for the past 20 years have served us well, and will continue to do so going forward. The government will need to continue to secure Australia and the freedoms that security affords us by collaborating with others, sharing experiences and working together. We need to continue to counter violent extremism in all its forms before an attack takes place, maintaining our social cohesion and celebrating diversity and inclusion where terrorists try to divide and to sow fear. And we need to continue to give our law enforcement and security agencies the powers and authorities they need to respond to the terrorists and violent extremists who would do us harm. The threat of terrorism and violent extremism has not diminished, but neither has the willingness of those on this side of the House to combat them and to keep Australians safe and secure.
Debate adjourned.
Leave granted for second reading debate to resume at a later hour this day.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Minister for the Arts and Leader of the House) (12:59): I declare that the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (AFP Powers and Other Matters) Bill 2022 is referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Mr BANDT (Melbourne—Leader of the Australian Greens) (12:59): I seek leave to move that so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would allow the Member for Melbourne to give notice for a Bill for an Act which would have the effect of repealing the stage three tax cuts.
Leave not granted.
Mr BAND T: I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would allow the Member for Melbourne to give notice for a Bill for an Act which would have the effect of repealing the stage three tax cuts.
This is urgent. This is the last sitting week before the budget. If we don't repeal the stage 3 tax cuts now, then the budget that will happen in just a couple of sitting days will lock in inequality in this country, destroy this country's progressive tax system and bake in $244 billion of handouts to billionaires and politicians and the wealthy at a time when this country is living through a cost-of-living crisis. This is our chance to ensure that social democracy doesn't head to the chopping block. Instead, this is our chance to ensure that $244 billion in the budget isn't funnelled off to billionaires and isn't given to politicians as a $9,000 a year tax handout that no-one deserves or needs. Instead it should be used to do things that will relieve the pressures that everyday people are facing.
If the budget bakes it in, this money will be a huge, huge impost. It will be ridiculously expensive. It will be one of the biggest expenditures this country will have ever committed to: $244 billion which the government wants to lock in, in this upcoming budget next sitting week. That $244 billion could get dental into Medicare for everyday Australians, it could make child care free and it could build affordable housing. Those are the things that people need right now to deal with wages going backwards, incomes going backwards, and the cost of everything else rising. Government can make a real difference to people's lives, but only if government has the courage to stand up to big corporations and to vested interests like billionaires and politicians, and instead use public money for the public good.
These stage 3 tax cuts will lock in inequality. We know the top one per cent of income earners will get the same out of these tax cuts as the bottom 65 per cent put together. We know that men will get twice as much as women. At a time when the parliament should be doing everything it can to close the gender pay gap, Labor's stage 3 tax cuts will increase the gender pay gap.
We know that the money that will be ripped out of the budget is going to rise and rise and rise. We're dealing with a massive expenditure that Labor wants to book and lock in, in this budget—$244 billion over the next decade. I want people to just think: when Labor say there's no money for free child care or to get dental into Medicare or to do all of the things that would make a difference to people's lives, that's because they will be spending $244 billion on giving tax cuts to politicians and billionaires and people who, frankly, don't need it.
This is why it is urgent that we resolve this today, before the budget sitting: this will be the first time that I can remember in this parliament, but potentially in any parliament since federation, that the government will be locking in $244 billion on a program they can't and won't justify. Not that long ago my colleague the member for Brisbane asked the Treasurer what the economic justifications are for the stage 3 tax cuts. The Treasurer could not even offer one justification for the stage 3 tax cuts. So you have a Treasurer and a government preparing a budget where perhaps the single biggest item of new expenditure—$244 billion on tax cuts—is one that they can't even justify. That's why we need to have a debate today on the Greens bill to repeal the tax cuts for politicians and billionaires and to instead spend that money on making everyday people's lives better.
We've got to do this today before this expenditure gets locked in. It is extraordinary that a government is about to bring a budget to this place and ask for it to be passed very swiftly without offering a justification for the $244 billion that is locked in for the wealthiest people in this country. I have not seen this in my time in this place—they are asking $244 billion to be approved on a program the government cannot even justify. Why is the public being asked to spend $244 billion on Labor's stage 3 tax cuts when Labor itself cannot even justify them? This will widen inequality and this will increase the cost-of-living pressure on everyday people, because there will be less money available in the budget to spend on things that will make people's lives better.
I know the government say that they're concerned about deficits. The government come in and say, 'We can't do the things that we want to do in the budget, because there are now additional pressures on the budget, including deficits.' We've got a different view to the government about the approach that should be taken with regard to deficits, and we don't support an austerity approach that says you hurt everyday people to deal with the deficit. But it's the government who is coming here and saying the deficits are the issue. Why, then, is the government spending $244 billion on giving tax cuts to the richest people in Australia and going further into deficit to give Clive Palmer $9,000 a year? Don't come into this place and ask us to support cuts to services or to ask people to do it tougher in a cost-of-living crisis, when you are prepared to borrow more to give Clive Palmer a tax cut. That is priorities the wrong way around.
The Greens don't want Clive Palmer to get a $9,000-a-year tax cut. We'd rather that money go to putting dental into Medicare so people can afford to fix their teeth. Labor wants Clive Palmer to pay less tax; the Greens want Clive Palmer to pay more tax so that you can get your teeth fixed. That's what this is about. It is urgent that we debate this bill today because, once the government comes back here and locks in this spending in the budget, every other decision in the budget will hang off it. There will be less room in the budget for spending on getting dental into Medicare, making child care free, wiping student debt or building affordable housing—all of those things that we know would make a difference to people's lives—because the government, as its centrepiece, is locking in $244 billion of tax cuts to billionaires, politicians and the wealthiest people in this country.
By supporting this motion and allowing this bill to come up for debate, everyone in this parliament will have a chance to show where they stand. It is one thing to go back to the electorate and say, 'Oh, actually, I don't support this,' or to give drops out to the media and say, 'We're thinking about doing something different,' but what matters is the vote. What matters is how you vote in this place, because this is the place that makes laws, this is the place that can change laws and this is the place that can set the parameters about what is in the budget.
This is the opportunity right here, right now to say, 'Let's debate.' Let's have a debate about a bill that we've got drafted that will repeal the stage 3 tax cuts. The thing to remember is that this isn't asking everyday people to pay more tax than they're paying at the moment. These tax cuts haven't come into effect yet. This budget will be the first moment that Labor will start to lock them in. We are talking about stopping tax cuts to the wealthiest people in this country before they even get them. So not only will this not impact on everyday people—they're not going to be asked to pay more—but also there's going to be more money in the budget from the accounting period starting now and that will mean the government can do more to make people's lives better. So it's a very simple choice for people when it comes to this vote: do you want Clive Palmer to get a $9,000 a year tax cut, or do you want to get dental into Medicare instead? The Greens know where we stand. Supporting this motion will make a big difference to the cost-of-living pressures people are under.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr CHA NDLER-MATHER (Griffith) (13:09): I second the motion to suspend sessional and standing orders. One of the things I heard a lot when I was door-knocking during the federal election campaign—and probably the most common thing—was that people are completely fed up with politics. Often, they hate it. And one of the primary reasons is that they feel it is completely disconnected from their everyday lives. The question of urgency today I think sums up a lot of the reasons that people hate politics right now. For those pensioners right now having to choose between paying the rent or feeding themselves that night; for those people who have been evicted from their homes into their cars—families, single parents—because there isn't enough public housing to go around; for those people skipping seeing the dentist; for those people having to take time out from their jobs because they can't afford childcare—too often, time and again, this place makes choices about spending priorities that either destroy those people's lives or make their lives tougher, while at the same time doing frankly grotesque things like giving $9,000 a year extra to literally every person in this place!
I cannot see a more urgent question to discuss right now than repealing the stage 3 tax cuts, freeing up $244 billion and using that money—right now—to plan for those people's futures. How often do we go to an election campaign and hear people in this place saying, 'We really care about the cost-of-living crisis.' But, when it comes to the crunch, when it comes to getting to make a decision about repealing the stage 3 cuts, they're not admitting that it's urgent right now that we contemplate how to spend $244 billion, and that maybe it's time to start spending that on getting dental into Medicare, or universal free child care, or scrapping student debt, or building enough public housing to solve the housing crisis. Right now, the majority of this place thinks that we're better off spending that $244 billion on dishing out $9,000 a year in tax cuts to anyone earning over $200,000 a year, including Clive Palmer, Gina Rinehart and every federal politician in this place. I do not know how you can look anyone in the eye and say you care about the cost-of-living crisis and know that your policy position right now is to give yourself an extra $9,000 a year. That is so absurd.
I think it's remarkable that an entire cottage industry has developed around trying to study the reasons why people don't like politics: 'there's a loss of trust', or, 'people just aren't paying enough attention to the good work that we're doing in this place'. We always miss the forest for the trees, right? It couldn't possibly be that people know a lot about their own lives, and they're fully aware of what goes on in this place! And right now what is going on in this place is that we have both major parties deciding we're better off spending $244 billion over 10 years handing out $9,000 a year to anyone earning over $200,000 a year. It couldn't possibly be that that leads people to deciding that they don't really like politics that much—
Ms Wells interjecting—
Mr CHANDLER-MATHER: And I'll take that interjection: potentially, when you door-knock at those people's houses, you should lead with: 'Hello, my solution to the housing crisis is handing out $9,000 a year to Clive Palmer.' It is interesting to me, by the way, how tetchy Labor get when we talk about the stage 3 tax cuts—because down in their hearts they know that the decision they're making is fewer public homes, more people paying for the dentist, and more people having to choose between paying the rent and feeding their families that night. Time and again, we hear Labor getting upset about the fact that they're being called out for a terrible policy position rather than contemplating the human impact that their policy position has on people's lives. If you walk through this chamber, Deputy Speaker, every person you walk past is going to get $9,000. Labor can think more about that, and about their policy decisions right now and the choices they're making in this place. They're saying that it is not urgent to think about how we free up the cash to make sure that we build enough public housing or to make sure that anyone can see the dentist if they need to. Labor can think about those teachers and nurses who are right now making up for the chronic underfunding of our public health and education: maybe they shouldn't have to make that sacrifice. Maybe we should make that sacrifice here and not pocket that extra $9,000 a year that the stage 3 tax cuts are going to give every federal politician.
I think the message to both major parties is to get less angry about the things we're saying here and more angry about the fact that people in your electorate are suffering—and the fact that your parties' position right now is handing out $244 billion to people like Clive Palmer, rather than contemplating how we get that money and put it towards actually improving the lives of the vast majority of people in Australia. That is why people are fed up with politics. That is why repealing the stage 3 tax cuts is so critically urgent. At the very least, we should be suspending standing orders so that everyone in this place can get up and justify why they think they need an extra $9,000 but we don't need dental in Medicare. It is a sick joke. (Time expired)
The DEPU TY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): The question is that the motion be disagreed to. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133, the division is deferred until after the discussion of the matter of public importance.
Debate adjourned.
BILLS
Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Incentivising Pensioners to Downsize) Bill 2022
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin) (13:16): This is a good opportunity for me to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Incentivising Pensioners to Downsize) Bill 2022. The good news for those who will benefit from this bill is that, to the government's credit, they've adopted a policy announced by the former coalition government, a policy built on a succession of work which I'll go into in some detail. That work sought to do a couple of things. Firstly, of course, it sought to support pensioners in the broadest possible way with respect to, in most cases, their single biggest asset—their home. One foundational feature of our tax system and our social services system has been the way in which we treat the principal place of residence. The way in which it is treated, in a preferential tax sense, certainly gives rise to the view on this side of the chamber that your principal place of residence, your home, which is in most cases your single biggest asset, is one of the foundational parts of your economic wellbeing.
This was an announcement from the former coalition government that built on a succession of work that we had done to support that cohort of individuals, not just to support their economic wellbeing, as I said, but also to meet another policy objective. That other policy objective was trying to free up as much housing stock as possible. We know that the Australian housing market has had a renaissance. It certainly did in the later stages of the coalition government, when we saw residential construction booming and numbers of first home buyers hitting record levels. Nonetheless, our view has always been that where you can free up more stock—in addition to increasing your housing stock by building—there's a benefit to broader community.
This announcement from the coalition, which has been adopted by the government, as I said, built on work that we did to encourage people, particularly older Australians, to downsize by removing some of the inherent and structural disincentives to doing that that sat within the system. One of the very successful measures that we put in place to encourage that freeing up of stock was the downsizer superannuation contribution measure that we introduced when I was Assistant Treasurer. That solved one key problem for senior Australians seeking to downsize their property: what could you do with the proceeds of that downsizing when it was trapped outside of super and you couldn't get it back into super without breaching annual contribution caps?
The way we did that through the downsizing measure was by introducing a rule that, if you had a principal place of residence that you had owned for at least 10 years, met some other conditions and had proceeds from that downsize, you could contribute up to $300,000 into your superannuation account, thereby removing the concessional contribution caps. That amounted to $600,000 for couples. I'm very pleased that that measure has at latest count seen $8.9 billion—nearly $9 billion—flow into superannuation. People no longer have that disincentive of proceeds sitting outside the tax-preferred environment of superannuation and are entitled to put up to $600,000 of those proceeds, into their superannuation, therefore supporting their retirement income.
We made further changes after it was quite evident that the downsizer measure which we put in place was very successful. We reduced the age at which people could take advantage of that from 65 to 60 and then, in the most recent budget before the election, we reduced it even further, to 55. There was a huge body of work to support senior Australians and the way in which their principal place of residence interacted with the tax and social services system. It is really important work for so many individuals, and this is proven by the fact that nearly $9 billion has already flowed into superannuation. It's clear that Australians are voting with their feet in taking advantage of that.
The benefit was, yes, supporting their retirement income and their economic future but also achieving another policy objective: freeing up more housing stock. You can't generalise too much, but, typically, there is downsizing from that large family home into something somewhat smaller once people get to a certain stage of their life, thereby freeing up those larger, typically family homes for that next generation of families coming through, so removing that incentive was a very important precursor to the bill in front of us today.
As I said, I am very pleased that the government has adopted coalition policy. Credit where it's due: they obviously recognise good policy as announced by the former government, and therefore I'm very pleased to be speaking on it now. This bill amends the Social Security Act and, of course, the Veterans' Entitlements Act to support pensioners even further along with some other eligible income support recipients when they sell and ultimately purchase a new home. This bill achieves that objective by doing two things. I will go into a bit more detail on each of them, but, broadly speaking, firstly, these two things extend the existing assets test exemption for the principal home sale proceeds, which a person or a couple intends to use to purchase a new principal home, from the existing period of 12 months to 24 months, doubling the period in which an eligible person is able to have those sale proceeds of their principal place of residence exempt for assets test purposes. We think that's a very sensible amendment, which is why we announced it, obviously. It is to give people that extra time that they need without feeling rushed and hurried into making that further purchase of their new home. Secondly, this bill proposes to apply only the lower below threshold deeming rate to the proceeds of that asset sale, which is the exempt principal home sale proceeds, when calculating deemed income.
In essence, whilst the existing law enables that 12-month period to use the proceeds of that sale to purchase a new home without effectively being punished for those additional assets that were previously tax exempt as your principal home but are now liquid—more often than not, sitting in a bank account waiting to be spent on the new home—not only is that exempt for a longer period of time, but that corpus of money that is sitting there as the proceeds of the sale will now only have the lower deeming rate applied to it as an imputed rate of return.
At present—and it will continue—that imputed rate of return on that income impacts pensioners and their pension entitlement. Reducing that deeming rate from at present about 2¼ per cent, which is the upper threshold, to 2.5 per cent is a very encouraging change because it will mean that there's a lower imputed income on those sale proceeds. Let's be frank: for most people downsizing from one home to another, those funds will be sitting in a bank account, probably in an environment that's not earning them a great deal of return, because they're looking to deploy those funds into a new home. So we think that lower deeming threshold is a really important measure.
For the purposes of this bill and for the purposes of the way in which the rules have operated, your principal home is defined by the home you live in—and there are tests around that—and the first two hectares of land that it's on. The home must be on a single title. Currently, an income support recipient's principal home is exempt from the social security assets test. Again, an important foundational feature of our tax in the social services system is the concept that your principal home is treated that way. As I said, the extension that is allowed for this bill, from 12 to 24 months, is important. It is worth noting that under the existing law there is, and has been for a long time, scope available to increase that period from 12 to 24 months on a case-by-case basis only in extenuating circumstances. This hard wires into the law a standing ability to have those proceeds exempt for 24 months as opposed to 12, not relying on the extenuating criteria that are currently there. Those applying on a case-by-case basis, in most cases, people have to maintain that 12-month rule when looking to deploy that funding.
As I said, the home sale proceeds at the moment are subject to deeming provisions—that imputed rate of return that I spoke about. Under the current deeming arrangements, the lower deeming rate of 0.25 is applied to the value of financial assets up to a deeming threshold of $56,400 for singles and $93,600 for couples. The upper deeming rate, presently at 2.25 per cent, applies to the value of financial assets above those thresholds. In making this announcement prior to the election, we wanted to give seniors selling their current property greater confidence to do so. To support people in making that decision to downsize, the best way to do it was to remove the disincentives that existed in the system at that time. The way the proceeds of that sale were dealt with was a challenge for those people. But we also think it is important for people to have the certainty that they'll have as long as they need—reasonably—to find that new property. We think 24 months is an appropriate measure, particularly given the environment—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. You will be granted leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Hinkler Electorate: Port of Bundaberg Conveyer Project
Mr PITT (Hinkler) (13:30): It took 1,209 days for the Queensland state Labor government to finally sign a tender for the Port of Bundaberg conveyer project—that is 1,209 days for a project that was fully funded by the Commonwealth. It's a project that will drive jobs and our local economy. And what do we see? We see, firstly, opposition; secondly, delays; and, thirdly, the member for Bundaberg, the state Labor member, showing up for the sod-turning, turning the sod and claiming the project! It's quite incredible. Imagine that, Madam Deputy Speaker. It's a miracle. There has been an absolute change of heart by state Labor in my local area. They have fought this project, yet they turned the sod on 15 July. Unfortunately, I have to inform the people of my electorate that no work has yet started. So we've waited 1,209 days for a project that then cost an additional $7.7 million because of those delays and increases in construction costs, and what have we seen? We've seen a stunt by state Labor, claiming a project which they were opposed to, didn't want and then delayed. And we still haven't seen the work start. We need this project to get going. It is linking infrastructure to the Bundaberg port. It will mean there'll be more jobs and more activities. There'll be more projects down there. There'll be more companies employing more people from our local region. Yet all we see is inactivity, stunts, and state Labor claiming projects which they've had absolutely nothing to do with. It is disgraceful. The Queensland state Labor government needs to get on with it and get on with it now.
Macarthur Electorate: Infrastructure
Dr FREELANDER (Macarthur) (13:31): Macarthur is now the biggest electorate in the country by population and is increasing by hundreds every day. Last week I attended Campbelltown Performing Arts High School for their annual performance. The performance was fantastic, but the school looks the same as it did when I first went there for a case conference in 1984. We have roads like Appin Road that are in the same condition as they were 50 years ago. The lack of infrastructure spending by state and federal Liberal governments has led to really bad deterioration in our infrastructure and a deteriorating quality of life for many of our residents. Increases in population have not had consequential increases in infrastructure spending. The lack of spending on Appin Road and high schools, the lack of a rail link to Western Sydney Airport, the lack of investment in our health infrastructure, and the lack of investment in our new suburbs, as our farms become suburbs, have all led to a deterioration in the quality of life of Macarthur residents. It is urgent that we spend money on infrastructure. The Liberal Morrison government and the state Perrottet government did nothing to provide infrastructure for our rapidly increasing population. Our quality of life is deteriorating thanks to the lack of infrastructure spending by Liberal governments at state and federal levels. It is a disgrace. Those opposite should be ashamed of themselves. I urge our Labor government to get on with spending, which they will do, on infrastructure in Macarthur.
Western Australia: Housing
Ms PRICE (Durack—Opposition Whip) (13:33): Since the pandemic began, the housing crisis in WA's north is the worst seen in the region's history, leaving pretty ordinary houses in Karratha with a median rental price of $700 a week. In South Hedland, there's been a growth of 73 per cent in the weekly median rent, from $375 to $650. The housing crisis in regional Western Australia is crippling our towns and forcing out our essential workers, our nurses, our childcare workers and, in some cases, our teachers. WA's housing minister, John Carey, has claimed that those calling for an audit of the number and condition of vacant state houses are 'out of touch'. Out of touch? Minister, it is you who is out of touch. The state government is out of touch for not realising that this is urgent, and we require urgent action. There are currently close to 2,000 state government houses sitting empty and in need of repairs. Meanwhile, the number of people on the waiting list for social housing in Western Australia is close to 19,000. Minister Carey has boasted that the state government has $12.8 million allocated to repair state houses. Well, that is good news—get on and spend it. The state Labor government needs to get its head out of the sand, get out of west Perth, and start taking seriously the housing needs of regional and remote Western Australia.
Robertson Electorate: Care4Coast
Dr REID (Robertson) (13:34): Recently I was able to lend a hand to support the hardworking people who are Care4Coast. The evening was held at William Street Mall in Gosford and was one of many such events that are held to help those who are doing it tough. Care4Coast is a not-for-profit organisation that supports community members by providing weekly hot meals, food hampers, toiletries, snack packs, clothing, haircuts, pet food and service referrals. The evening was successful because of the association with excellent, energetic volunteers Orange Sky Laundry and Dr Khalil from Smiles on the Coast.
Care4Coast was established by Carly Pal, a local woman with a big heart. Ms Pal saw the need to support community members who are doing it tough and often sleeping rough. The core objective of this wonderful initiative is to enrich and support individuals and families experiencing hardship and challenges. This is achieved by mobilising the power of volunteers and the generosity of the local community. Care4Coast do an amazing job of making those who are less fortunate feel like they've been seen. The organisation connects with those who often feel invisible, and it is a wonderful thing when all people in society are cared for.
I would like to acknowledge the tireless efforts of Ms Pal and thank her and the many volunteers who work hard at making this local initiative a success story. I'm proud to be associated with this service, and I know the Central Coast community are proud of the work that they do.
International Relations: Azerbaijan and Armenia
Ms TINK (North Sydney) (13:36): I rise today on behalf of the people of North Sydney to call on our Australian government to make a clear statement and condemn the recent attacks by Azerbaijan on Armenian territory. In the past two weeks, this current conflict has seen: more than 200 Armenian military personnel and four civilians killed; thousands of children taken out of school for fear of shelling of their educational facilities; 192 homes damaged; and over 7,500 people displaced.
Disturbingly, while the ceasefire on the ground appears to be holding, the Azerbaijani forces are now controlling an area which is 7.5 kilometres within Armenia's sovereign borders. At eight kilometres wide, it's almost 1½ times larger than my own federal electorate. Ultimately, the situation remains tense as evidence of human rights violations begin to emerge.
As tensions between Russia and Ukraine escalated, we as a nation did not hesitate to condemn the Putin regime's actions, as we should have. We have come to provide both financial and material resources to Ukraine. Yet, in the case of the invasion of Armenia, we remain silent. With the second-largest Armenian Australian community living within the borders of my electorate, it is difficult for me to account for what appears to be a clear inconsistency on our government's part. In this context, I urge the government to emphasise Australia's commitment to democracy and condemn the Azerbaijan attack on Armenia. To do anything less would be to fail to play our role as a good global citizen.
First Nations Recognition
Ms MASCARENHAS (Swan) (13:37): There is a conversation being led in my community by Whadjuk Ballardong Noongar elder Emeritus Professor Simon Forrest on the importance of a constitutionally enshrined First Nations voice to parliament. Simon is a community leader, a friend and my neighbour. Simon wanted to meet with me, and I was secretly hoping that we could work together on the Uluru Statement from the Heart. I learned of Simon's commitment to the statement and was astounded to learn that he has been working tirelessly to raise awareness on it in our community. Between the election of the Albanese Labor government and now, I was astounded to learn that Simon has spoken to more than 25,000 people about constitutional recognition.
To take from the beautiful campaign video on the Uluru statement released yesterday, this is about having a conversation as a nation, walking side by side, to change this country for the better. But, as noted by Simon: 'The decision to change our Constitution is ultimately up to you, the non-Aboriginal population of Australia, to give us a voice.' This will be an important journey, and we have the opportunity to change lives for the better and be on the right side of history. This is an important step for Australia to become a more mature country, and I can't wait to see this happen.
Anzac Day Schools' Awards
Rosebery District High School
Mr PEARCE (Braddon) (13:39): Today I'm proud to report that the Rosebery District High School has received national recognition as part of the Anzac Day Schools' Awards for 2022. This year we celebrate 75 years of Australia's involvement in international peacekeeping operations, and this year the judges were looking for schools to produce creative projects honouring our Australian peacekeepers.
Rosebery District High School was the national winner of the remote schools category. Now, this school's entry was created by the boys from years 7 to 10 as part of their boys' wellbeing week activities. They worked with the Study Hub West Coast Manager, Nicky Bolt, to research peacekeepers, veterans, in Tasmania.
That's when the boys were introduced to Clive Starkey, a local peacekeeper from Zeehan on the remote West Coast of Tasmania. Clive had served in the Australian Army's 17 Construction Squadron and was deployed to Namibia as part of the United Nations Transition Assistance Group.
It was a great privilege to be in Rosebery with the students, the teachers and Nicky and Clive for the official announcement to celebrate this outstanding achievement. In presenting those kids their award, I couldn't help but notice the incredibly positive rapport that Clive and those boys shared, and no doubt that rapport is what contributed to the award-winning outcome.
Congratulations to all those involved. And thank you to our nation's peacekeepers.
Royal Commission Into Defence And Veteran Suicide
Ms MILLER-FROST (Boothby) (13:41): Yesterday, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs tabled the government's response to the Interim report of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. Australia has lost more serving and former serving personnel to suicide over the last 20 years than it has in active service in the same period. In the minister's words, the Interim report makes clear that, while there have been improvements in Defence and Veterans' Affairs processes, with a greater recognition of the importance of mental health, as well as physical health, some systems and approaches across Defence and DVA are not sufficient.
I have met with a number of veterans and RSLs across Boothby, and time and time again I have heard stories of veterans who'd submitted claims a year or a year and a half earlier and had heard nothing. They'd often suffered for years before finally deciding to put in a claim, and to then have to wait so long for a response was distressing and disrespectful of their service.
I am pleased that this government has started to fix what is a truly broken veteran support system. By removing the DVA staffing level cap and recruiting 500 additional staff, claims will be processed faster.
I'd like to thank the veterans and current serving personnel in Boothby and assure them: this government will be there for them.
Brisbane Olympic Games
Mr CHANDLER-MATHER (Griffith) (13:42): We hear a lot of talk about the need for the Brisbane 2032 Olympics to leave a positive legacy. Well, if the federal government progresses with helping to fund 50 per cent of the Queensland government's now potentially $2½ billion plan to demolish and rebuild the Gabba stadium as the main athletics track for the 2032 Olympics, then the biggest legacy could be the loss of the much-loved East Brisbane State School, which sits next to the stadium, and Raymond Park, which has been touted as the warm-up track. With chronically underfunded schools and hospitals across the country, the idea that the government would spend $2½ billion on a stadium for a two-week sporting event, while destroying a school and a park in the process, is disgraceful.
East Brisbane State School now has over 311 students, having grown by more than 38 per cent in the last few years. The school is incredibly diverse, with students from 39 different language groups and a specialised English program for refugee children.
Meanwhile, Raymond Park is home to a wonderful community garden, a local footy club, a playground, basketball courts and old, established fig trees. I'm calling on the federal government to make it a condition of any federal funding that the Queensland government drop the Gabba stadium project and help save our school and park.
The member for South Brisbane, Amy MacMahon, and I are supporting the school P&C to hold a rally outside the school at 8.20 am on 20 October. I also hope the ministers for education, infrastructure and sport will accept my invitation to visit the school and hear from parents, residents and students before they make a decision that could affect this community forever.
Jape, Mr Kong Su, AM
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (13:43): I am deeply saddened by the passing of an elder in our community, Mr Jape Kong Su, AM. He passed away last night at 97 years of age and is survived by his wife Lai Min Ha. My condolences to her and their many friends and family, including their children Julia, Ian, Kenny, Alan, Wendy, Tony, Connie, Danny and Pamela, their 29 grandchildren and their 35 great-grandchildren. Kong Su will now be reunited with his daughter Vicki.
Kong Su founded the Jape Group of companies in the Northern Territory in 1976. It remains family owned. From successful property projects in the Darwin city centre in the 1980s, the Jape Group has continued to prosper. Kong Su’s vision, dedication and hard work have been recognised by the award of a Member of the Order of Australia, for contributing to both Australian and Timor-Leste businesses; Timor-Leste's Order of Merit; and the Order of Malta's Cross of Grand Officer Pro Merito Melitensi, for donating to a free medical clinic in Timor-Leste. A memorial service will be held at the Darwin Convention Centre on 2 October, before his final journey home to Timor-Leste. Vale, Jape Kong Su.
Building Better Regions Fund
Mr TAYLOR (Hume) (13:45): I rise today to highlight a significant program funded under the coalition government, which has provided major infrastructure improvements in my electorate of Hume: the Building Better Regions Fund. Mayors, councillors and community members are deeply concerned about the future of this program.
The Goulburn Mulwaree Council used BBRF funding to build an irrigation scheme using treated effluent to green our local playing fields, parks and gardens, in turn saving water and protecting these green spaces during droughts. BBRF delivered the upgrade of a new museum and car park at Rocky Hill and a new sporting pavilion at Seiffert Oval. It contributed to phase 2 of the Wollondilly River Walkway, and it has funded the build of a new accommodation facility to meet the needs of people with disabilities in the local community. Through BBRF the historic Picton post office got a new lease of life, revamped into a smart work hub. BBRF provided much needed additional investment in our rural road network, including down to the Wombeyan Caves, that beautiful part of Australia.
These projects have helped our community grow and thrive. All regional MPs on this side of this place want to continue to see this kind of investment in our regions, this focus on the crucial part of Australia in our regions. This fund is helping to build the kinds of regional communities we're proud of and we know our kids and grandkids will want to come back to. It's supporting new jobs, additional jobs, in regional Australia.
Canberra Deep Space Communication Complex
Mr DAVID SMITH (Bean—Government Whip) (13:47): For a decade I had the privilege of representing staff at the Canberra Deep Space Communication Complex down at Tidbinbilla, one of three stations that make up NASA's deep space network. It has been responsible for supporting critical missions for decades. This morning, with the Minister for Industry and Science, Ed Husic, I had the privilege of witnessing the great work of the CDSCC staff supporting the world's first full-scale planetary defence test. We witnessed NASA's Double Asteroid Redirection Test, the first deliberate action in human history to change the motion of a celestial body in the solar system. The goal was to see if a large asteroid colliding with earth could be diverted, with the CDSCC staff receiving data and footage as it followed the impact. The 570 kilogram spacecraft collided with the asteroid Dimorphos at speed of approximately 6.44 kilometres per second. The asteroid was 160 metres in diameter, roughly the size of the Great Pyramid of Giza, and it was a staggering 11 million kilometres away from Earth. This ensured the demonstration posed no risk to Earth.
This is an extraordinary technical feat by the teams around the world that designed and brought this project to this result. It is a great example of the capacity of CSIRO and the CDSCC’s team in supporting international space missions.
Cashless Debit Card
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin) (13:48): The Labor government's shameful decision to abolish the cashless debit card we know will lead to a tsunami of drugs and alcohol. Yesterday, finally, we saw the Labor government concede that the decision to abolish the cashless debit card will just see more alcohol and more drugs pour into vulnerable communities. We even saw from the Labor Party an attempt to try and repurpose $49 million committed by the former government as additional funding for drug and alcohol services. We know more drug and alcohol services will be required in these communities because Labor's shameful decision is going to unleash a torrent of violence in these communities. The people who will suffer most are the women and the children in these communities.
The leaders of these communities, including the Indigenous leaders, have been pleading with the Labor Party to walk away from this ill-conceived idea to abolish the cashless debit card, because they're the ones that will have to pick up the pieces of the mess that you will create for them. The Labor Party say they are opposed to income management, but, on the same day that they want to abolish the cashless debit card, they want to extend the inferior BasicsCard to even more people in the Northern Territory. So the Labor Party need to answer to the communities who have seen the benefits of the CDC and walk away from this shameful policy.
Spence Electorate: Trinity College
Mr BURNELL (Spence) (13:50): Today I rise to acknowledge some very important people from my electorate of Spence who just so happen to have been in this building yesterday and are here again today. In my seat of Spence we are lucky to have many good schools, many of which I have had the pleasure to visit during my short time as both the candidate and now the member for Spence. Today I acknowledge those students from Trinity College who made the trip from South Australia on the same flight as I did, on Sunday, to come and visit Parliament House.
Yesterday I was lucky enough to speak to students from the Blakeview campus and answer some of their thoughtful questions prior to giving them a wave from the chamber shortly thereafter. Later today, students from the Gawler-Evanston campus will be in the gallery. Unfortunately, I'm on duty and unable to meet with you today, but I'll be sure to give you a big wave. I can't wait to meet with you soon back in our electorate to speak about all things Canberra and Parliament House.
Civics education is a vitally important process to ensure the ongoing integrity of our democratic framework in this country. For that, I acknowledge the great work being undertaken by the Speaker of the House and the great team from the Parliamentary Education Office. I look forward to many more visits from students within my electorate of Spence to this place over the coming years.
Sturt Electorate: Di Montevergine Festa
Mr STEVENS (Sturt) (13:51): On Sunday just past it was my pleasure, as it always is, to attend the Madonna Di Montevergine Festa at the St Francis of Assisi church in Newton in my electorate. I thank, firstly, Father D'Souza for, as always, a very touching and solemn service in Italian language, and also congratulate Domenico Zollo, John DiFede and the other leaders in the Montevergine Festa Association. Unfortunately, I couldn't be there in the evening for the main formalities, because this sitting week was scheduled and I had to fly here to Canberra. But they did a fantastic job on the 67th anniversary of the feast, as they always do.
Regrettably, the last two years have been very difficult for these important community events and for worships such as the Montevergine Festa to go ahead. They've done a great job through difficult times, but this year they were back as strong as ever. I look forward to continuing to attend this very important event for my local Italian community and the Catholic community in my seat of Sturt well into the future. Once again, I congratulate everyone associated with a sensational event and I wish them all the best into the future.
Eastwood Chinese Senior Citizens Club: 30th Anniversary
Mr LAXALE (Bennelong) (13:53): I rise today to give a shout-out to the incredible Eastwood Chinese Senior Citizens Club in my electorate of Bennelong. Just last week, President Hugh Lee and members met to celebrate their continuing 30th anniversary celebrations under the arbour in the bustling Eastwood town centre, where Sandy and Vera and his team from Noble House treated us to a spectacular banquet.
Over 30 years ago, the Eastwood Chinese Senior Citizens Club was formed by a group of nine migrants from Hong Kong. One of the members, Mrs Kan, couldn't read, write or speak English when she moved to Eastwood. This encouraged the late Mr Yu to borrow a minibus from Ryde council and take the group on short excursions around Sydney once a week. This happened every Wednesday. After enjoying these weekly excursions, the founders decided to form the club, and they still meet regularly on Wednesdays, over 30 years later. Since then, the club has grown from nine members to now over 1,300 members.
The club has made a significant effort to make people feel at home and more supported and to ensure everyone feels connected to Australian society and lives a better life. They organise activities such as health talks, arts and crafts lessons, excursions, tai chi, birthday parties, English classes, poetry classes and computer classes. They're a fantastic community organisation in my electorate. Da chau hun baung: you are all amazing.
North Queensland: Insurance
Mr THOMPSON (Herbert) (13:54): One hundred and thirty days of inaction. One hundred and thirty days of blame. One hundred and thirty days of the people of Townsville still waiting for the Assistant Treasurer to explain what he's doing with the reinsurance pool. The last time the Assistant Treasurer came to Townsville, he stood there with the Labor mayor and said how bad everything was, the doom and gloom. He did not tell the truth to the people of Townsville. He did not tell the people of Townsville that they would be getting an average of 28 per cent savings on their home premiums. Insurance is the number one issue in the north, but we've seen inaction from this lazy Assistant Treasurer. Just 28 per cent savings on home premiums, and what does the Assistant Treasurer do? He calls a meeting, everyone from North Queensland shows up, and it gets shown that he hasn't been telling the truth. He came up to fear and smear.
This is a good policy that the now government—the Labor Party—voted with us on. But instead of the minister explaining this policy and what he's going to be doing, we've seen inaction—nothing to see here! Another lazy minister who for 130 days has been doing nothing. The people of Townsville deserve to have affordable insurance. The people of Townsville deserve a minister to stand up and support them.
Workplace Bullying, Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (13:56): The Australian music industry study released this month, Raising their voices, revealed high rates of sexual harassment, sexual harm and bullying, and called for an industry-wide approach to the respond to the findings. Musicians I know were not shocked or surprised, but feel the report validates their fears and experiences of some terrible workplaces and sexism. The data backs calls that brave people have made for change within the industry, and I thank all of those who have spoken out and shared some truly awful stories.
Everyone should have a safe workplace, whether it's an office or a music festival, no matter the time of day or night, no matter their gender, whether they're young or whether they're of diverse backgrounds. One of the biggest challenges in the report is that perpetrators are rarely held to account, and people fear speaking out because they're worried about their careers. Eighty-two per cent didn't report incidents of sexual harm or harassment, and only three per cent made a formal complaint. More than half of those who did were dissatisfied with the outcome.
The positive in the report is that there is a strong appetite for widespread and sustainable cultural change. Our Respect@Work legislation that was introduced today will help, and our national cultural policy may well play a significant role. I'll be supporting change in any way I can.
Child Care
Mr TUDGE (Aston) (13:57): The coalition has a proud record in relation to child care. We doubled spending on child care to over $10 billion per annum. We supported 280,000 more children in child care per annum than when we first came to office, and women's workforce participation reached record-high levels. Most importantly, we did so through targeted approaches which reduced inflationary pressures on child care. In fact, in the last financial year, childcare out-of-pocket costs came down by 4.6 per cent. This is in contrast to Labor's last time in office, when fees skyrocketed by 53 per cent in just six years.
Labor's childcare plan, introduced today, will inevitably see fees skyrocket again and erode most of the promised benefits for families. This is because the package will add to demand but does not address the waitlists for services, the workforce shortages or the significant regional gaps. When introducing the childcare bill today, the minister promised that Labor's plan would not add to inflation. Australian families will be holding him to this promise.
Werriwa Electorate: Phillips Park
Ms STANLEY (Werriwa—Government Whip) (13:59): On 3 September I was really pleased to attend the opening of a new community hub at Phillips Park in the suburb of Lurnea. It's the suburb where I have lived all my life. I played cricket on the oval. Thankfully, due to federal funding and state government funding, other members of the community will be able to use it. There are already two community groups—an NDIS group and a cafe—which are providing excellent infrastructure and services for our part of the communit The new facilities will give opportunities to young kids to find somewhere to be. There are basketball courts, playgrounds and other things that we really deserve in these older communities. I thank the federal government for their funding for this on this occasion.
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
Temporary Arrangements
Mr MARLES (Corio—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence) (14:00): I inform the House that the member for Hotham will be absent today from question time today and tomorrow, and questions relating to the Home Affairs portfolio will be answered by the member for Isaacs.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Superannuation
Ms McKENZIE (Flinders) (14:00): My question is to the Treasurer. Yesterday the Treasurer refused to rule out changes to franking credits and negative gearing. Will the Treasurer rule out changes to taxes on superannuation?
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin—Treasurer) (14:00): I thank the honourable member for her question. I'm pleased to inform the House that our position hasn't changed on the question that they asked me today and yesterday, on the matter of taxes. Our priority is to do something meaningful about multinational taxes. We've said that for some time now, and that's our agenda when it comes to tax.
I'm asked about tax policy. It's a good opportunity to inform that House that today the member for Hume gave a little speech about tax at the Centre for Independent Studies. I was asked about tax. What I notice or what I'm told from this steaming little pile of Thatcherite rubbish, plucked straight from the yellowing pages of a Young Liberal newsletter in the 80s was the member for Hume—
Opposition members interjecting—
Dr CHALMERS: The question was about tax. They want to give us a lecture on tax. I'm talking about tax to you. Just have a seat. You might learn something.
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order.
Mr Fletcher: On relevance: I would ask that you follow the tradition of Speaker Jenkins, well-respected Labor Speaker Jenkins, and direct the minister to relate his material to the question at hand. If he's said all he's going to say on the question, he should sit down.
The SPEAKE R: The Treasurer was asked about tax policy regarding franking credits, negative gearing and superannuation. I draw him to the last part of the question and give the call to the Treasurer.
Dr CHALMERS: We got a lecture on taxes today from the mob who were the second highest taxing government in the last 30 years, the highest taxing government since John Howard's government; from a party that just, in the last couple of weeks, voted against a tax cut on cars in this place. We didn't just get a lecture on taxes; we got a lecture on the cost of living from the mob that kept wages deliberately low for a decade and from a shadow Treasurer who tried to keep secret a 20 per cent increase in electricity prices. We got a lecture on debt from the mob who doubled the debt even before the pandemic and left us with rising interest costs on the trillion dollars of debt that they left behind. And we got a lecture on productivity from the same people who gave us the worst decade of productivity in the last 50 years.
I don't know what's more concerning—that the Shadow Treasurer might not be the sharpest tool in the Liberal Party's shed or that he might be the sharpest tool in the Liberal Party's shed. Only in a Liberal Party this bereft of ideas and talent would the member for Hume even get a look in, in a serious economic portfolio, so we won't be copping lectures from the leftovers of the last government, not on tax, not on spending, not on borrowing, not on the cost of living, not from the dregs of the government which presided over a wasted decade of missed opportunities and messed up priorities and which left us a mess that will take more than one budget to clean up.
Economy
Mr LIM (Tangney) (14:04): My question is to the Treasurer. What is the outlook for the global economy, and what impact does this have on Australia's economy and on our budget?
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin—Treasurer) (14:04): I thank the member for Tangney not just for the question but, really, for the quite remarkable spirit that he brings to this place. I know that I speak for everyone on this side when I say what an honour it is to serve with the member for Tangney. I appreciate his question today.
In between the parliament rising at the end of this week and it returning at the end of October, I'll be heading to Washington, DC for a short trip to confer with my international counterparts about the difficult and dark days that lie ahead for the global economy. Last night the OECD showed in pretty stark detail the downturn that they are anticipating in the world economy, with substantial downgrades to the growth outlook for almost all of the world's major economies and almost all of our major trading partners as well.
For the benefit of the House: the OECD has wiped 0.6 percentage points off the global growth projection for 2023, predicting no growth at all for the UK next year, negligible growth in the United States and slower growth in China than previously expected. Now, the factors contributing to this aren't a secret to anyone: intensifying inflationary pressures, escalating energy security shocks, Russia's illegal war becoming more entrenched and extreme uncertainty over the future. Here in Australia we do have things going for us that will help us with withstand the worst of what we're confronting in the global economy, but these global challenges are deepening, not disappearing, and there's no use pretending that they won't be felt here in some form. The OECD has touched on that, too.
There's no avoiding the reality that the economy we inherited isn't as resilient as it could be to help us through these shocks, nor is the budget as well placed as it needs to be either. These are the costs and consequences of that wasted decade that Australians are paying the price for now, with falling real wages, flatlining productivity and a budget heaving with $1 trillion of debt without an economic dividend to show for it.
This combination of challenges is the backdrop for the budget that we will hand down from this place at the end of next month. We will provide cost-of-living relief in the budget, which is responsible, which isn't counterproductive, in areas like cheaper childcare, which those opposite have still not told us whether or not they will support. We need to start investing in the potential of our people and the capacity of our economy: fee-free TAFE, cheaper and cleaner energy and a future made in Australia. We will begin trimming some of the waste that was a hallmark of the budgets handed down by the previous government.
This is just the beginning, not the end of our work to build the better future that Australians deserve. It will take multiple budgets and it will involve some hard choices, but, despite everything that's been thrown at us, Australians have every reason to be optimistic about the long-term prospects of our economy and our country. We've got some tricky terrain to navigate together in the meantime.
Cost Of Living
Ms LEY (Farrer—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:07): My question is to the acting Prime Minister. Since the government was elected, Australians have been paying an extra $700 a month on an average mortgage, record inflation is forcing them to pay more for less at the supermarket and desperate families are still waiting for a $275 cut to their power bills, a promise Labor repeated 97 times before the election but not once since. Acting Prime Minister, when Labor talks about bread and butter budgets, is it because that's all Australians are going to be able to afford this Christmas?
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much noise on my right.
Mr MARLES (Corio—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence) (14:08): I thank the member for her question. We do understand that rising interest rates are putting real pressure on the budgets of Australian households. This government sees as its first priority doing everything we can to ease that pressure. It's why we sought an increase in the minimum wage. It's why during this week we are introducing legislation which will reduce the cost of medicines and which will make childcare more affordable. It's why last week we saw the biggest increase in the pension in more than 10 years. On this side of the House, we're completely focused on the effort to improve the household budgets of every Australian.
But the issues that we face today are fundamentally a function of a lost decade of government offered by those opposite. We had insipid productivity growth defining the last 10 years. We had the greatest period of wage stagnation in our country's history, and that's a direct result of the fact that what we had opposite was a bunch of economic bystanders. It was a lost decade of economic activity when it came from those opposite.
We are different. We are the ones who are economic managers, and government under Labor will see economic management be a part of what we are about. We will do that in a way which will improve the budgets of households as a result.
Ms Ley: I seek leave to table a document entitled The economic impact of the ALP's Powering Australia plan, authored by RepuTex ENERGY, modelling the Prime Minister's claims to stand by his promise of a $275 cut to power bills.
The SPEAKER: Is leave granted?
Mr Burke: You can't table the internet. It's already publicly available. Leave is not granted.
National Anti-Corruption Commission
Ms SITOU (Reid) (14:10): My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering on its promise to establish a national anti-corruption commission?
Mr MARLES (Corio—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence) (14:10): I thank the member for Reid for her question, and I congratulate her on her victory at the election and her wonderful first speech. We are so much the better for having her as a member of our team.
Social media and the internet have completely changed our lives. We've seen information spread around the world today in a way we would barely have been able to imagine 30 years ago—but so has misinformation. What that has done has undermined a sense of the objective truth, which in turn has put unprecedented pressure on democracies. So there has never been a more important time for measures which build public confidence in government, in what we do and in the standards of probity and ethics which guide our behaviour.
Tomorrow, the Albanese government will introduce into this parliament a bill to establish an anti-corruption commission at a federal level. It's a long time coming. It should be bipartisan. Those opposite promised to deliver it, but in the last three years of their government not a word of legislation was presented to this House. The bill that we will introduce tomorrow will provide for a commission with teeth, with independent powers of investigation. It will require the commission to act with due process. But, in the process, it will increase the standards of ethics and probity for all public officials at a federal level. As we all know, the Commonwealth is the only jurisdiction in the country which does not have an anti-corruption commission, despite the fact that the Commonwealth is the largest and most consequential jurisdiction in the Federation.
This legislation will provide an opportunity for every member of this House to pin their colours to the mast as to where they stand on the question of probity and ethics in government. On the Labor side, we really look forward to that opportunity, because tomorrow will be the culmination of four years of campaigning. I know that, for members on the government side and, indeed, those on the frontbench, this issue goes to the very heart of the compact of trust that they have with their own constituency. Labor understands that, to defend democracy around the world, we need to start by building the resilience of our democracy at home. The establishment of an anti-corruption commission will do exactly that.
National Anti-Corruption Commission
Dr SCAMPS (Mackellar) (14:13): My question is for the Attorney-General. Is the Attorney-General able to give confidence to the Australian people that the national anti-corruption commission will be set up to succeed by including a strong statutory oversight mechanism that is not government dominated in order to protect its independence?
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Attorney-General and Cabinet Secretary) (14:14): I thank the member for Mackellar for her question. As the parliament has just heard from the Acting Prime Minister, there will be legislation in the House tomorrow to establish a national anti-corruption commission. It is a major piece of reform to Australia's integrity framework. As I hope everyone is aware, I've consulted across the parliament, including with the opposition and the crossbench in both houses, on the formation of this legislation. The Australian people believe in integrity. The Australian people voted for a government which will deliver a powerful, transparent and independent national anticorruption commission.
On the specific question of oversight of the commission, when the bill is introduced tomorrow, members will see that the commission will have a joint statutory committee with senators and with members of this House who will act as an oversight committee for the activities of the national anticorruption commission. Members will also see when the bill is introduced tomorrow that there will be an inspector of the commission, who will perform a similar role to the role that's performed by inspectors in the states and territories which have included that aspect in their anticorruption arrangements.
Cybersecurity
Mr KHALIL (Wills) (14:16): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs. The cyberattack on Optus and theft of personally identifiable Australian customer data is of great concern. Can the minister update the House on the breach and the steps being taken to protect the privacy of Australians' data?
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Attorney-General and Cabinet Secretary) (14:16): I thank the member for Wills for his question. Australians expect that when they hand over their personal data every effort will be made to keep it safe from harm. We know that millions of Australians have been impacted by the Optus data breach. It is a data breach which should never have happened. It involved the release of Australian citizens' names, dates of birth, phone numbers, email addresses, residential addresses and, for some customers, passport numbers and drivers licence numbers, which are apparently for sale on the dark web. We were concerned this morning about reports that personal information from the Optus data breach apparently also includes Medicare numbers. Medicare numbers were never notified as forming part of the breach.
I can say that Optus has a clear obligation to notify affected individuals, which of course includes both past customers of Optus and present customers of Optus. Optus has a clear obligation to notify both the affected individuals and the Australian Information Commissioner when a data breach involving personal information is likely to result in serious harm. Consumers have also got a right to know exactly what individual personal information has been compromised in Optus's communications to them.
While we of course will not go into the technical assistance and cybersecurity advice that is being provided to Optus, we can reassure Australians that the whole of the Australian government is working to address the consequences of this breach. In particular, the Australian Federal Police is devoting huge effort, with a large number of officers working on this. The Australian Federal Police is working with industry, working with state and territory police forces and also working with the FBI to address the consequences of this breach.
Budget
Mr TAYLOR (Hume) (14:18): My question is to the Treasurer. I refer to the confirmation from the Parliamentary Budget Office that Labor has committed to additional spending of over $18 billion over the forward estimates and $45 billion of additional balance sheet spending.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much noise. The member for Hume will be heard in silence.
Mr TAYLOR: I will; thank you, Mr Speaker. What new taxes will the Treasurer introduce in order to pay for this and other new spending?
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin—Treasurer) (14:20): The member for Hume mustn't have been listening to the answer I provided a few minutes ago, in response to his colleague, at the outset of question time. If the member for Hume, the shadow Treasurer, is just now, after four months in office, getting his head around the commitments that we took to the Australian people in May of this year and won the election on, then he's even slower on the uptake than we feared.
We took a whole bunch of commitments to the election, and many of the commitments that we took to the election are all about making up for the fact that over this wasted decade of missed opportunities and messed up priorities there hasn't been the investment that we need to see in training. That's why we've got these rampant labour and skills shortages holding back the economy. There hasn't been the investment that we wanted in working parents. That's why we've needed to introduce today the childcare legislation that those opposite can't support, even though it will be a game changer for Australian parents and for Australian families and the Australian economy more broadly.
We're proud of the commitments that we took to the election. We're proud of the responsible investments that we proposed to the Australian people for cleaner and cheaper energy and a better trained workforce and cheaper child care, and all of the things that have been made necessary by the economic failures of those opposite over the best part of a decade that they spent trying to push people's wages down and making it harder and harder to make ends meet.
Our position on the economy, our position on taxes, our position on the commitments we took to the election, haven't changed. We will tally them up in the budget next month in the usual way and present it from this place. In that budget, that I will be proud to hand down on behalf of the Albanese government, we will make some of the investments that the economy's been crying out for for some time. We will make responsible changes to the spending, to the money that they sprayed around en route to delivering a trillion dollars in debt with nowhere near enough to show for it.
I hope that the author of that steaming little pile of Thatcherite platitudes today continues to ask me questions about the cost of living—they having chased down wages for a decade—about tax—on their watch, their tax record was to hand down more taxes—he asked me about taxes, Mr Speaker.
The SPEAKER: Order! The Treasurer will resume his seat. The member for Hume will raise a point of order and then resume his seat.
Mr Taylor: Relevance, Mr Speaker. The question was what new taxes—
The SPEAKER: Resume your seat. The Treasurer is completely in order. It was a broad-ranging question regarding taxes and additional spending. I call the Treasurer.
Dr CHALMERS: I think that camera must have a mirror in it, the way that the member for—he's always looking down the barrel of that mirror, which is not a surprise to anyone in this place!
The SPEAKER: The Treasurer will return to the question.
Dr CHALMERS: If he wants to ask me about tax, he should come to the dispatch box and fess up to a decade of the second highest taxing government in the last 30 years, the highest since Howard, where taxes were higher under them, per capita, in total, per year, every way you want to cut the tax record of those opposite. He can deliver speech after speech, plagiarised from a Liberal Party newsletter in the 1980s, all he likes; that won't change that basic fact.
Child Care
Ms THWAITES (Jagajaga) (14:23): My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education. How will the Albanese Labor government's cheaper childcare plan improve access to affordable, early childhood education and care and ease cost-of-living pressures?
Dr ALY (Cowan—Minister for Early Childhood Education and Minister for Youth) (14:23): I thank the member for Jagajaga for her question. I know that the member has a very strong focus on cost-of-living pressures for families in Jagajaga and a very strong interest in early childhood education. And rightly so, because early childhood education and care plays a vital role in supporting families and improves the education and wellbeing outcomes for Australian children. Boosting access to early childhood education and care ensures that more children are able to access the benefits of foundational learning during those most formative years, preparing them for a life of exploration and learning.
This morning, I had the absolute pleasure of visiting MOCCA childcare centre in Manuka with the member for Canberra, Alicia Payne, and with the Minister for Education, Jason Clare. We got to meet some of the most adorable little children you will ever meet in your life, like little Amara and little Anna. We got to see for ourselves and watch these children as they learnt through play, which is what early childhood education is all about.
We also got to speak to parents like Sam, Anna's dad, who told us how the cost of early childhood education is putting that early childhood education, that vital education in those early years, out of reach for a lot of parents and is acting as a disincentive for primary caregivers, who are mostly women, to take on more hours of work if they want to or to get back to work if they want to.
That is why the Labor government took to the election a plan for cheaper child care and why today we have acted on our election commitment and introduced a bill in parliament to reduce out-of-pocket costs for parents for early childhood education and care. This reform will benefit over a million families across Australia—over a million families in electorates like Jagajaga and Cowan—right across every state and territory in this country. A part of our commitment is to address the cost of living and make early childhood education and care more accessible and affordable, and we will be tasking the ACCC with looking at pricing.
These reforms are not just about affordability; they're about our most precious asset, our children, and providing our children with the care and the education that they need in their formative years to set them up for life.
Cybersecurity
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson) (14:26): My question is to the Acting Prime Minister and it concerns the Optus data breach. On ABC 7.30 last night the Minister for Home Affairs said:
What is of concern for us is how what is quite a basic attack was undertaken on Optus.
The Optus CEO this morning said, 'It's not as portrayed. Our data was encrypted and we have multiple layers of protection.' Does your government maintain that the Optus breach was 'quite a basic attack'?
Mr MARLES (Corio—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence) (14:27): I thank the member for her question on what is a very serious matter and one that is causing anxiety for millions of Optus customers today. The truth is that what has occurred over the last week has been a wake-up call for corporate Australia. From the moment, last Wednesday, that it became clear that a breach had occurred, the government, through the Australian Cyber Security Centre and the Australian Signals Directorate, has been working hand in glove with Optus with a view to minimising the impact of the breach but maximising the protection of the customers who have found their privacy breached as a result of what has occurred. We continue to work with Optus to make sure that that protection can be maximised. The Australian Federal Police right now are doing everything within their power to pursue the criminal investigation.
But what's really important for those Optus customers is the steps that they take now in terms of their own security. It is really important that people do not click on links. It is really important that people check the sources of websites. It's really important that, in having phone conversations, people do not divulge their personal information unless they are 100 per cent confident about the circumstances in which that conversation is happening.
We will be continuing to work very closely with Optus and, indeed, other companies in the telecommunications sector and other sectors within the economy, including the banks, to make sure that we can do everything to minimise the impact of what has been a very concerning event. But it has been a wake-up call for corporate Australia. Cybersecurity is now right up there in the top echelon of issues which face corporate Australia, as it does government, of course. We need to be doing everything we can to make sure that protection is in place, and that will be the entire focus of this government.
Child Care
Dr REID (Robertson) (14:29): My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. How will the Albanese Labor government's cheaper childcare plan get more Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children into early education and help to close the gap?
Ms BURNEY (Barton—Minister for Indigenous Australians) (14:29): I thank the member for Reid for his question. It's an honour to serve with the member for Reid. I worked for many years as a schoolteacher. I've also been a member of the board of an Aboriginal preschool called Murawina, in Mount Druitt. I know how important it is for children to be ready for school. It is crucial in helping them thrive in the classroom and beyond.
Yesterday, there were 2,500 people in Adelaide at an international conference on education. I had the great pleasure of announcing that all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children will be able to access 36 hours of subsidised child care a fortnight from July 2023. That's three to four days of preschool. These changes will benefit over 6,000 families. Importantly, they will encourage more Indigenous families to access early education and care, which is a desperate and important need in this country. It will improve jarjums' readiness for school. The term 'jarjums' is a very significant word in North Coast Aboriginal languages for babies and young people, and that's what I intend to use.
School readiness is an important Closing the Gap target, and it's an area where we went backwards last year. We are going backwards on this target, and this measure will address that Closing the Gap target. We know that jarjums are underrepresented in early childhood education, and high-quality early childhood education and care is critical to supporting children's development and future success. I am not telling anyone in this chamber anything new. Our plan is good for children, it's good for families, it's good for the economy and it's good for education in Australia. Of course, it's essential all governments work together, and they will.
There was also the announcement yesterday of $10.2 million to support a new early childhood education and care and development policy partnership. This is in partnership with SNAICC, and it's going to close one of those important gaps. This will put Aboriginal children on the path to a life of choice and chance.
Infrastructure
Mr CONAGHAN (Cowper) (14:32): My question is to the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories. Can the minister guarantee that the government will not cut $143 million out of regional education infrastructure funded in the 2022 budget? Specifically, will the government support the $27.5 million in regional development funding for the Southern Cross University health services precinct in Coffs Harbour?
Ms McBAIN (Eden-Monaro—Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories) (14:33): Thank you very much for the question. As you're aware, we are doing a secondary budget, which isn't something that's a normal part of the government process. But, when we came into government, there was $1 trillion in debt and a range of programs—
The SPEAKER: Eleven seconds into the answer, I call the member for Cowper on a point of order.
Mr Co naghan: It's a point of order on relevance. It was a very specific question—
The SPEAKER: Resume your seat. You just need to simply state your point of order. The minister is 11 seconds in. I'll be listening closely to her answer to make sure she is relevant. But I'll allow her, 11 seconds in, to get on with her answer.
Ms McBAIN: As I was saying, we have come into government after a decade of those opposite and are reviewing the processes that the previous government went through, including announcing a range of projects that weren't contracted—sometimes where money wasn't asked for. We are in the process of reviewing that at this point in time. We will put forward our own proposals going forward. That project may form part of that, but there is a budget coming up in October. I ask the member to pay close attention to what that budget says.
Regional Australia
Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (14:35): My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. What are the Albanese Labor government's plans to support our regions and how do they differ from what we inherited from the former government?
Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat—Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) (14:35): I'm delighted to answer that question from the member for Paterson, a fantastic regional member. We on this side of the House are deeply committed to the economic productivity of our regions. Of course, in the lead-up to the election we announced a range of policies across government that we will be investing in in our regions. In my own portfolio there is $200 million for the Kennedy Highway; funding for the Tanami, Stuart and Augusta highways; $80 million for roadside facilities to support interstate truck drivers; $200 million for the Bruce Highway between Rockhampton and Gladstone; the Nowra bypass; Shoalhaven roads; a new university campus in Cairns; a hangar so that the Royal Flying Doctor Service can respond across all of Northern Tasmania; funding for stage 2 of the Gippsland Logistics Precinct; the Muswellbrook civic precinct upgrade; and the Mackay Electric Vehicle and Energy Training Centre. More broadly across government, Minister Bowen has the Powering the Regions Fund to help our regional economies and our regional industries actually take up the opportunities of renewable energy. We have the Minister for Housing with the Regional First Home Buyer Support Scheme to invest in helping young Australians in our regions get their first home.
Our Central Australia plan is investing in roads, digital connectivity, the environment, cultural heritage, skills training, health and crime prevention in the very heart of our nation. There is a $250 million top-up to the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program specifically for regional and rural roads, which complements our ongoing commitments for programs like Roads to Recovery, the Bridges Renewal Program and the Black Spot Program. This stands in stark contrast to what the people opposite did when they were in government. They took a very different approach.
From reports today we see the incredible lack of transparency and the pork-barrelling that actually happened out of the Community Development Grants. We saw that one project is a $25 million grant to a company that's 70 per cent owned in the Cayman Islands.
Mr Pasin interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Barker will cease interjecting and keep reading his material.
Ms CATHERINE KING: We've been left to clean up this absolute mess of pork-barrelling. We've seen nine projects that date back to 2016, six projects where there's no proponent and over $18 million of projects where there is no actual location for a project. The member for New England, the previous minister, wrote to the Treasurer about two projects that he awarded to himself, of which there is no actual record of any decision being made. This is the mess that you've left for us.
I am very proud of our record in regional Australia on this. We are investing in the regions. We'll continue to do so, instead of the pork-barrelling that was actually categorised by the last government. We're going to clean up this mess.
Commonwealth Integrity Commission
Ms CHANEY (Curtin) (14:38): My question is to the Attorney-General. Public hearings are an essential part of a credible anticorruption commission to rebuild trust in government. You've indicated that public hearings will be held only in exceptional circumstances. Why is the government setting the bar this high, instead of whenever it is in the public interest? And what are exceptional circumstances?
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Attorney-General and Cabinet Secretary) (14:39): I thank the member for Curtin for her question and I thank her for her interest—along with that of the rest of the crossbench and, indeed, the whole of the parliament—in this very important piece of legislation that we're going to be introducing tomorrow. The particular question that has been asked by the member for Curtin goes to the circumstances in which the commission will be able to hold public hearings. The most important part of this is that the commission will have power to hold public hearings. That will be when there are exceptional circumstances, in the opinion of the commission, and where it's in the public interest to do so, in the opinion of the commission.
There are a number of factors outlined in the bill, which the commission may consider before deciding to hold a public hearing, and it is appropriate, in the view of the government, that the discretion sits with the commission. We are not going to be directing the commission as to when it should hold private hearings and when it should hold public hearings, but I think all of those in this House would be aware that there will be a number of circumstances which will dictate against holding a public hearing. It might be that the subject matter of the investigation is concerned with national security information, or it might be that the subject matter of the investigation deals with matters that are either the subject of a current criminal trial or a projected criminal trial. All of those are going to be matters that would suggest to the commission that no public hearing should be held at a particular time, but a time may come later in the investigation when a public hearing is going to be appropriate. But, at all times, we think that this matter should be left to the discretion of the commission.
National Inquiry into Sexual Harassment in Australian Workplaces
Dr MULINO (Fraser) (14:41): My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Women: how will the Albanese Labor government's commitment to implement all of the Respect@Work recommendations support women's economic equality?
Ms BURNEY (Barton—Minister for Indigenous Australians) (14:41): I thank the member for Fraser for asking this extremely important question. I know that you have a deep commitment to respectful relationships and respectful workplaces, so thank you. I want to say also that the Albanese Labor government takes this issue extremely seriously—as we all do. It is without question that everyone has a right to be safe and respected in their workplace, and that is a commitment we should all have. The fact that some workplaces have not been safe or respectful for so many Australians, particularly women, is completely, absolutely unacceptable. It seems as outrageous both inside and outside of this place.
The Respect@Work report found that two in five women had experienced sexual harassment in the past five years. It is not a laughing matter. Two in five in the last five years is an absolutely appallingly high number, and we all know that that must change. That is why we, as a government, will be introducing a bill to this House to implement seven legislative changes recommended by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins. It will have proper oversight. This is a key part of our election commitment to implement the recommendations of the Respect@Work report, and we will do it in full. The passage of this bill will move Australia forward in our efforts to prevent workplace sexual harassment from happening in the first place. Workplace sexual harassment isn't just a safety issue; it's an economic one, and it is all of our business. The social and emotional cost of doing nothing costs the Australian economy not $3.8 million but $3.8 billion a year in loss of productivity, staff turnover and absenteeism.
This legislation means that workplaces must take responsible and proportionate measures to eliminate sex discrimination, sexual harassment and victimisation as far as possible. I am proud to be a member of the government that will be bringing this legislation forward. It builds on things like reintroducing gender-responsive budgeting and developing a national strategy to achieve gender equality, and it is what the Albanese Labor government stands for.
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Leader of the Opposition) (14:44): on indulgence—I want to join the opposition to the fine words of the minister in her contribution. This is a bipartisan piece of work, and I want to thank the government for their engagement with us, in particular with Senators Payne and Birmingham and others. This is a body of work that's gone on for a period of time, and we'll continue to provide that support. There is zero tolerance for workplaces where people can't be treated with respect and where sexual harassment might take place. It's true in this building, and it's true across the country. We will work together as a parliament in a bipartisan way to make sure that we have a safer and more respectful workplace so that people can enjoy their rights without any hesitation or any condition whatsoever. We've been having this ongoing discussion with the government for a number of months now, and we will continue that work, because it's important, as I say, for this parliament and across broader society.
Pensions and Benefits
Ms PRICE (Durack—Opposition Whip) (14:46): My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. Labor's decision to scrap the cashless debit card will unleash an avalanche of drugs and alcohol into the most vulnerable communities. Mr Trust, executive chair of the Wunan Foundation, in the East Kimberley, says he fears the extra cash on the streets would lead to a spike in alcohol related harm. He says, 'I think it could be chaos.' Will the government take full responsibility for any spike in domestic violence or child neglect in Indigenous communities as a consequence of abolishing the cashless debit card?
Ms BURNEY (Barton—Minister for Indigenous Australians) (14:46): Can I say upfront that this commitment was an election policy and it was an election policy that we took extremely seriously and did an enormous amount of consultation about, including with Mr Trust, who is in, of course, Western Australia. The cashless debit card diminishes people's self-worth. It is discriminatory and it's arbitrary. It is also very important to understand—
Opposition members interjecting—
Ms BURNEY: If you want to hear this, then be quiet. It is also a piece of policy that has been reviewed and reviewed and reviewed. It was a piece of technology that was used by a private organisation for profit. That is the truth of it, and the other part of it is that mandatory income management across the board has been a failure. You seem to all forget that part of this legislation—
Mrs Marino interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The minister will resume her seat. The member for Forrest will withdraw that comment.
Mrs Marino: I withdraw.
Ms BURNEY: The other point is this, and this is very, very important: this measure is voluntary. If people want to stay on the cashless debit card or income management, that is their decision. We have made sure that within this piece of legislation there is a voluntary component.
Honourable members inte rjecting—
Ms BURNEY: To the member for wherever you're from: there is also within this legislation a component where people will be placed on income management if there is a court order against them, including for child abuse and including for domestic violence. So get to know what the legislation is about before you start asking those sorts of questions. We do not believe in mandatory income management. It is voluntary, and there will be situations where there will be people placed on income management because of the particular circumstances they find themselves in. That is this legislation. We have listened to the voices, we have consulted and we will be going forward on this.
Aged Care
Ms STANLEY (Werriwa—Government Whip) (14:49): My question is to the Minister for Aged Care and Sport. After almost a decade of neglect in aged care, how is the Albanese Labor government reforming the sector and building a workforce to deliver the care that older Australians deserve?
Ms WELLS (Lilley—Minister for Aged Care and Minister for Sport) (14:50): I thank the member for Werriwa for her question and take this opportunity to thank her for her continued efforts to look after the welfare and wellbeing of every single constituent in the electorate of Werriwa, and also her unquestioned, well tested capability as a fellow twin mum.
This question is about what the Labor government is doing with respect to the aged-care workforce. We are committed to restoring humanity, dignity, quality and security to aged care. That starts with restoring the value of the aged-care workforce. To this end, I was able to go visit the Burnie Brae Centre in Chermside recently. They have won the national Excellence in Aged Services Award. It's worth noting that they have managed to do that despite the fact that they were one of the many community organisations affected by the floods in Brisbane in February this year. They were able to do that despite the floods and despite 10 years of neglect from the previous federal government, who were deaf to the cries for help from residential facilities, nursing homes, home-care workers and the residents and families themselves.
Residents need more carers with more time to care. That is why the Albanese Labor government is bringing in 24/7 nurses. That is why the Albanese Labor government is bringing in more care minutes. That is why we are addressing the workforce shortages left by 10 years of neglect from this government. The previous government let these workforce shortages build year upon year and did nothing about them; and then in the first week of the new parliament they walked in and said, 'Well, this seems to be a bit of a problem—what are you going to do about it?' Every single person on the other side of the House should have done something with your time in government. And yet you didn't. In fact, the first thing they did when they got their hands on the keys to power in late 2013 was to cut the aged-care workforce contracts. They were so hungry to cut the pay of aged-care workers that they suspended standing orders to do it. That's what they did. They were so hungry that they suspended standing orders to cut pay of aged-care workers.
Here on this side of the House one of the first things we did was make a submission to Fair Work to give them a pay rise. In the first 100 days, we have committed not only to that work, but to fully funding any decision of the commission. We have held an aged-care workforce roundtable, where we got constructive ideas from the stakeholders ignored by the previous government for so many years, and we fed that directly into the jobs summit. The initiatives that came out of the jobs summit will include measures to help aged-care workforce shortages. We're going to increase the permanent migration program's ceiling; we’re going to add an additional $1 billion in joint funding for fee-free TAFE, extend visas, enable people on the age and veterans' pension to earn an additional $4,000. It's active aging in action.
Fuel Excise
Ms LE (Fowler) (14:53): My question is to the Treasurer: The government has seen a $50 billion windfall, mainly from Australian mineral and energy export royalties. Yet they are now asking ordinary, hard-working Australians to pay more for fuel with the increase in the excise tax this week. My constituents of Fowler want details of how part of that money will go towards fixing Australia's cost-of-living crisis, which is hitting everyone from students to pensioners and families, especially those in low socioeconomic and regional areas.
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin—Treasurer) (14:54): I thank the member for Fowler for her question and for the conversations that we've been able to have about some of these important and difficult issues in the Commonwealth budget. The final budget outcome for last year, which will be released tomorrow by myself in this place and by the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher, will show a welcome temporary improvement in tax receipts for last year.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! Members on my left!
Dr CHALMERS: Now—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left will cease interjecting. The Treasurer will be heard in silence.
Dr CHALMERS: And a big part of the improvement in the bottom line for last financial year is an increase in the tax take, and part of that, we should acknowledge, is the fact that the increase in world energy prices has meant that there's been an increase in taxes collected. So, for example, for the benefit of honourable members—
Mr Rick Wilson interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for O'Connor will cease interjecting.
Dr CHALMERS: and especially the member for Fowler—the last budget papers, including forecasts for the PRRT, for example, showed that receipts from the PRRT will increase 110 per cent, from $786 million in 2020-21 to $1.65 billion in 2021-22, with a further 45 per cent increase in 2022-23. So the premise of the member's question, about an improvement in the budget for last year and the contribution made by world energy prices and some of our energy companies, I agree with. Those are some of the issues that we've made clear, including in the course of the last couple of weeks.
As the member for Fowler and I have discussed, and as I've discussed with colleagues on this side of the House as well, and publicly in my own community and communities around Australia, the reason that the fuel excise relief will come off tomorrow night is because it would cost about $3 billion for every six months of extension—so, $6 billion a year, to extend the fuel excise relief—
Mr Rick Wilson interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for O'Connor is warned.
Dr CHALMERS: that those opposite legislated to end tomorrow night. And we're being upfront with people about that. We know that's a difficult decision. We know it impacts people who drive further. But our commitment to them, all along, is to manage the budget as responsibly as we can, to provide cost-of-living relief where we can, where there's an economic dividend, in areas like child care, cheaper TAFE and cheaper medicines and getting wages moving again.
But nobody is pretending that the end of the fuel excise relief won't make things more difficult. We understand that. We appreciate that. And we're being upfront with people on the reason why that's ending on the timetable set by those opposite and we're not able to extend it.
But we are providing cost-of-living relief to the member for Fowler's constituents, and to Australians all around the country. We'll do that in an affordable and a responsible way that's right for the budget and right for the economy.
Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Chief Government Whip) (14:57): My question is to the Minister for Government Services. How will the commencement today of the royal commission into robodebt help to bring justice to the victims of robodebt?
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services) (14:57): I thank the member for Lalor for her question and for her advocacy on behalf of robodebt victims. For the information of the House, I was privileged to be in Brisbane this morning for the opening of the robodebt royal commission. I was in the audience with Kath Madgwick and Jennifer Miller. Kath's son, Jarrad, took his own life after an argument with the previous government about the collection of a debt. Jennifer's son Rhys took his own life.
I congratulate the royal commission for starting this process in the course of five weeks—it's a remarkable effort. What I thought I might do is to take this opportunity to inform the member for Lalor and other members who are interested in robodebt matters—including some of those on the opposition front bench—of the opening remarks by Her Honour the Royal Commissioner. She said: 'The premise for the scheme was unsound because it treated average earnings as though they were actual earnings.' But that was most unlikely to be true, she said, unless the recipient earned the same amount every fortnight. The very circumstances which caused people to need benefits meant it was very improbable that many did. She went on, at another point in her opening remarks, to say that a good deal was known of how the robodebt scheme operated but not much has been revealed about why—about what advice or consultation or reasoning or response to criticism was occurring 'behind the scenes' at any stage. She's made the point, about people likely to be called as witnesses, that 'the focus, appropriately and in accordance with the terms of reference, will be those in senior positions who had or should have had oversight' of it.
Counsel Assisting Justin Greggery KC has given us some further understanding of who is likely to be called: those involved in the design and implementation of the scheme; those who were made aware of its risks, complaints, legal challenges and their responses—
An opposition member interjecting—
Mr SHORTEN: And I'll take that interjection from the opposition, where they try and say that everyone was doing it, so what was the problem? In fact, Her Honour went to these Liberal speaking points. She didn't call them that. She said, 'What changed in the implementation of the robodebt scheme in 2016 was that the Department of Human Services used an automated process to demand information from current and former recipients on a scale not previously attempted.' She further said: 'They sought the information going back years and the department proceeded to use debt recovery powers without any further attempt to substantiate the alleged debt.'
This royal commission is important. It is about justice for people who were unlawfully treated by the then government. I have no doubt that this royal commission will make sure that that shame never happens again, and those responsible will be held to account.
Litigation Funding
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:00): My question is to the Attorney-General. I refer to comments by the chief executive of Omni Bridgeway, Andrew Saker, who told the online industry magazine Law.com on 8 September that the Attorney-General's decision to relax restrictions on litigation funders would 'provide us with more opportunities'. Does the Attorney-General agree that his decision will create more opportunities for litigation funders like Omni Bridgeway?
Mr DRE YFUS (Isaacs—Attorney-General and Cabinet Secretary) (15:01): I thank the honourable member for his question. As I told the House yesterday, I have complied with the Ministerial Code of Conduct at all times. I suggest that if the honourable member has questions for Omni Bridgeway he should direct them to that company.
Science
Ms MILLER-FROST (Boothby) (15:01): My question is to the Minister for Industry and Science. What was Australia's involvement in NASA's project DART, which collided a spacecraft with an asteroid this morning? How does it showcase Australian scientists, and what are the Albanese Labor government's plans to leverage our scientific know-how?
Mr HUSIC (Chifley—Minister for Industry and Science) (15:02): I thank the member for Boothby not only for the question; I've also had the pleasure of visiting the Tonsley Innovation Precinct at Flinders University and look forward to visiting again.
What occurred this morning when I visited the Canberra Deep Space Communication Complex in Tidbinbilla, a NASA facility managed by the CSIRO, was that we witnessed a historic double asteroid redirection test, or DART for short. What happened was a literal world first. It was humankind's first test of planetary defence. It was an incredible feat. Just imagine flinging an object the size of a fridge at the speed of 6.6 kilometres a second at an asteroid the size of a pyramid to slow it down or change its orbit and doing it from 11 million kilometres away. That is just what happened at 9.14 am our time. It was a mammoth achievement, and full and hardy congratulations go to the global effort led by NASA.
But, across the chamber, can we congratulate the CSIRO team at Tidbinbilla, who played such a crucial role in the mission. They received the final signal from the DART spacecraft as it approached and impacted the asteroid. The CSIRO is rightly proud of the 85 people who work there and their scientific, engineering and tech nous, as we all are. It was a great pleasure to visit them with the member for Bean, David Smith. What we saw today was a great example of how Australian know-how brought to life by skill is making a valuable contribution on the world stage. It was a testament to our strong scientific relationship with the US.
Now, the Albanese Labor government wants to rekindle our faith in Australian know-how. We're a smart people. We need to apply those smarts to our national prosperity and wellbeing. That's why I announced earlier today we will be revitalising our national science priorities. We are a government that believe in the value of science and will act on science. Our national science priorities haven't been refreshed since 2015. A lot has happened in the world since that time. We need a modernised framework. We want these refreshed priorities to reflect the nation's values. We've identified three new priorities as starting points: supporting stronger action on climate change; elevating and investing in First Nations' knowledge; and harnessing the potential of emerging technologies not just for economic growth but for Australians' wellbeing.
We have published the terms of reference for this work, which will be led by our Chief Scientist, Dr Cathy Foley. We expect a new set of priorities and a statement within the next year. Importantly, I want to invite and listen to the advice and views of our nation's tremendous science and research community. We thank everyone at the CSIRO who contributed to today's great effort.
Small Business
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (15:05): My question is for the Minister for Small Business. Can the minister inform the House how much a typical small business electricity bill is and whether electricity bills are becoming more expensive for small businesses?
Ms COLLINS (Franklin—Minister for Housing, Minister for Homelessness and Minister for Small Business) (15:05): I thank the member for his question. As I've said in this place before, we understand that small businesses across Australia have had a tough time. We know that they've had a tough time, and we know that energy bills are increasing. What we also know of course is that that side of the House didn't do anything about energy policy for more than a decade. We had a decade of denial and delay that caused energy prices to increase. We also had the former minister hiding energy price increases from small businesses right across the country, because they wouldn't tell small businesses before the election what their plans were for energy prices.
Mr Vasta: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The first question was: can she inform us on the price of electricity for small businesses?
The SPEAKER: I would bring the minister back to the question. It was a specific question about how much an electricity bill is and energy prices becoming more expensive. I ask the minister to return to the question. She has had a preamble.
Ms COLLINS: We of course know that small businesses are facing challenges, and energy prices are one of them, which is why we are working with small businesses and are busy implementing our election commitments to small business.
Water Resources
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (15:07): My question is for the Minister for the Environment and Water. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering on its commitment to protect our rivers and support our precious water resources?
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Minister for the Environment and Water) (15:07): I thank the member for Makin for his question. I know that he, like all of our South Australian colleagues here, is absolutely committed to seeing the delivery of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full, because it matters. It matters for the communities along the river system, it matters for the businesses that depend on the river system—the farmers, the tourism operators and the other businesses—and, of course, it matters for the environment. Australia is already the driest inhabited continent on earth, and we know that, as climate change takes hold, this will only get worse. Of course, it's hard to remember at a time like this, when so much of the east coast in particular is suffering too much water, but we know in Australia, as sure as night follows day, that these wet periods will be followed once again by drought.
That's why I was so very disappointed to read in today's paper that the member for Maranoa believes that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is impossible to deliver. That's actually a bit rich from someone who was in charge of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan for so many years. It would have been good to hear him say that when he was the actual minister. It's not that it's impossible to deliver; it's that those opposite have sabotaged the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. They tied it up in brown tape because they never wanted to deliver it.
But it's not just the Murray-Darling Basin Plan that they are determined not to deliver, despite the fact that there was $1.3 billion set aside for water efficiency—they haven't spent that or delivered it—it's also their dam promises. It was incredible, wasn't it, that the member for Maranoa and the member for New England—who I spend some very delightful times with at 6 am on a Monday morning—went right around the country promising 100 dams. They promised 100 dams. They promised Hells Gates Dam. They promised Dungowan Dam. They promised Paradise Dam. They promised Urannah Dam. They promised Wyangala Dam. They promised Manton Dam. They promised Emu Swamp Dam. They promised 100 dams. Guess how many they delivered?
Government members: Two!
Ms PLIBERSEK: Two! Of 450 gigalitres of additional environmental water, they delivered two. Of the 100 dams they promised, they delivered two. This mob are great at circling the country and making big promises to regional communities, but they're all hat and no cattle.
Mr Marles: Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Minister for the Arts and Leader of the House) (15:10): 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.
BILLS
Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Incentivising Pensioners to Downsize) Bill 2022
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Minister for the Arts and Leader of the House) (15:10): I declare that the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Incentivising Pensioners to Downsize) Bill 2022 is referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Cost of Living
The SPEAKER (15:11): I have received a letter from the honourable member for Hume proposing a definite matter of public importance to be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The cost of living crisis and this Government's lack of plan to deal with it.
I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Mr TAYLOR (Hume) (15:11): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm pleased to speak on this issue, and I'm pleased that there's support to get on and talk about this MPI, because cost of living is one of the issues that Australians are feeling very deeply right now. When it comes to what Australians are talking about on the street, out in my electorate and elsewhere, it's cost of living, cost of living, cost of living. Rising inflation and interest rates are extremely painful in the suburbs, in the regions and in the cities. What's changed about this in the last few months is that we're not just seeing this at the fuel bowser. We're seeing it at the grocery checkout, we're seeing it when people buy furniture, we're seeing it when people buy services—we are seeing it across the board, Mr Speaker—but most of all, in the next few months, we're going to see it in the mortgage bills.
For a typical house of $750,000 in my electorate—in places like Elderslie, Spring Farm, Campbelltown and Camden—we are seeing that the average Australian is very soon going to be paying an extra $900 a month on their mortgage payments. That's well over $10,000 a year that the average Australian on a mortgage is going to be paying. We know that one-third of Australians have a mortgage, and they are the people working hard and raising families in so many of our electorates, Mr Speaker. As I look around, I see—
An opposition member: Angus, it's Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr TAYLOR: Thank you; I appreciate that Deputy Speaker Claydon is now in the chair. What we are seeing in those suburbs is this increase in mortgage payments. Mr Speaker, it's not over yet.
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr TAYLOR: Deputy Speaker, it is not over yet.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): We'll get there!
Mr TAYLOR: We are seeing an increase in interest rates that continues to flow through. The Reserve Bank has just raised interest rates by 50 basis points. The expectation in the marketplace is that they're going to raise interest rates another 50 basis points next week—it remains to be seen what the outcome will be, but that's the expectation—and that it will continue on beyond that. Indeed, we're seeing in the marketplace an expectation that cash rates will reach over 4.3 per cent by mid next year. The truth of the matter is that will result in mortgages of 6½ or seven per cent for a typical Australian mortgage, as we see the flexible rates flowing through, with people moving from fixed rates to flexible rates. That is a pain that Australians are going to feel, of a scale that we haven't seen yet, and we need to be ready to deal with it.
What we've seen from those opposite, most of all, is no plan at all. What we see is grim Jim, 'Grim Chalmers', as the commentator not the Treasurer, the forecaster not the leader, who's failed time and time again to take the opportunity, as interest rates have continued to go up, to lay out a plan whereby Australians will feel relief from these pressures. The question is: what should be in that plan? Ultimately, it'll have to be the government's plan, but there are three things I would like to point out that they could do, right here and now, to make a real difference.
The first is to release some of the supply chain bottlenecks we are seeing in the economy. We put forward a proposal to double the work bonus, to help pensioners and veterans, to increase the amount of work they do, to give more incentive for them, through the changes in the tax and welfare system that we have proposed. What this effectively does is reduce their effective marginal tax rate so that they can get on and do more work without being taxed. Right now, if you are a pensioner or veteran you're paying at least 50 cents in the dollar for every extra dollar you earn and, quite likely, significantly more. So it makes perfect sense to give them the incentive to get out there and work. Most of all, we want to see more Australians working. That will not only relieve their cost-of-living pressures but it will also relieve cost-of-living pressures for all other Australians.
The second thing is to make sure we don't kick off a price-wage spiral. We all want to see higher real wages in this place. What we don't need is a race between prices and wages. The last time we saw this was in the 1970s, and we know who lost. Workers lost. That's what happened. When you start a race like this, real wages will lose.
The third thing that those opposite can focus on is making sure they're not throwing fuel on the fire of these inflationary and interest rate pressures. The truth of the matter is they took to the last election $45 billion of additional off-budget spending, sneaky spending, which will just throw more fuel on this fire. So $18 billion of on-budget spending—but we know this is only the beginning. 'Grim Jim' told us earlier this week that—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): I give the call to the minister, on a point of order?
Dr Leigh: The shadow Treasurer should refer to members by their official titles.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Indeed you should, member for Hume. Please refer to members by their official titles.
Mr TAYLOR: Yes, Deputy Speaker. We heard earlier this week that the Treasurer has found $50 billion. I've never seen a Treasurer look so miserable about finding $50 billion! Has anyone else seen a Treasurer look so miserable about finding $50 billion—or is it $50 billion we delivered him? It came from our time in government. The truth of the matter is that the Treasurer didn't want to see the $50 billion. Now that he's got it, we know he wants to spend it. He's already telling us that. He wants to spend it, and that's exactly what he will do. We know that's what Labor does. When they see a little bit of money, the first thing they want to do is spend it.
He's also making sure he spends it on the things he wants. He's trying to tell others around him, 'No, it's not your gift; it's a gift for the people I want.' It's a $50 billion windfall that has come from the hard work that we did to make sure that as we came out of the pandemic we saw a bounce back, a reversion, to the balanced budget that we had in 2019. In fact, in a remarkable situation, we saw that from November through to May through to the election we ran a cumulative surplus over those months—and what we know is that those opposite just want to spend the money.
Meanwhile, when it comes to cost of living, we know that those opposite are experts in breaking promises. The commitment was made back in November last year, and they have refused steadfastly to say they're going to deliver it, and we know they're not. This is a broken promise. They've had the opportunity at the dispatch box, time and time again, to commit to that promise, but when it comes to cost of living it's all broken promises. When it comes to productivity, they've decided to give up on it. They've dropped their productivity forecast because they say, 'You know what? That's not something we're going to deliver.' And when it comes to real wages—
An opposition member interjecting—
Mr TAYLOR: I hear the member behind me talking about real wages. Well, the reality of real wages is that the Treasurer has decided that in this term of the parliament, on his forecasts—not ours—there will be no material gains in real wages. So they've given up on their promise on electricity prices, they've given up on their promise on productivity, and they've given up on their promise of real wages. And we know what they're giving up on next, and that is tax cuts. The one thing Labor really hates most of all is to give Australians a tax break—to reduce taxes on small businesses in Australia and on the hardworking Australians who want to get on and have a crack out there, who want to have a go in their small businesses and in their careers. We want to see them succeed. We want lower taxes. We want better managed costs of living. We want a plan from those opposite.
Dr LEIGH (Fenner—Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) (15:21): It is a true pleasure to rise on this matter of public importance. If you need any evidence of the 'agility' of those opposite, consider what happened at noon today. At noon today, the education minister was at this dispatch box announcing the government's Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Cheaper Child Care) Bill. That bill would cut childcare costs for more than a million families. We've seen childcare costs go up 41 per cent in the last eight years. For a family on $80,000 with a child in care three days a week, the government support would be $14,000 a year as a result of the bill announced today. And what was the shadow treasurer doing at the very same time? He was tabling a matter of public importance claiming that the government didn't have a plan for cost of living. As you might say—or as he said himself—'Fantastic. Great move. Well done Angus.'
We on this side of the House are always happy to have a debate on cost of living. Under the coalition, we saw wages stagnate as a deliberate design feature of their economic architecture. Under us, the very first decision of the Albanese cabinet was to support a Fair Work decision giving a 5.2 per cent pay rise to minimum wage workers. We've also backed in a pay rise for aged-care workers and made clear the government would pay our fair share. Under them, we had scare campaigns about electric vehicles and claims that electric vehicles would end the weekend. Under us, we're cutting the tax rate on electric vehicles. You'd think that side of parliament would like a tax cut for electric vehicles—but no. They're voting against it, despite the fact that for every 10 kilometres you drive an electric vehicle you save a dollar, compared with driving a petrol vehicle. Under them, we had a renewables strike. Under us, we've just seen the climate change minister sign a key agreement with John Kerry which will unlock up to $2.9 billion of new renewables investment.
Under the coalition, we saw the economy stagnate. We saw the start-up rate go down. We saw the rate of people starting new jobs go down. We saw market concentration go up. We saw mark-ups go up. Under us, we're taking those issues of economic dynamism and competition seriously. I'm going to be introducing a bill in this place tomorrow that, if passed, will raise the penalties on firms that engage in anticompetitive conduct and ban unfair contract terms—the sorts of contract terms that currently let large businesses get away with clauses about things like unilateral termination or unilateral price increases. We on this side of the House stand on the side of small businesses and consumers.
Under them, we've seen homeownership fall to its lowest level in two generations and we've seen regional Australians taking more than a decade to save for a deposit. Under us, we've announced the Housing Australia Future Fund and the Help to Buy program, which are going to ensure that young Australians are able to achieve the dream of a home of their own. Under them, we've seen paid pandemic leave due to expire. Under us, we've extended it. We've increased the pensioner work bonus from $7,800 to $11,800. We're fast-tracking fee-free TAFE places. We're tackling the rorts and waste, including that $20 billion of JobKeeper that went to firms with rising revenues and tripled the debt under the Liberals.
We recognise that it's critical for government to do its part in ensuring that we tackle that cost-of-living crisis. That's just the beginning of what our government is doing to help Australians deal with the cost-of-living challenges. Under them, we saw the notion of conflict and division become a deliberate feature of the way in which they ran the economy. Then, under us, we had the Jobs and Skills Summit, which brought together business, unions and the social sector and saw historic agreements, such as the one between the ACTU and the BCA and the one between the ACTU and COSBOA.
We are acting on multinational tax dodging. One of the key aspects of this budget is going to be a crackdown on the use of debt deductions by multinational firms to reduce their revenues. To give those present a specific example of how debt deductions might be a problem, let me take the House to the company called Eastern Australia Agriculture, co-founded by the shadow Treasurer, which made millions of dollars in water licences. In 2018, Eastern Australia Agriculture paid its Cayman Islands registered subsidiary, Eastern Australia Irrigation, some $14 million in interest. Why do you pay an interest bill to an overseas subsidiary in the Cayman Islands? So you can reduce your tax bill here by profit shifting to the Cayman Islands. The interest rate paid on that debt was, apparently, some 20 per cent. That's the sort of boondoggle that we're going to be looking to crack down on with our crackdown on debt deductions, ensuring that firms like Eastern Australia Agriculture can't minimise their tax bill at the expense of regular Australian taxpayers.
In this government, our measures are focused on tackling the supply side as we look to bring down inflation. That means working in concert with the Reserve Bank, which is focused on the demand side of the economy. We've got monetary policy and fiscal policy working in concert to bring down inflation.
We've had an historic event today. We've had NASA crashing a spacecraft into an asteroid which didn't pose any threat to earth, just to show how it could be done. You've got to think to yourself that NASA has really drawn inspiration from the opposition in this measure. This is the very same opposition that said that the Jobs and Skills Summit should be cancelled and then that they really needed an invitation. And then, when they got the invitation, they decided that it was washing-the-hair day, so they wouldn't be able to go along. I give credit to the Leader of the Nationals, who showed up and made a constructive contribution, unlike the Leader of the Opposition or the shadow Treasurer.
Next month we're going to have the Leader of the Opposition delivering a budget reply—which is somewhat at odds with Senator Hume's suggestion that oppositions don't have policies—and we've got the shadow Treasurer giving an economic speech which has all the credibility of his forged claim that Clover Moore spent $16 million on travel. Those dodgy documents had more credibility than the economic ideas that the shadow Treasurer is bringing forward. We may be introducing legislation to make child care cheaper, but we didn't sign up to babysit the shadow Treasurer. The very fact is this is a bloke who is fundamentally unserious about economic policy. He doesn't have ideas to ensure that Australia moves to a high-wage, high-productivity economy. For those opposite, the idea of low wages is baked into their DNA. They're like the short-sighted business that would like to have high-paid consumers and low-paid workers. Instead, we recognise, as did so many of the far-sighted business leaders at the Jobs Summit, that businesses benefit when workers have wages to buy those products. Those opposite do a great line in bellowing but have no substantive ideas for strengthening the Australian economy.
We on this side of the House understand that the drivers of productivity include investing in education, which is why the education minister is so committed to ensuring that our schools attract and retain great teachers, and that we have more opportunities for apprenticeships and TAFE places through those hundreds of thousands of fee-free TAFE places. We're expanding the number of places at university because we understand that a knowledge economy requires workers to skill-up to meet the demands of the future. We're investing in infrastructure based on cost-benefit analysis, not political calculus, as seen in so much of the so-called investment under those opposite—the sports rorts, the car park rorts, and the wasted resources that should have been going into improving the productive capacity of the economy, rather than trying to pad the margins in Liberal Party seats.
We on this side of the House understand the core role that competition policy plays in driving a more dynamic economy. And we will have more to say about the important role of competition policy in spurring growth and reform in the future. We just invite the opposition to be part of that important conversation, rather than shouting from the sidelines.
Mr HOGAN (Page—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (15:31): Well, that's 10 minutes none of us will get back. What the government needs to learn is it's not in opposition anymore. The minister just spent four minutes making cheap shots at the shadow Treasurer. What the government now has to learn to do is to have a plan about what they're doing, not just be critical like they obviously were in opposition. They need to work out they're now in government.
This is an exceptionally important MPI we're talking about today, in the sense of the cost of living. Household budgets we know are under pressure. Small-business budgets are under pressure. What they are looking for from the new government is not just critical analysis of the now opposition; they're looking for what is the plan of the new government with cost-of-living pressures? These are real pressures. We have inflation rates going up and we have interest rates going up. We know that the new government say it's going to be the bread-and-butter budget—well, it's certainly not the petrol budget, because we know petrol prices will go up 20 cents a litre on Thursday or a few days after that as people refuel their bowsers. That's certainly going to be a hit again to household budgets.
I'll come back to some of the things I think the new government would want to do, but I want to concentrate for a moment on what the now government said in opposition—and not just in opposition, but while they were in government—about what they were going to do with energy prices. I quote the now prime minister, who said on 29 April, 'I maintain that Labor can bring power prices down $275 per year by 2025.' The now Treasurer, Dr Chalmers, on 25 May—which was after the election—on 2GB Breakfast with Ben Fordham vowed that the Albanese government had a climate and energy plan to produce cheaper renewable energy available to all Australian households. He said, 'What we've said in the economic modelling of our policy is $275 a year by 2025.' The senior minister Tony Burke, in a newspaper article on 19 June—again, after the budget—insisted Labor's promise to reduce household energy bills by $275 a year over five years was still intact. The Minister for the Environment and Water, Tanya Plibersek, said on Sky News: 'We've got plans to bring down the cost of electricity $275 a year cheaper, and these are the sorts of differences we can make to everyday lives if Labor's elected.' Katy Gallagher, now Minister for Finance, said in the Canberra Times on 18 May, two days before the election: 'There's a once-in-a-century opportunity to reinvent our economy, build a better future, end the climate wars, and cut power bills by'—I think you'll be able to guess—'$275 over five years.' The Minister for Defence, as part of Labor policy, said that 'Labor anticipates power bills will be $275 cheaper by 2025'. Mr Marles went on to talk of 'rigorous modelling' and to say that it was some of the most extensive modelling that any opposition had ever done. Senator Penny Wong is quoted as saying: 'Labor's Powering Australia plan will cut power bills, reduce emissions', 'bring renewable energy to Australian homes' and 'save families $275 a year'. But then, what happened on 28 July? An article in the Daily Mail states: 'Labor has dumped its election promise to reduce power bills by $275 a year by 2025—after just six weeks in power.' The article states that Minister Bowen, asked if he still stands by Labor's $275 figure, didn't really say yes or no; he said: 'Of course figures will move around.' So there is the hoax of those opposite. One of the major policies they took to the Australian public in the last election was to lower power bills by $275 by 2025. And, Deputy Speaker Claydon, you know this: they will not commit to that now that they are in government, and have never done that in this chamber since.
Let's go to other solutions. The shadow treasurer also said one of the big things that you can do for cost of living is as to supply-chain blockages. We know that in every industry around this country right now there's a shortage of labour. We gave a great suggestion to the new government: to double what pensioners could earn before they started to lose their pension. The government picked up a little bit of that, but not all of it. Again, the ag visa is very important, and we had great plans to extend that visa to get more workers, to make sure our fruit and vegetables got picked and didn't rot into the ground. Again, good—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): The member for Pearce.
Ms ROBERTS (Pearce) (15:36): I'm actually a reasonable person. I listen, I care and I'm considerate. However, whether I have five seconds, five minutes or five hours, I am on my feet as I'm incensed by the sarcasm, the comments and the attitude of those commenting, who are seemingly rather forgetful about the last decade and the situation that they have put our country in. So I am on my feet to speak about that, and if I can read my notes—because I have just scribbled in absolute haste—it will be a miracle! However, I'm catapulted to my feet because I have got something to say, and I've got to say this on behalf of my community. My first speech stated:
I thank the community who supported me and who clearly articulated that the Albanese government's plan for our future is the reason we are in government. Without a voice, the community cannot be heard, and I'm grateful for the opportunity that they have granted me to be their voice and partner in Canberra … to support strategic economic growth, fiscal responsibility and integrity—
something those opposite don't seem to be able to do.
We've got three words—three simple words: cost of living. However, the impact of these words on families around Australia is absolutely significant. We, on this side, clearly understand that the rising cost of living is hurting many Australians. While this is a result of global factors, we cannot ignore the price that we are paying for a wasted decade by the previous government, despite what they are saying on the other side. Australians understand that we did not create these cost-of-living challenges. And clearly, Australians have elected us to take responsibility to address them, and we are doing so. We have hit the ground running. Our economic plan is carefully considered and is a direct and deliberate response to the challenges facing the economy.
One of the very first acts of the Albanese government was to successfully argue for the minimum wage to keep pace with inflation, an outcome that will help many Australians. Significant work and attention to detail in relation to the October budget will be focused on responsible and carefully considered cost-of-living relief. This includes our cheaper childcare bill, that was introduced into parliament today, which will result in us being one step closer to a more affordable early childhood education for more Australian families, enabling more people to increase their hours of paid work.
I recently visited the West Coast TAFE in my electorate of Pearce. Vocational education and training has been the foundation of Australia's strong and vibrant economy, and the Albanese Labor government understands the importance of investing in the skills sector. It's why we are fast-tracking and investing in fee-free TAFE places. I saw kids from those pre-university or pre-TAFE places going to have a look at the TAFE to see if they wanted to be a brickie, a tiler, a carpenter, a plasterer or a sparkie. They are given the opportunity, and they are embracing that.
In addition, our pensions, allowances and rent assistance have been increased in line with inflation. I know that our budget to cut the cost of medicines will help many members in our local communities. We are bringing in a new pensioner work bonus so that older Australians can keep more of what they earn without affecting their pension, providing them with an opportunity to decide whether they wish to participate in paid work.
Many within the electorate of Pearce live in the outer metropolitan growth areas. Some of them have to travel long distances to work. With this comes choices like whether they enrol their kids in sport, whether they entertain, whether they go on holidays, whether they put food on the table and whether they pay their bills. I understand their challenges. That's why I'm in this place making these decisions to help them.
The Albanese Labor government understands these challenges. We are making carefully informed decisions in order to help them. We are committed to looking after the welfare and wellbeing of those within our community. I implore those opposite to listen to and take heed of what we are doing to try and support our communities based on the disgraceful situation that we inherited, with $1 trillion worth of debt.
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (15:41): Maybe the new member should talk to the member for McEwen, in front of her, and the members for Blair, Caldwell and Makin, who racked up $250 billion in debt during the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years. We can't blame these new guys; they're all innocent. But you four racked up a quarter of it and then you come in here and say there's $1 trillion in debt—and don't forget the member for Fenner. All they do is tax and spend.
The reality is that the Australian people know that there is a cost-of-living crisis and that, due to this Labor government's lack of planning, the government has no plan to deal with it. There is no plan; it's all a thought bubble. Interest rates are up; rents are up; more people are homeless; mortgage repayments are up; electricity bills are through the roof; petrol is up; diesel is up; and the price of food is increasing quickly under the Albanese Labor government.
Earlier this year we had a federal election, and Labor won, and there are a few newbies that came in. On 8 May, some of them might have posted, as many Labor members did, that the cost of living was up and interest rates were up and what that would mean is that by Christmas—on their little Labor tiles that they put on their social media—mortgage repayments would be $400 a month higher. Well, post-election, we had an interest rate rise on 7 June, up 50 basis points; on 5 July, up another 50 basis points; on 2 August, up another 50 basis points; and on 6 September, up another 50 basis points. So, if you had a $500,000 loan at two per cent, you're up $833 a month since the Albanese Labor government was elected. Before the election, they were saying that mortgage repayments would be up $400 a month for the rest of the year. Since the election, since Labor was elected—for those in the gallery—they are up $833 a month. For those in the gallery, if you got a home loan of $600,000 at two per cent, that'd be an extra $1,000 a month under the Albanese Labor government, or $12,000 a year. Or you might live in a southern state and you've got a higher mortgage. A $900,000 mortgage at two per cent is up $1,500 a month or $18,000 a year since the Albanese Labor government and all of these new members were elected.
Whilst this is happening, by the way, we had the extreme Greens coming in here wanting Labor to abandon their election commitment on income tax cuts—and well done to Labor for not giving in to them. We know that lower income taxes encourage people to work harder and to do overtime, encourage less tax evasion and eliminate bracket creep. But the Greens come in here and want Labor to abandon their election commitment, they want the Liberals to abandon their election commitment and they want the ETU, who promised stage 3 tax cuts, to abandon their election commitment—while, at the same time, the Greens are too obsessed with everything else that's happening.
The reality is that this cost-of-living crisis under the Albanese Labor government is continuing to build. We have fuel prices which are going up this week. The member for Fenner says, 'Well, Labor was able to keep the pandemic leave payments.' They were able to reverse that, but, when it comes to the fuel excise, oh no, it's all going up. This week will see a fuel price increase across the country. Whether you're buying diesel or unleaded, it'll continue to go up. What that will mean is an extra $13.20 per tank on a 60-litre tank or $686 a year for those people on JobSeeker who can least afford it. We've seen homelessness go up. We've seen rents go up through the roof. And what do those opposite do? 'Oh, no, it's all fine. We're doing something about child care.' Forget fuel, forget rent, forget electricity.
And, talking about electricity, they promised 100 times pre-election—100 times the Prime Minister got up and said, 'We're going to lower your bills by $275 a week.' Yet the Minister for Small Business in question time today—
Mr Rob Mitchell: No, no. That's a lie.
Mr HOWARTH: It was $275 a year; sorry. I'll take that interjection. Yet the Minister for Small Business comes into question time today and says: 'Yes, small and medium enterprise businesses are doing it tough. We accept that. They are facing challenges, and their bills are going up.' I'm sure everyone in the gallery, if they look at their electricity bills over the last few months, sees that they are going up. If you live in a state like mine, where you've got a Labor state government and a Labor federal government, it's only going to get worse.
Mr BURNS (Macnamara) (15:46): You can imagine there would have been a few conversations this morning with the members opposite and their diary managers, saying: 'Look, what are we going to be doing at around quarter to four?' 'I've got the MPI on.' 'Who's doing the MPI?' 'The Shadow Treasurer.' 'Organise something else! I'm not going in to support the member for Hume's MPI.' Look at the support that the member for Hume has got for his MPI. They are lining up to come into the House! Poor old Angus—they are lining up to support the member for Hume's MPI—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): I remind the member for Macnamara.
Mr BURNS: I'll refer to him by his correct title. The member for Hume comes in talking about the cost of living. I'm very pleased to rise on this opportunity to talk about the economic management of the previous 10 years. These people set the gold standard of economic management. They were the best—the best of the best. They did things like the Regional Growth Fund building a pool underneath the Sydney Harbour Bridge. Nothing screams regional development more than doing a few laps outside the Opera House! Watching the P&O cruise just go by in the Harbour! This is regional Australia at its best, isn't it? The Ruby Princess just sailing by, and you think, 'This is regional Australia at its absolute best!'
No, the member for Hume obviously was the Minister for Energy—the famous Minister for Energy—in his previous capacity. He comes into this place talking about cost of living, and we on this side of the House know that the cheapest form of energy is renewable energy. The CSIRO and the AEMO have said consistently that the cheapest form of energy is renewable energy backed up by some form of dispatchable energy, and yet what is the answer from the member for Hume and all of the geniuses on that side of the House post the election to try to answer the question of the cheapest form of energy in Australia? It is not the cheapest form of energy but the most expensive form of energy. Radioactive Man—that's what they want. They want the most expensive form of energy in this House.
For the millions of Australians watching this MPI at home, supporting the member for Hume unlike his colleagues over there: thank you, thank you. His colleagues weren't interested in watching, but I'm sure there are millions of Australians watching this! The member for Hume doesn't want your power bills to double. He doesn't want you to triple them. He wants them to go up by four or five times, because those would be the repercussions if the member for Hume had his way and built a nuclear power plant or a couple of nuclear power plants in this country.
As we came into government, one of the first things that we did on this side of the House, and one of the proudest things that we do as members of a Labor government, was everything we could to lift the wages of those in our country, especially those on the minimum wage—unlike those opposite. We all remember the former finance minister, who said that low wages are a deliberate design feature of their economic management. Well, that changed at the election. Under this government, one of the first things we did was make a submission to the Fair Work Commission to lift the wages of those on the minimum wage, and that is exactly what happened. There was also a submission made to lift the wages of our aged-care workers, some of the hardest-working Australians, who went to work during the pandemic and literally put their lives on the line to support our senior Australians.
Today, of all days, when we introduced a historic bill to make child care and early childhood more affordable for Australians, the member for Hume comes in and tries to lecture us about the cost of living. Well, let's see if those opposite support the measures to make child care more affordable. They like to rattle on about tax cuts in this country, yet they cannot bring themselves to support the one bill that's being considered in the parliament right now that's going to lower taxes for electric vehicles. They're all for tax cuts, apparently.
Mr Pearce: It's upper-class welfare.
Mr BURNS: I hear the interjections. I'll tell you, what would be more convincing than some interjections is if you actually voted for the bill, mate, and were willing to reduce taxes on electric vehicles.
We on this side of the House are going to implement things like free TAFE. We're going to make medicine cheaper. We're going to bring down the cost of child care. We're going to invest in renewable energy—not the most expensive form of energy but the cheapest form of energy. While those opposite are building regional pools underneath the Sydney Harbour Bridge, we're going to get on and address the cost of living for Australians.
Ms WARE (Hughes) (15:51): I rise on this matter of public importance, the cost-of-living crisis and this government's lack of a plan to deal with it. The rapidly accelerating cost of living is something that Australians are really struggling with. Interest rates are going up, the price of food and groceries is skyrocketing and the reduction to the fuel excise is set to expire in only 48 hours. We have seen five interest rate increases over the past five months. Morgan Stanley is currently forecasting interest rates to reach as high as 3.6 per cent by only February of next year. Even for now, the current cash rate of 2.35 per cent is the highest official interest rate since 2014, with the rate of increase the highest since 1994.
Successive interest rate rises and uncontrolled inflation are crushing the quality of life for the 3.5 million Australians with a mortgage. With the current median house price in my electorate of Hughes sitting at around $1.5 million, the latest census data shows that 15 per cent of these mortgagors have mortgage repayments comprising more than 30 per cent of their household income. This constitutes significant mortgage stress. However, this government has not brought forward any plan to address cost-of-living pressures on families or on small businesses. With these increasing pressures on Australian households, the government must rule out tax cuts and must commit to the tax cuts previously provided by the coalition government in its upcoming budget.
I've been visiting local businesses across the electorate of Hughes since being elected. These business owners are crying out for action from this government. There is no plan from this government to address supply chain issues. There is no plan from this government to bring down power prices. And there is no plan from this government to increase consumer confidence and encourage local spending. I call upon this government to act decisively. As cash rate increases are progressively passed on to homeowners by the banks, those with variable home loans will be feeling the crunch, particularly as we're coming into Christmas. When Australians are doing their Christmas grocery shopping this year, and when they're buying gifts for their loved ones, they are going to feel real financial pain. When Australians are buying and paying for their holidays over the Christmas break this year, they'll be feeling real financial pain. This is real financial pain that this government, if it had a plan, could address for these Australians. We have heard the Treasurer of this government calling his October budget a bread-and-butter budget. We know that Labor's bread and butter is big spending and big taxing.
The Treasurer and this government only have plans to spend more, and the only way to do this is to tax hardworking Australians who are battling the rising cost of living. So far, the government has refused to rule out bringing back changes to franking credits and changes to negative gearing. In 2019, we saw Australians emphatically reject Labor's past attempts to make changes to franking credits and negative gearing, yet this is still not being ruled out by this current government. Any Labor plan to scrap full tax refunds will cause misery and suffering to low-income earners and modest retirees, who have worked, saved and invested under a fair system that should be respected and safeguarded.
The previous coalition government created 1.9 million new jobs, with over 1.1 million of these jobs filled by women. The unemployment rate under the coalition government was at 3.9 per cent, the lowest in decades. The number of trade apprentices in training had risen to 220,000, the highest level since records began in 1963. From 1 July this year, low- and middle-income earners began receiving the coalition's tax offset. Personal income tax cuts were legislated by the coalition government, meaning that around 95 per cent of Australians will pay a marginal rate of no more than 30c in the dollar in two years time. The previous coalition government also reduced the company tax rate to only 25 per cent.
To conclude, I call upon this government to release its plan to reduce cost-of-living pressures.
Mr LAXALE (Bennelong) (15:56): This is my first opportunity to contribute to debate in this parliament. I've been sitting here diligently and patiently, watching those opposite raise issues at these very important matters of public importance which are important to the nation. And, when I saw today's subject, I couldn't help—like the member for Pearce—getting up to have my say.
The member for Petrie mentioned the election. It was only a few months ago, but there seems to be a collective amnesia from those opposite about what happened prior to that election, because cost of living was something that was an issue in Pearce prior to the election; cost of living was an issue in the Hunter prior to the election. This is a discussion that this country has been having for months and years. I love elections. I'm one of those MPs that loves getting out there, having a chat to local constituents, and people have been talking about cost of living for a long time. At the election, the electors in Bennelong and Hunter and Lingiari and Pearce and Reid made a choice to elect a government that had a plan to deal with it, because those opposite, for the last decade, have done nothing about cost of living. They left us with a trillion dollars worth of debt. They left us with high and rising inflation. They left us with rising interest rates and deliberate wage suppression.
Remember when the now Prime Minister came out and said, 'We want to back a wage rise for minimum workers'? Remember the reaction of those opposite? One dollar, and they said the economy would fall to pieces. The cost-of-living crisis is a consequence of years of mismanagement by our predecessors. I'm here today on this side of the House because this government was elected because we have a plan to deal with cost-of-living pressures. We've got a plan to deal with it. And I'd like to focus on two things. A lot of members on this side today have spoken about the long list of things—as long as my arm, and I've got long arms—but I'd like to focus on two that those opposite know we've done.
We've committed to reducing the cost of medicines. It's the first time in 75 years that a government will reduce the cost of medicine. We'll be debating this legislation very soon. I can't imagine those opposite opposing it, but—news flash—this is a cost-of-living measure. We're reducing the cost of living. We're going to reduce the cost of medicines by 30 per cent, from $42.50 down to $30.
I went and visited one of the local pharmacists. They were telling me that people now go to the counter with multiple scripts and ask the pharmacist, 'Which medicine can I afford to miss out on this week?' Reducing the cost of medicines will mean that they can get the scripts they need and all those medicines to help them with their health. Someone taking one medicine a month will save $150 every year. A family with two or three medications will save $300 to $450 a year. That's money back in people's pockets, reducing the cost of living.
Those opposite dare to come in here and say that this government doesn't have a plan to deal with the cost of living. I find that extraordinary. I would encourage those opposite who are here now to listen to this next point. Maybe get on your WhatsApp channel and type some of these figures in. We introduced legislation today to reduce the cost of child care. This is life changing and will make an absolutely huge difference to family budgets. Ten thousand families in my seat of Bennelong will have cheaper child care because of the legislation introduced today by this government—a cost-of-living measure that those opposite claim we're ignoring, that we don't have a plan to deal with the cost of living.
Here we go. Read this. Type this out. This legislation is life changing. A family earning $120,000 with one child in centre based day care for three days a week will be more than $1,700 a year better off. How is that no plan? I'll sum it up for those opposite. You might want to take a note and pass it on to the shadow Treasurer. We've successfully argued for a minimum wage rise. We've extended the pandemic leave payment. We've introduced legislation that will drive down power prices. We're fast tracking fee-free TAFE. We've got cheaper child care. And we've got cheaper medicines. For those opposite to say we don't have a plan is just extraordinary. Thank you for this opportunity.
Honourable members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): I will call for a little bit of order. The member deserves to be heard.
Ms McKENZIE (Flinders) (16:01): Thank you. Australians are struggling with cost-of-living pressures. Australians can rightfully feel duped by this government. My constituents in Flinders are, rightfully, feeling misled. They were promised the world, in terms of cost-of-living redress, and they have received none. I think you call this, in the common vernacular, 'bait and switch'. They thought they'd bought one thing and they've got something quite different in return.
This month we saw the fifth consecutive cash rate increase from the Reserve Bank. At 2.35 per cent, this is Australia's highest official interest rate since mid-2010. The rate is rising at the fastest pace since 1994, almost three decades ago. For an Australian household with an average new mortgage of around $600,000, that will mean monthly repayments that have increased, over those five interest rate increases, by about $760 a month. These people want to know that there is a plan that makes sense for them and supports the challenges they're facing in their everyday living and meeting their everyday costs, but we have not yet seen any of that from this Albanese government.
Earlier this year the price of oil skyrocketed to almost US$120 a barrel, with prices at the pump reaching stratospheric levels. The coalition government took action and halved the fuel excise to 22.1 cents a litre back in March. This was a sensible solution to inflationary pressures, the war in Ukraine and supply chain issues caused by the COVID pandemic. Despite the fact that the price of oil has dropped to less than US$80 per barrel, prices remain high and it is hitting Australian families and businesses hard.
Just last week, in the southern Mornington Peninsula, we saw prices of fuel by a litre go up from about $1.50 to about $1.95 yet again, and tomorrow night we will see the excise reimposed, and it will get much harder for families to meet the weekly fuel bill. The Treasurer's words have been, 'We're under no illusions. This will be difficult for people. It's a difficult decision for us to take as well.' But this brings very little comfort to those who are trying to work out how they're going to pay their weekly fuel bill.
Some may say there is a solution: take public transport, take the bus, take the train. That is not an option for my constituents in Flinders. Every single workday, roughly 50,000 people get in their car to go to work. Even more get in their car to go to the school drop, visit friends or family or head out and do their local shopping. Even though the Mornington Peninsula is technically metropolitan Melbourne, 82 per cent of our landmass has absolutely no access to public transport whatsoever, meaning the car is the only way to get things done. My constituents don't really have a choice. They need to get to work, to school, to the shops; and the car is how we do it.
Alongside fuel prices, we are seeing wholesale energy prices go up, causing additional stress in the average household. We all remember those opposite saying to anyone who would listen through the campaign that they were going to reduce their power bills. In fact the Prime Minister promised to cut the power bills by $275. I have heard from someone today: '$275! I am waiting for my cut too!' Maybe he said it 97 times. Someone else said it today that he said it 100 times. Was it 97, 98, 99 or 100? Whatever it is, I haven't seen it. They now say, 'We meant that over the long term.' I heard an interjection earlier saying 'by 2025'. It is little solace to the parents opening their power bills when they get home at night, the pensioners who thought they had saved enough for a comfortable retirement, now wondering what they will have to go on and what they will have to do to keep the lights on.
What Australians need from this new government is a clear and comprehensive plan to deal with the cost of living. We do not need more bland commentary from the Treasurer or the new Prime Minister. We need to see some real action. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will be keeping a close eye on this. Indeed, that is their role. A letter from the Treasurer reminding them of this is not government policy and should not be treated as such.
The Treasurer says he will be handing down a bread-and-butter budget. We all know what Labor's real bread and butter looks like: big spending and higher taxes. These issues will continue to flow through to each household budget over some time. This country cannot afford for Labor to make this worse. Australians need to see a clear, comprehensive and whole-of-economy plan from the government to deal with inflation, rising interest rates and cost-of-living pressures. We cannot afford for Labor to be asleep at the wheel or dig deeper into Australian savings.
Ms MASCARENHAS (Swan) (16:07): I think it is a bit odd that the opposition would like to talk about a lack of policy to deal with the rising cost of living. Just two days ago the shadow minister for finance, Senator Hume, on ABC breakfast TV, explained the coalition doesn't have policies. The pandemic was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to stop and imagine a better future for Australia and to step up and implement policies to increase the resilience of the nation and prepare for an uncertain future. The previous government had 30 attempts to create a coherent energy policy. The number of successful policies implemented: zero. That inaction has a cost. The so-called gas-led recovery was indeed an oxymoron. Over $2.7 billion was allocated towards the recovery, and how much was contractually committed? $0.8 billion. $1.9 billion was not formally committed. When the opposition claimed to have a plan for economic growth, what they actually had was an announcement. The lack of decent energy policy has meant that the national energy market was horribly exposed by energy price shocks caused by the war in Ukraine and the pandemic. It meant that those prices rose and were worn by businesses and households.
We have a plan to reduce people's power bills by increasing renewables in the grid by 82 per cent 2030. This will help insulate electricity prices again supply shocks. As the Minister for Climate Change and Energy said, while the sun shines and the wind blows it won't be sending us a separate invoice. Also, the sunshine and the wind don't care if there is a dictator on an unjustified power trip.
Today Labor has introduced a bill that is truly transformative: an early childhood education policy. In my electorate of Swan almost 7,000 families will be better off under our increases to the childcare subsidy. A family on a combined income of $120,000 with one child in early childhood education could be $1,700 better off under our policy. This will mean more money for families and a greater ability for lead parents, who are often women, to increase their time in the paid workforce. Where was the opposition's policy on women re-entering the work force?
I know that the coalition has had a woman problem in the past. I recall a previous prime minister, the former member for Warringah, remarking that it was the housewives of Australia who were doing the ironing. Maybe that is still the view held by those opposite and that's why we have had a lack of policies aimed at reducing the cost of early childhood education and at assisting women to increase their hours in the paid workforce. In case the coalition didn't get the memo, women want more, and this is why we see so many women on the crossbench.
To credit Senator Hume, the coalition had some policies—they had a deliberate policy of keeping wages low. The former finance minister, Senator Mathias Cormann, said that low wages are 'a deliberate design feature of our economic architecture'. In our first week, this government acted to raise the minimum wage—it rose by 5.2 per cent. After listening to the feedback at the Jobs and Skills Summit, we introduced the pensioner work bonus to ensure that older Australians can keep more of what they earn without it affecting their pension. Our government will also ensure that wage growth will be improved through productivity. We're fast-tracking fee-free places at TAFE to improve the skills of our workforce.
Central to our Jobs and Skills Summit is a plan to process our nation's productivity to benefit all. After nine years of a do-nothing government, three prime ministers and a prime minister with five secret ministries, productivity wasn't really a part of the agenda. They didn't know (a) how to be a productive government or (b) how to make our nation more productive. So, of course, under the last government, we saw a deep decline in productivity. We know that, when productivity rises, so should wages. The Labor government has a plan to address the cost-of-living pressures. I know this because every day I'm in this place and I'm seeing bills being introduced and passed that will make a real-world difference for millions of Australians and tens of thousands of people in the constituency of Swan.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): The discussion has now concluded.
MOTIONS
Taxation
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would allow the Member for Melbourne to give notice for a Bill for an Act which would have the effect of repealing the stage three tax cuts.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ) (16:12): In accordance with standing order 133, I shall now proceed to put the question on the motion to suspend standing orders moved by the honourable member for Melbourne on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with the standing order. No further debate is allowed.
The SPEAKER: The matter before the House is the motion moved by the member for Melbourne. The question is that the motion be disagreed to.
The House divided. [16:16]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond—Assistant Minister for Social Services and Assistant Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence) (16:20): I move:
That business intervening before order of the day No. 7, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S SPEECH
Address-In-Reply
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That the following Address in Reply to the speech of His Excellency the Governor-General be agreed to:
May it please Your Excellency:
We, the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia, in Parliament assembled, express our loyalty to the Sovereign, and thank Your Excellency for the speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament—
The SPEAKER (16:21): Before I call the honourable member for Hunter, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's first speech. I ask the House to extend to him the usual courtesies.
Mr REPACHOLI (Hunter) (16:21): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm extremely grateful to be standing here in this place to represent the people of the Hunter electorate. It is my privilege to stand on the land of the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people, the traditional owners of this place, and I pay my respects to their elders past, present and emerging. I also want to pay my respects to the traditional owners of the lands of the Hunter electorate, the Wonnarua, Awabakal and Darkinjung people, and I pay my respects to their elders past, present and emerging. Anikanyantin wantakalowa yarma—which is hello and welcome in the language of Wonnarua, Awabakal and Darkinjung people.
I'm not your average person. I am certainly not the average person you would expect to be in Canberra, in this place. I'm not the guy who came through the usual path to politics. I was born in Carlton, Victoria, and spent my early years growing up in Melton South in the newly formed seat of Hawke. My mother was a nurse and my father was a quarantine officer. I definitely feel that mum had the harder job. My older brother, Jason, and my younger brother, Stephen, and I had what you would call a normal upbringing. Our days were spent out with our mates on our bikes, outdoors. We had to be home when the streetlights came on. If we were late or did something wrong mum would get the wooden spoon out, and if we were really bad she would just tell us, 'Wait till your father gets home.'
When I was 26 I found out that I had an older half sister, Karen. I'm glad that you found us. It's been an absolute pleasure getting to know you and your family over the last 14 years.
Melton was where I found my love for shooting. I attended the Melton Pistol Club from as early as I can remember. Mum worked nights and weekends, so the old boy had no choice but to take me and my younger brother to the club. We were known as the gruesome twosome.
I attended Melton South Primary School and Wilson Park Secondary College, now called Storeton College. Let's be honest: I wasn't the greatest student and I couldn't wait to leave. After leaving school at 15 I started my apprenticeship as a fitter and turner at D&H Rodwell Tooling. I spent 10 years working for Don and Heather, learning my trade with a small team of dedicated workers. I'm still friends with many of them today, like Dennis, John, Chris, Steve and my older brother, Jason. It wasn't easy working with my older brother. I was a pretty lippy apprentice from what I can remember. I copped it from all the tradies. I probably deserved everything I got. It was a hard, old-school workplace that really taught me well. Thanks, Don and Heather, for taking a chance on me. It's odd that we have three tradies in the family, especially given the old boy, who doesn't even know which end of a screwdriver to use.
It's fair to say that there were plenty of people involved in shaping me into the person I am today: my first shooting coach, John Corral; my first sponsor, Darrell Bevious; most of the members of the Melton Pistol Club; Norm and Margaret Edwards; Allan and Julie Evans; Judy and Terry Kennedy; Uncle John and Aunty Anne Alisbury; my mates; and, of course, my mum and dad—I would not have achieved the milestones in my life without the sacrifices that you both made for me. Thank you.
I played many sports growing up, with the main focus being on basketball and shooting. Unfortunately, I was better at the sport that wasn't very appealing financially! Representing Australia on the world stage is an incredible honour, and I feel very privileged to have represented Australia since 1998. I've competed in world championships, world cups, Oceania championships and national championships. I've won over 50 national titles. I've represented Australia at five Olympics and four Commonwealth Games. I have three Commonwealth Games gold medals and three bronze medals—or, as my girls and I call them, the brown ones. Mr Speaker, can I tell you there was no better feeling than winning the gold medal at the 2018 Commonwealth Games in front of my wife, Alex; my daughters, Zoe and Asha; and a large group of my family and friends. Turning around to see the excitement on their faces is something that I will never forget.
I started work in the mining industry in 2009. I began working as a line borer, travelling around the state before landing a full-time position at Mount Thorley Warkworth. It was an opportunity to drive something I really could say was bigger than me! I spent seven years working at Mount Thorley Warkworth. I was a union delegate, a dispatch officer, a trainer and an operator. Being an operator is the best job in the pit. The biggest concern you have for a 12½-hour shift is what setting the aircon is on—one, two or three?
At the end of 2017, I was headhunted by Rusty Russell at Double R to manage a new engineering shop in Singleton. Our focus was working in the mining industry and trying to grow the business to around 15 people. Fast forward four years and we had grown the business to 70-plus employees working around the Hunter and beyond, specialising in tractors, ag equipment and parts sales as well as our core business in repairs and heavy engineering. I had some amazing times both professionally and personally whilst I was working at Double R, and I still feel it is by far the best team I've ever been part of. I know me ending up in this place wasn't in our 10-year plan, Rusty, but you know you have to take every opportunity that life throws at you. Thank you to Kate, Rusty and the Double R team. It was an amazing ride.
I've been lucky to travel the world doing the sport that I love, and that has given me some of the most amazing experiences of my life, but there is nothing better than coming home to the best country in the world—Australia—and especially my home in the Hunter Valley, the gateway to paradise. The Hunter is such a dynamic electorate, stretching from Wyee Point at the tip of western Lake Macquarie, Australia's largest coastal saltwater lake; working its way around the back of the Wollombi state forest all the way to Sandy Hollow, across to Muswellbrook and down to Cameron Park, Edgeworth and Glendale; and taking in major towns such as Morisset, Toronto, Cessnock and Singleton. The electorate is 10,640 square kilometres, and I currently have 128,759 bosses that reside in the Hunter electorate.
Some would argue that we have the best wine in Australia coming out of the Hunter. There certainly is no argument from me. We do have the best wines in Australia. In fact, we have the best wines in the world, from Australia's oldest and first vineyard—Wyndham Estate, planted in 1828—to some of the most iconic wine brands in Australia, like Tyrrell's, Scarborough Wine Co, Mount Pleasant Wines, Ernest Hill Wines and many others, and the new winemakers in industry who are really making their mark, like Usher Tinkler Wines, Mercer Wines and John Wallace Wines, just to name a few. Tourism is a massive part of the Hunter economy, from regattas and families holidaying around the beautiful Lake Macquarie to the world-famous golf courses, restaurants and boutique breweries scattered throughout the Hunter, to our world renowned horse studs in the Upper Hunter, home to champions like Winx, Home Affairs and So You Think.
The Hunter has been a powerhouse of the NSW energy and export market for well over a century, and we will continue to be for centuries to come. There is no doubt about that. At the moment, our traditional industries such as mining, energy, horse studs, farming and tourism are doing well. My position and Labor's position is clear: coal will continue to play a role for many years to come in powering the world. Whilst ever there is an export market for coal, the Hunter and its workforce will continue to fill that market. I am proud to be a former coalminer and I'm bloody proud of my electorate's mining history. And I'm proud to be mates with many people who work in the pits. We need jobs that are well paid and secure and aren't dominated by dodgy labour-hire arrangements. Put simply, whenever you work, if you're doing the same job as the person next to you, you should be paid the same—same job, same pay. It's simple. The difference between us on this side and those that play dress-ups on the other side is we back mining and we back our miners, and we say the same thing in my electorate as we do in my friend Michelle Anandah-Rajah's electorate of Higgins. As I stand here, the export market for coal is as strong as it's ever been. For as long as that continues, and it will continue for years to come, I will make sure Hunter remain at the forefront of supplying coal to the world. My message to every Hunter mining family and the whole of the Hunter electorate in a changing world is this: I will always be up-front with you, and I will always have your back.
The Hunter is about to go through one of the biggest booms in decades, not just in our booming traditional industries but with the next phase of powering our nation—through hydrogen, biomethane, battery storage, wind and solar farms, and a range of innovative new projects. Now that the Labor government have committed to a 43 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030, we have just firmed up a solid stance that will invite business and private investment into the Hunter with certainty. And I plan to use my big voice to make sure the Hunter gets its fair share. It's an exciting time for the Hunter electorate.
Deputy Speaker, I know that I didn't become the candidate for the seat of Hunter through the normal process. To the branch members around the Hunter: I'm sorry for the process that was undertaken. The seat was on a 2.9 per cent margin when we started the campaign, and we ended up with a 1.1 per cent swing to us. With three more years of hard work, we will make sure this margin is even bigger. I thank you all for the help and time that you all put into this campaign. I'm looking forward to working with you into the future. And I thank the branch members that have taken the time to be in the gallery today: thank you.
I've always had strong Labor values and have seen what great hope the Labor Party gives to Australians when we are in government. I believe that everybody should be entitled to the same healthcare services, whether you earn $5 or whether you earn $5 million. Now—I know this is something that those sitting opposite us certainly don't agree with—after nine long years of cuts to Medicare and health services, it's time for us to stand up for the everyday Australian again. This is what an Anthony Albanese led government gives to Australia—hope, after nearly a decade of cuts, neglect and aimless drift. We now have a government that cares not only for the everyday Australian but for every Australian. I want to thank the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, and all of the now ministers for all of the help in the Hunter campaign. It really made a difference. I particularly want to thank the Prime Minister for supporting a big unit like me from day one. This won't be forgotten. As I campaigned around the Hunter electorate, a common theme and discussion from blue-collar workers was that politicians are all dodgy, are on the take, are on the gravy train and are only in it for themselves. Despite repeated promises from those opposite us, we now have a government that will actually bring in a national anticorruption commission, an independent authority with some teeth, so once again the people of Australia can look at politicians with respect and pride, knowing that we are doing the very best for their communities and Australia.
For too long the original custodians of this land have been without a voice in our parliament. But now, with a Labor government, we are one step closer to changing this. I can't wait to be part of history when the Australian people own, support and enshrine the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full and give the oldest known civilisation in the world a voice to parliament. What a loud voice that will be. This is something that every Australian should be proud of.
I couldn't deliver this speech and not touch on my predecessor, the Hon. Joel Fitzgibbon. Where do I start? The previous member for Hunter has been etched in the history of this fine building. There is not much that Joel hasn't done in the Labor Party. Joel, thank you. Thank you for your tireless work that you have put into the Hunter over the last 26 years. Without you and your hard work, we would not have the Hunter Expressway, a vital piece of infrastructure that has opened the Hunter up to better tourism and business and helped families like mine and many others get home safely. The third rail line into the Newcastle port has enabled the Hunter to thrive and become the largest coal port in the world. This has created tens of thousands of jobs in the Hunter and surrounds. Without your vision for Hunter, we would not be where we are today. Thank you from not only myself but all the constituents of the Hunter electorate. There's been a Fitzgibbon representing the Hunter since 1984, so I certainly have massive shoes to fill. Lucky I have big feet! Thanks, mate; I'm proud to call you a friend.
Those on the other side of the chamber don't seem to or just don't want to understand how much blue-collar workers in Australia need the mighty trade union movement. From keeping our workplaces safe to ensuring that we're all getting a fair go, we have so much to thank unions for, and I want to thank Tony Maher, Grahame Kelly, Peter Jordan, Robin Williams, Shane Thompson and every member of the Mining and Energy Union for their constant support of me since 2012, when they helped me get to the London Olympics, and especially for all the support that they have given me throughout this campaign.
To the officials and members of the SDA Newcastle and Northern, MUA Newcastle, AMWU, Tony Callinan and the AWU, the USU, the IEU, the CPSU, the CFMEU and, of course, my mate Leigh Shears at Hunter Workers: thank you. I appreciate the work, the resources and the time that you all put into this successful campaign. I give a special shout-out to Mich-Elle Myers and Barbra Nebart for their constant support and friendship.
And what a campaign it was. I was lucky enough to be surrounded by literally hundreds of incredible workers and volunteers to keep me on the straight and narrow. I want to thank all the wonderful volunteers that I had throughout the campaign. Without the help from you all, I wouldn't be standing here right now giving my first speech. I especially want to thank George Simon and Josh Lloyd for the hard work that they both put in for me at the start of this process. Without the coaching and mentoring that you both provided me, I know I wouldn't be standing here today. I'm sure that you both thought at some stage, 'How did we get stuck with Dan?' To Bob Nanva, Oliver Plunket, Alex Costello, Don Offner, and Liam Rankin, from the head office: thank you. Your guidance and wise counsel helped me win this seat.
To Chris Northam, my constant companion during the campaign: what a ride it was, buddy—six months of early starts in Upper Hunter, late night visits to coalmines and, of course, our daily visits to the fine eating establishments around the Hunter Valley. I could haven't done this without you, mate, and I thank you from the bottom of my heart. Your dedication and support to help me win this seat will never be forgotten. I couldn't have done this without you, mate. Thank you, from the bottom of my heart. Your dedication and support to help me win this seat will never be forgotten. A special mention must go out to the rest of my amazing campaign team: James Connor, Mel Comber, Luka Harrison, Isobel Marshall, Chad Griffith, Mackenzie Robson, Phil Johnson, Zavier Minter and Summer Johns. Thank you.
Now, I want to thank my wife and daughters. Alex, you are the strongest, most loving and caring woman that I know, and I'm so proud and so lucky that you came into my life when you did. There is no doubt it's been a wild ride since we first met in early 2009, from you googling me when I told you I was an Olympian because you thought I was trying to pick you up to us building the life that we have today. You have put up with a lot, with me travelling around the world training and competing, working long hours, being away from home on a regular basis and now representing Hunter in Canberra. I bet you didn't see any of this in our future when we first met.
To my beautiful girls, Zoe and Asha: you are both amazing kids, and I cannot wait to see how you both continue to grow into the future. ZoZo, you are a great athlete already, and the world is at your feet. You will achieve anything in life that you want if you put your mind to it. Ashie, you're one of the most caring, lovable and interesting souls I've ever met. Please don't change this; it will take you a long way in life. As your mother and I already know, you both are very strong willed kids, and that will become even stronger into the future. I cannot wait to see the strong, independent women that you both will grow up to be.
Girls, I want you to have the same opportunities as anyone else in this country, and I promise that in this place I will fight every day to make sure we have a more equal and fair society to pass on to future generations. I'm sorry in advance for all the birthdays, dinners and important events that I will miss with this new role, but I promise that I will always make it up when I come back home. The three of you are the most amazing women, and I love you all.
Finally, I look forward to getting to know the members of this place from the Liberal Party and the National Party and the Independents, but what I really look forward to most is working with this amazingly diverse Australian Labor Party and delivering hope and certainty to the Australian public again. I stand here ready to work hard and ready to look after the hardworking people of the Hunter electorate. Thank you.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): Before I called the honourable member for Parramatta, I want to remind the House that this is the honourable member's first speech, and I ask the House to extend to them the usual courtesies.
Dr CHARLTON (Parramatta) (16:46): I acknowledge the First Nations people here today as well as the traditional owners of the land on which we meet. I thank our First Nations brothers and sisters for showing us that the pathway of truth, treaty and voice will lead to a more unified future for all Australians. And I acknowledge the presence of the so many people who have travelled to Canberra to be here today. Some of my oldest friends are in the gallery. Some of you have been looking out for me since I was three feet tall, and it means a lot to me that you are here today, up there in the gallery, still looking out for me.
High in my thoughts are all the members of the Parramatta Labor Party who are here in the gallery; my predecessor, Julie Owens, who gave nearly two decades of service to the Parramatta community and set a high standard that I aspire to emulate; and counsellors from Parramatta and Cumberland councils. Thank you for being here. Most important, I acknowledge all of the Parramatta branch members, volunteers and supporters. I am deeply grateful to you. You welcomed me. You door knocked. You street stalled and phone banked for me. I am here, standing in this chamber, because of you. And I assure you that I will work hard every day to repay your trust.
I want to point out my mother and father and parents-in-law; and my brother, Kim, and his family. Like any child, I don't know the half of what my parents did for us kids, but I always felt happy and secure around them. Kim and I could not have asked for a more supportive and loving family.
I also want to acknowledge my friends and former colleagues from AlphaBeta. I'm so proud of the business we build together, starting from humble beginnings with two employees in my attic and growing to more than 70 people across five offices. I learned so much about building teams and managing change along the journey with you.
Most importantly, I want to acknowledge my talented and beautiful wife, Phoebe. I always feel so lucky to be with you. We've shared a raft through life's rapid and had a lot of fun along the journey. With typical generosity, you encouraged me to take this leap into politics, and, while it's a great honour to be here to make a contribution to our nation, it's a great honour to be your husband. The most difficult thing about my new job is being away from you and our three gorgeous children, Angus, Ruth and Ingrid. I want you to know that I miss you so much when I'm away.
I also acknowledge my friends and colleagues in the Labor movement. I joined the Labor Party nearly 20 years ago. I joined the Labor Party because I was inspired by the core ideals of social justice, by the notion that we should be judged as a society by the way we treat our most vulnerable citizens and by the simple principle that every kid deserves the best chance. But I also joined because of the people I met in Labor, from the senior politicians to the union officials, to the staffers and the branch members young and old. I didn't agree with everything each one of them believed, but I knew that their beliefs came from a good place—a place of optimism and compassion, a place that I wanted to be.
And 20 years later, I'm still just as inspired by the ideals and the people in the Labor movement. Looking around this chamber, I recognise so many colleagues who spent the last decade of opposition building a vision for Australia's future that inspired not just me but the whole nation. As new members, we come to this place recognising the debt that we owe to experienced legislators and officials who've come before us, and knowing how much we have to learn from them.
Thank you in particular to the members for McMahon, Greenway, Watson, Blaxland, Rankin, Fraser, Sydney, Moreton, Fenner, Chifley, Hotham and Kingsford Smith for their advice and support. To these I add the state members for Rockdale, Granville, Auburn; the leader of New South Wales Labor, Chris Minns; Senator Tim Ayres; Lisa Lake; Kate Pounder; the awesome New South Wales ALP secretaries, Bob Nanva, Dom Ofner and George Simon. I also acknowledge the support I receive from unions, in particular Dan Walton, Mel Gatfield and David Dobson. I'm grateful to my campaign team: Liam Rankine, James Callow, Ange Humphries, Gail McDade, Lachlan Harris, Amit Singh, Damian Kassabgi, Rebecca Colbrook, Matt Connolly, Riz Chowdhury, Harish Velji and Aisha Amjad. To you and all the branch members and all the volunteers, I say a heartfelt thank you.
I also owe a great debt to former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd both for the opportunities he gave me and for inspiring me as I watched him use his intellect and energy to make Australia and the world a better place. Thank you to Bob Easton, former chairman of Accenture, for showing me that the most important quality of any leader is humility and empathy. And, finally, thank you to my new team: Launa, Eleanor, Maryam, Kai and Paul. It is an honour to work with such talented and committed people.
I come to this place as a proud representative of Parramatta. In case you hadn't noticed, Parramatta today is a city full of excitement. It's not just the success of the mighty Eels. Parramatta is blossoming as the geographic heart of Greater Sydney, and the gateway to the new Western Sydney powerhouse of growth. Parramatta is the most dynamic and fastest-growing CBD in Australia, with a million square metres of prime office space already laid down and a million more to be built in the next five years. Nine university campuses have flocked to Parramatta to take advantage of the extraordinary pool of talent across Western Sydney, and dozens of companies have moved to Parramatta to be part of its stellar growth. My message to businesses across our state is simple: if you are not in Parramatta, you are missing out on the future of Sydney.
Parramatta is also a place of culture and heritage. Its foundations were said 30,000 years ago by the Burramattagal clan of the Dharug people on land rich in meaning and resources, where the fresh water of the Darling Mills and Toongabbie creeks meets the salt water of the Parramatta River. After Sydney, Parramatta is the second oldest city in Australia. But, as any proud Parramatta resident will point out, much of what we commonly take to be the history of Sydney is in fact the history of Parramatta. Old Government House, James Ruse's Experiment Farm, John and Elizabeth Macarthur's merino sheep holding, the Female Factory, the Girls Home were all in Parramatta. Parramatta is the site of Australia's first permanent church building, the first brewery and the first licenced pub. Much of the rich history of Australia is in Parramatta waiting to be acknowledged, protected and celebrated.
The most remarkable feature of Parramatta is its people. The city has been built by successive waves of newcomers seeking a better life for themselves and their families, whether it's the strong Lebanese community around Harris Park, or the Greek community raising a new church on the banks of the Parramatta River, or the Chinese and Koreans who've moved to Carlingford, or the Indians and Sri Lankans in Wentworthville, Westmead and the jewel of business and culture that is Little India, or the Muslims, Afghanis, Hazaras and other communities now growing their presence. These communities are the true genius of Parramatta—a place that attracts people to come here for a better life for themselves and, in doing so, creates a better city for everyone. Parramatta is a great city, an aspirational city, and it's my intention to help its citizens make it a global city.
I've spent my life, as an economist and business owner, building stronger economies and stronger communities. And I'm standing in this chamber because I believe in the power of government to make a difference in people's lives. I've been fortunate to work as an economist around the world and witness how politics shapes the success and the failure of nations. In the United Kingdom, I worked at the London school of economics on ideas to drive productivity and growth. In New York, at the United Nations Development Programme, I studied the factors that keep millions of people around the world in desperate poverty. I worked with Joseph Stiglitz to show how fair trade agreements can build countries up but unfair deals can perpetuate inequality and stifle opportunity. And, after six years working in different countries, I thought more and more about Australia—how remarkable our national story is; how lucky we are. Australia isn't perfect, but our journey to become one of the most prosperous nations in the world, full of promise and opportunity, is an extraordinary achievement. Many countries have not been so successful. And Australia's success is not an accident. It's the product of good management, tough decisions and strong institutions.
And I'm proud of Labor's contribution to Australia's economic journey. Labor governments opened up Australia's economy in the eighties and nineties. We kept our country out of recession in the 2000s. And now the question we have to ask ourselves is: What is next for Australia? How do we keep the arc of Australian prosperity rising? How high can we aspire? The answer starts with acknowledging that, despite the remarkable success of the Australian project, there is much more to do and there are many people who've been left out of our national prosperity.
At the Rheem factory in Parramatta recently, I met Rebecca. Rebecca is a generous, warm-hearted person. She's been at Rheem for 20 years. She works hard. She's devoted to her family. She contributes to the community as the secretary of the local Baptist Church. She volunteers on the weekends to feed the homeless. I thought about all this woman has contributed to our country. She is everything any of us would want in a neighbour, a workmate or a friend. But, as a nation, we have to ask: are we supporting Rebecca as well as she is supporting us?
Over the last 10 years, Australia has lost sight of the fact that good economic policy is fundamentally about people. What is the point of a strong economy if most workers have zero wages growth for a decade? What is the point of near full employment if millions of people are in insecure work? What is the point of rising education levels if hundreds of thousands of migrants find themselves in jobs that don't even use their qualifications? What is the point of rising incomes if the gender pay gap is getting worse, not better?
When my dad worked at that same Rheem factory as a young engineer in the 1970s and eighties, Parramatta's manufacturing industry produced good local jobs—jobs that could give families security and opportunity. I'm in parliament today because I'm committed to making sure that the people who work hard for Australia are rewarded and the people who need caring for are not left behind. Every day of my working life to date has been about this, whether it was fighting against unfair trade deals, supporting unions in their wage cases before the Industrial Relations Commission or advocating for small businesses during the global financial crisis and the pandemic.
I'm also in parliament today because I believe that we have a job to do—to remake the Australian economy and set it up for another generation of prosperity. I believe that the next wave of prosperity requires us to harness the new technologies that are transforming our homes and workplaces. Most of us have smartphones in our pockets that contain more computing power than the Apollo spaceship that landed on the moon. Every day the world generates more new data than all the information in every Australian library combined.
These technologies create new opportunities for progressive governments. Imagine a progressive health system that uses new data to make an early diagnosis before a child gets chronically sick. Imagine a progressive school system that uses technology to track the students who might be struggling and give them a little extra help before they fall behind. If we harness the new technologies for good they might give us the tools to address social injustice before it ruins lives, before it creates insoluble inequities.
Just as the Hawke and Keating governments set Australia up for prosperity by managing our transition to the global economy in the 1980s and 1990s so we now have an opportunity to set up the next generation of prosperity by managing the transition to the digital economy. This work has already started. Under the economic leadership of my friend the Treasurer and his strong economic team this government is facing into our economic challenges and bringing Australians together to solve them. Under the leadership of the Minister for Industry and Science and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy this government is backing Australia's success in the industries of the future. Under the leadership of the Minister for Home Affairs, the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs and the Minister for Education this government is recognising the immense contribution that new migrants make to Australia and ensuring that they fully participate in our economy.
As this is the last first speech of the 47th Parliament I want to finish with some words to my fellow new members—the incoming class of 2022. It is an honour to be among you. You are individually so impressive, and collectively so representative. Your first speeches have been beautiful statements of vision and hope. I share your optimism for the possibilities of Australia's future. I share your determination to use every second of this opportunity to make a difference.
Like me, many of you grew up in the 1980s and 1990s. Our grandparents had lived through the horror of the Second World War and our parents had lived through the anxiety of the Cold War, but as we reached adulthood in the late 1990s the world seemed relatively peaceful. Democracy was on the march. Global poverty was in retreat. I remember at university our political science professors ventured to predict that we were experiencing what Francis Fukuyama called 'the end of history' in which every country would adopt democracy and freedom.
Our generation came of age in this sunlit optimism of the new century, but now, a few decades later, we arrive in politics at a darker moment. In many nations liberal democracy is in retreat. Autocrats, tyrants and despots are on the march. Putin, Erdogan, Bolsonaro and Trump—it's as if the shadows of the 20th century are coming back to haunt us once more.
Australia's democracy doesn't harbour such autocrats, but it is evident that faith in our democracy is down and belief in the power of politics is falling. Maybe, like me, you've experienced this firsthand—knocking on a constituent's door expecting to engage in another lively conversation about policies and ideas only to find the blank look of dissolution from an uninvolved young person or, very occasionally, to be shouted down by an angry conspiracy theorist. It's our overriding responsibility to fight against disillusionment and to build faith in government.
I want to thank the Prime Minister and all of my colleagues for what they have already done to restore faith in our politics—by putting forward an integrity commission, by ending the pork barrelling, by leading through unity rather than division, and by proving that, yes, our democracy is strong enough to tackle our biggest challenges, like climate change. This is the leadership that will build faith in our politics. These actions are the antidote to disillusionment and the bulwark against encroaching autocracy.
Finally, as the class of 22 our job is to take this forward. As John F Kennedy said to our parents' generation: 'In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger.' Our generation is one of them. We have to rise to the moment.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Buchholz ): I thank the honourable member for Parramatta for his contribution. A member's first speech in this House is a memorable occasion. I remind those members in the chamber that if you're leaving the chamber please do so.
Debate adjourned.
BILLS
Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 3) Bill 2022
Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment Bill 2022
Income Tax Amendment (Labour Mobility Program) Bill 2022
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr ROBERT (Fadden) (17:10): It's lovely to be here, and it was wonderful to hear the final first speech of the 47th Parliament. I congratulate the member for Paramatta for a fine speech. It's my son's 17th birthday. When I was walking down here just now, he called to say that he got his drivers licence. He just passed the test. So everyone's kicked a goal today. Well done, Caleb.
I rise to speak to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 3) Bill 2022. It's a collation of a number of miscellaneous Treasury measures, as TLABs are wont to be. Schedule 1 of the bill amends the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act to double the maximum penalties for contraventions of provisions that relate only to residential land. Foreign investment, as we know, plays a very important part and beneficial role in the Australian economy. However, it's necessary to regulate certain kinds of foreign investment to ensure the proposed investments are not contrary to Australia's national interest. The FATA provides that a foreign person must seek foreign investment approval before acquiring an interest in Australian residential land and imposes obligations on a foreign person who acquires an interest in residential land.
Residential land in Australia is where there is at least one dwelling on the land or the number of dwellings that could reasonably be built on the land is fewer than 10 and does not include land that is used wholly and exclusively for a primary production business or on which the only dwellings are commercial residential premises. When considering an application for a foreign person to acquire an interest in residential land, the overarching principle is that the proposed acquisition should add to Australia's housing stock. The FATA contains specific penalties for contraventions of these residential land provisions. The amendments double the maximum financial penalties in the FATA for contraventions of residential land provisions. The purpose of this increase to financial penalties is to ensure that these penalties effectively deter foreign persons from contravening the residential land provisions in the FATA.
Noncompliance with the provisions may have a significant impact on Australia's housing stock and housing affordability, and foreign persons can make a significant financial gain by obtaining an interest in land. Foreign investors that break the law absolutely should face the consequences of the law, and it's appropriate that the costs of administering our foreign investment scheme be borne by foreign investors. To the extent this measure boosts housing supply and supports Australians getting into a home, the coalition welcomes it.
The coalition, Mr Deputy Speaker Buchholz, as you and others in the House would know, has a very strong record in delivering more housing and more Australians into homes. We have a very strong track record of helping first home buyers into the market. Sixty thousand Australians purchased a home or reserved a place under the previous coalition government's Home Guarantee Scheme. To support even more Australians into homeownership, the coalition more than doubled the Home Guarantee Scheme to make available up to 50,000 places each year. As part of the 2022-23 budget, the coalition promised to: expand the First Home Guarantee by providing 35,000 places from 1 July, up from 10,000; expand the Family Home Guarantee, with 5,000 guarantees made available each year, enabling single parents with dependants to purchase a home sooner with a deposit of two per cent; and establish a new Regional Home Guarantee, with 10,000 guarantees available each year to support eligible home buyers in regional areas.
These measures follow the successful HomeBuilder program, which supported over $33 billion of residential construction activity through the pandemic by providing grants for new homes and substantial renovations. Over 137,000 HomeBuilder applications had been received as of the last budget. Over 80 per cent of these, or 113,000, are new builds. Denita Wawn, CEO of Master Builders Australia said that without HomeBuilder thousands of small businesses would have gone under and hundreds of thousands of jobs would have been lost.
In the last term of parliament the coalition supported more than 300,000 Australians into homes. The coalition also recognised the importance of access to social and affordable housing for vulnerable Australians. The coalition in government announced additional low-cost financing for community housing providers to support social and affordable housing by increasing the guarantee of the liabilities of the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation by some half a billion dollars. This is expected to allow NHFIC to support another 2½ thousand social and affordable dwellings, in addition to the 14,000 dwellings they have already supported in just three years. So, while the coalition do not oppose this change, we note that the impact of this policy appears to be on the modest side.
Turning to the bills before us today, Schedule 2 of the Income Tax Amendment (Labour Mobility Program) Bill amends the Tax Administration Act 1953 to allow protected information to be disclosed to Australian government agencies for the purposes of administering major disaster support payments and programs approved by the minister. This is a weakness of the current scheme that it's good to see being resolved.
Schedule 3 of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 3) 2022 amends schedule 5 of the Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus (Measures No 2) Bill. This amendment will extend a temporary mechanism for responsible ministers to make alternative arrangements for meeting information and documentary requirements under Commonwealth legislation, including requirements to give information and to produce witness and signed documents in response to challenges provided by COVID. The amendment extends the date for the sunset of this mechanism to 31 December. This schedule is a general instrument-making power that enables responsible ministers to make a determination adjusting arrangements for meeting information and documenting requirements under Commonwealth legislation in response to COVID-19. This mechanism has been included in schedule 5 to the coronavirus measures No. 2 act as a temporary terminating measure. In light of the ongoing nature of COVID-19, both in Australia and globally, and its effects on the ability of individuals to move freely, the power to amend arrangements for meeting information and documentary requirements remains necessary. The coalition implemented this measure as part of our response to COVID-19.
The coalition will continue to support sensible and measured responses to manage the risks that COVID-19 presents, while noting that the environment we are operating in today is drastically different to that which we as a government faced two years ago. When COVID-19 first broke, there was no vaccine, there was no knowledge of the risks of the virus, and around the world we saw hospitals overwhelmed as the disease spread rapidly and mortality and morbidity rates were high. In Australia it was estimated the deaths could be in the tens of thousands and the impacts on economic activity could be severe. Treasury estimated that unemployment would reach 15 per cent.
When we left office the unemployment rate was 3.4 per cent, testimony to what the coalition delivered. The coalition's pandemic response put Australia in good stead for today. It saved tens of thousands of lives and supported hundreds of thousands of livelihoods. Measures like this played a crucial role in keeping government going through uncertain times. Measures like this worked alongside our economic support, to keep our country moving forward despite the pandemic. Our economic support through COVID kept Australians in jobs. Australian households and businesses have been supported by a range of measures since the beginning of the pandemic, all of which have led us to the times we are in now, with the highest terms of trade—a $50 billion turnaround in the economic fortunes of the nation. On that note, I look forward to seeing the end result of the last financial year, being delivered tomorrow.
The JobKeeper payment, for example, provided $89 billion in support to businesses and their employees, keeping businesses in business, and individuals connected to their employer. Small and medium-sized businesses and not-for-profit employers received over $35.8 billion in cash-flow boost payments, which have provided direct support allowing them to stay open, pay bills and retain staff. The coalition temporarily expanded eligibility for income support payments and established a new time-limited coronavirus supplement. Eligible recipients were paid $20.5 billion, and $11.9 billion in economic support payments were paid to eligible pensioners, social security veterans and other income support recipients and concession card holders. The coalition allowed eligible individuals in financial stress to access up to $10,000 of their superannuation in 2019-20 and a further $10,000 in 2020-21 if eligibility continued. Under the SME guarantee scheme, the coalition provided the guarantee of 50 per cent for new short-term unsecured debt to SMEs written until 30 June 2021, guaranteeing up to $40 billion of new lending to small and medium enterprises.
Building on the scheme, the coalition's SME Recovery Loan Scheme is designed to provide continued assistance to firms that need that support. Temporary full expensing was brought in, allowing businesses to deduct the full cost of eligible assets of any value purchased from 6 October 2020 and first used or installed for use by 30 June this year. It was announced in the 2021 budget that this measure would be extended by one year to 30 June 2023. Legislation was introduced on 27 October last year to give effect to this extension.
The temporary loss carry-back allowed companies with turnover below $5 billion to recoup tax paid on prior year profits as far back as the 2018-19 financial year using 2019-20, 2020-21 or 2021-22 tax losses. It was announced in the 2021-22 budget that this measure would be extended to the 2022-23 financial year. Legislation was introduced on 25 November last year to give this effect. HomeBuilder provided eligible home-occupiers with a grant of $25,000 to build a new home or substantially renovate an existing home where the contract was signed from 4 June 2020 to 31 December 2020, inclusive, or $15,000 for contracts between 1 January 2021 and 31 March 2021.
We continued to support apprentices and trainees through boosting the apprenticeship commencement wage subsidy, which provided eligible employers with 50 per cent of a first-year apprentice's or trainee's wage, up to a cap of $7,000 per quarter. All of these measures build into the current measure that we're seeing in this schedule today. The coalition provided support for the aviation sector, personal income tax plans and permanent changes to our continuous disclosure regimes. All of these continue to build into schedule 3 of the bill we're looking at today. So the coalition welcomes this measure by the government.
Schedule 4 of the bill and the Income Tax Amendment (Labour Mobility Program) Bill 2022 make amendments to reduce the tax rate of certain income earnt by foreign resident workers participating in the Pacific Australian Labour Mobility scheme, from marginal rates starting at 32.5 per cent to a flat 15 per cent. This is coalition policy, and we welcome it. It gives the opportunity for our family across the Pacific to come in and work in Australia at a flat 15 per cent tax rate, which will add value to our tight labour market.
Finally, schedule 5 of the bill amends the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 to provide for an alternative annual performance test for faith based products. APRA may determine if it is faith based if a trustee for the product provides APRA with a valid application.
This bill contains a number of worthwhile measures that continue the trend of the new Labor government's legislative agenda being remarkably similar to the previous government's agenda. Indeed, the most important part of this bill, I believe—the income tax amendments to facilitate the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme—is indeed a coalition initiative that I think members of the House are all proud of. However, there are substantial concerns with schedule 5 of this bill. I understand that Labor is seeking to implement an election promise to exempt faith based superannuation products from the Your Future, Your Super performance test. I've circulated two amendments in my name which I propose to move in consideration in detail. One of these amendments is to remove schedule 5 from this bill.
We should always be striving for the best when it comes to Australians' hard-earned money. This is money that is compulsorily taken from their pay and put aside so it grows to pay for their retirement. I think all Australians agree with that. There is a key word here: compulsory. Australians by law, if they're working, have to have that money put aside for their future, and that is excellent. We are as one when it comes to the compulsory side of super and, indeed, building superannuation for Australians. Today over 530,000 Australians' primary source of income is from superannuation, and we as a country should be proud of that. Compulsory saving by ordinary Australians has seen the growth of the super industry to over $3.4 trillion as of March this year. Again, this is excellent. The initial intent of super was to take the financial pressure off the government and taxpayers by ensuring that Australians can pay—or eventually pay—their way through retirement with their own money. And it is their own money, compulsorily set aside.
It's compulsory, and it will remain compulsory under any future coalition governments. There are no plans to change any of that. But we all have to strive to have the best system that delivers the best outcomes for ordinary Australians and their money. There are three key pillars, or principles, that the coalition will adhere to when it comes to super: (1) it is members' money; (2) performance is important, and members expect performance; and (3) the transparency and integrity of how members' money is spent is also important. These principles are the bedrock of what we believe delivers the best super outcome.
The Your Future, Your Super reforms were some of the most significant reforms delivered in the last decade. They were certainly the most significant reforms to super seen since the introduction of compulsory super in 1992. The reforms ensured super works in the best financial interests of all Australians by removing unnecessary waste, increasing accountability and transparency, and providing more flexibility for families and individuals. The reforms increased transparency and accountability. They strengthened obligations to ensure trustees only act in the very best financial interests of members and obligations to provide better information regarding how trustees manage and spend members' money in advance of annual members meetings and through enhanced portfolio holdings disclosures. These reforms, unfortunately, are under attack. Attacking the transparency and integrity of super this week alone, when the integrity commission bill is coming through, is somewhat extraordinary. Unbeknownst to everyone before the election, Labor went ahead and dismantled some of the fundamental transparency and accountability reforms for super by seeking, or putting through, amendments to the regulations on annual members meetings.
The second amendment I'll put forward today will seek to reintroduce that transparency and accountability and to take it from the regulations and enshrine it in primary law. The Your Future, Your Super reforms hold funds to account for underperformance, to lower fees and protect members from poor outcomes. The parliament required superannuation products to meet an annual objective performance test. Those that fail that test are required to inform members, and persistently underperforming products are prevented from taking on new members. We've already seen this in action, and it is 100 per cent in the interests of members. There are 13 underperforming funds that have already folded or taken action. This performance needs to hold for all funds and all Australians, regardless of age, sex or faith. Allowing faith-based funds to deliver inferior returns because they're a faith-based fund cannot be in the best interests of Australians.
For the coalition to agree to this—in fact, for any Australian to agree to this—a fundamental question has to be answered: why should Australians of faith retire with a lower balance than Australians of no faith? Unless that question can be answered, the coalition cannot support schedule 5 of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 3) Bill 2022. My meeting with APRA indicated that, of listed ASX entities, you would expect no more than two to three per cent of those entities to be incompatible with investment by a faith-based fund—that is, if they exercise that faith and a prohibition against such things as weapons, gambling, alcohol and the like. If the fund fails the secondary test, yet unknown what it is because it's based on whatever the super fund's strategy may be, it's subjected to the same processes as any other fund under the Your Future, Your Super performance test. If it passes the secondary test, it has no further obligation to disclose its performance to its customers.
I can understand what the Labor government is trying to do. I think they're coming at this from a good-faith perspective and I think they're coming at this from a perspective of giving faith funds opportunities. But my discussions with APRA have solidified the view that excluding two per cent or three per cent of the market does not prohibit faith based funds from meeting a basic index of the S&P 200 or the S&P 300.
The Australian $3.4 trillion super system is the fourth largest in the world and is responsible for managing the retirement savings of 16 million Australians. We should all be proud of that. Your Future, Your Super measures were about modernising and improving the superannuation system to ensure it is working harder for Australians. This included the performance test measures designed to ensure that all super funds are held to account for underperformance and to protect customers from poor outcomes. The performance test holds funds accountable for the outcomes they're delivering members. It measures a fund's net investment performance against an objective benchmark tailored to their strategy and measures their administration fees against their peers.
To give an example, the performance test—whilst there are a number of them across different asset classes, because our super industry is fourth in the world—invests right across different asset classes from bonds to equities in Australia, overseas equities and unlisted assets, and, for the most part, it does that exceptionally well. The base benchmark is: if you went into an index fund—and Vanguard was the leader. If you put your money into an index fund that just tracked the top 300 companies, the top S&P 300, and that index fund had the same value and percentages of money as per the top 300 companies in the market, if you did nothing, no active trading, if you just put your money to track the index, that's the benchmark. So the benchmark is if you do nothing. That's the benchmark. That's all the benchmark test under Your Future, Your Super is asking super funds to meet—'Please meet a benchmark that is set at "if you do nothing".'
It's quite simple. Unfortunately, 75 per cent of actively traded mutual funds in Australia don't meet that benchmark, and that is a disgrace. If Australians outside of super just put their money into a basic index fund and did nothing, and the index fund managers did nothing but track the market—yet 75 per cent of Australian fund managers can't even meet that, but they charge Australians fees and clip the ticket on buy and sells. That's outrageous. By the way, I'm informed that in Great Britain the number of active fund managers that failed to meet the index rises 88 per cent. That is outrageous.
Australia's top three performing super funds, give or take, from the last review by the regulator, were AustralianSuper, Hostplus and Cbus. They were performing exceptionally well, way above the indexes and way above the averages. That is a good thing. But the question we have to ask ourselves in this parliament is: is it acceptable for a faith based super not to even track the average? Because that's what this schedule is asking this parliament to do. If faith based super did nothing but track the average—now, super funds are bigger than the S&P 300. There are 12 industries across. I'm just picking one, but, if you can't meet a Bloomberg bond index, which just tracks the average return of bonds, you're doing something really stupid or buying bonds at some inflated rate on the secondary market. If you can't meet the S&P 300 by doing nothing, then I think there is a serious problem or the fees are high. Therefore, the coalition will move an amendment in consideration in detail that will strike schedule 5, because of these reasons.
I'm looking at the Leader of the House, who's been here longer than me—
Mr Burke: Not long enough.
Mr ROBERT: True—and who taught me that you should always make a substantive argument and present the argument to the House. The purpose of today is for me to present very clearly to the House the argument as to why the coalition won't be supporting this. It's not ideological; it is straight index based benchmarks of return. But there is a slippery slope here. If the government carves out special treatment for faith based funds, what's next? Why should faith based funds have special treatment? Why not an ESG based fund? Why not another fund that seeks to do good somewhere else? Why wouldn't they have the same carve-out? Or could we just agree in this place that all people are created equal and everyone should be equal under the law and they should all be equal under the superannuation benchmarks and the rules?
The second amendment that we'll be moving in the consideration in detail debate is to return the annual member meeting transparency measures that were in regulation—which were removed by this government as the first act of Treasury—to hard encode them and enshrine them back into law. When we moved the Your Future, Your Super measures in government previously, there was an opportunity, which the previous government did not take, to decide to outlaw or make illegal co-sponsoring payments and other non-political donations to political entities. The AFR has reported through a freedom of information that, over the last five years, super funds have provided $85 million in non-disclosed, non-donation based payments to political entities—and it's mostly that side of the House. That's just a statement of fact from an FOI. We could have decided to outlaw that, but that's not democratic. What's democratic is disclosing it—that super funds should have to disclose to members what their payments are.
I will look, for example, at two annual member meeting notices that came out—and I spoke about this in the House yesterday. The Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation—and I thank the Minister for Finance—has reported fully on all of their payments, with some $600,000 plus in sponsorships, support payments, marketing and the like itemised in detail, as you'd expect from a government agency and a substantial super fund. AustralianSuper is Australia's biggest super fund. It is a well-run and good-returning super fund—and there's no criticism of them there. My criticism of them comes on their annual member meeting statement where they had aggregate payment for sponsorship and marketing of $30 million—just aggregate; that's it—and associated payments of some $109 million, give or take, which is probably fees and charges for investments. They have to aggregate it up; therefore, there's no problem providing it in detail. This is what our amendment will do.
The last thing I'll draw the attention of the House to as to why it's important that the annual member notices are transparent and why this amendment is being moved in line with this bill is agenda item No. 10 of the Hayne royal commission, an order and risk management committee report from 20 May 2015. This is a public document that I am reading from, which was an item that was tabled in the Hayne royal commission. It is a KPMG report into review of payments made to Cbus-sponsoring organisations. It's a very good report, and Cbus's response to the report is also very good. The report makes it very clear that this is the purpose of Cbus, a very large and well-performing fund—there's no argument with that. KPMG's statement is:
The sponsorship payments made by Cbus are governed by Cbus's sponsorship policy and are made subject to an evaluation.
Good to see.
The benefit obtained by Cbus from sponsoring payment is recognised as the acquisition and retention of members and super contributions, together with an estimated increase in the brand value.
That's it. They get invoices and they pay marketing and service payments. There is a whole list of them on pages 13 and 14, and all it says is 'advertising and sponsorship'—nothing else. It doesn't list what it is for; just 'advertising and sponsorship'. The invoice comes in and Cbus pays it out of members' money, and it's for acquisition and retention of members. It's that vague.
And let's look at the payments that are made to a number of sponsoring organisations. Those sponsoring organisations are the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the CFMMEU, the Communications, Electrical and Plumbing Union, the Australian Workers' Union, Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union and Master Builders Australia. They're the sponsoring unions. In 2010, there was $1.3 million just for marketing and services and nothing else.
Mr Giles: It was one of the best performing funds, wasn't it?
Mr ROBERT: No question; it's a great-performing fund. You'll like this, Minister. In 2011, there is $1.5 million in sponsoring payments. In 2012, there is $1.5 million. Oh my Lord: in 2013 it rises to $2.7 million. What happened in 2013? I'm looking at the shadow minister beside me. There was an election? Who would have thought! In 2014, it drops down to $1.8 million again.
The Hayne royal commission looked at this. There's no issue that it is not appropriately declared and appropriately invoiced. There's no criticism in that respect. The issue is that none of it is disclosed for members to see and for members to have a say, and I think members should hear that. Otherwise, I look forward to moving amendments in the consideration in detail stage. I thank the House for their indulgence.
Debate adjourned.
Reference to Federation Chamber
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ) (17:40): I call the honourable Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Burke: Whoa. That's a really bad outcome for me, if that's what you're calling me!
Mr Robert: I second that motion!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry. I call the Leader of the House.
Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Minister for the Arts and Leader of the House) (17:41): I declare that the following bills are referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration: the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 3) Bill 2022, the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment Bill 2022, and the Income Tax Amendment (Labour Mobility Program) Bill 2022.
National Health Amendment (General Co-payment) Bill 2022
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms LEY (Farrer—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (17:42): I'm pleased to speak on the National Health Amendment (General Co-payment) Bill 2022, which amends the National Health Act 1953 to reduce the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme general co-payment by $12.50, saving patients out-of-pocket costs. The opposition remains absolutely committed to ensuring Australians have access to affordable medicines when they need them. We support this legislation to reduce the cost of medicines, noting that it is the result of a copycat election promise made by Labor responding to the coalition's commitment to ensure Australians could save hundreds of dollars every year on the cost of essential and life-saving medicines. The coalition has a strong record of delivering affordable, life-saving medicines for all Australians, and we encourage the Albanese government to continue with our policy to list all medicines on the PBS that are recommended by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee.
This bill amends the PBS general co-payment from the current amount of $42.50 to the new amount of $30, taking effect from 1 January 2023. For certain medicines or treatments that have a Commonwealth price between $30 and $42.50, indexed annually, the bill gives pharmacists an option to discount that price to general patients by more than a dollar while supplying as a PBS prescription. This ensures no patient is worse off after the reduction of the general patient charge, given the established practice for pharmacists to be able to discount medicines that have a Commonwealth price at or below the current general patient charge.
The bill gives effect to an election commitment made by Labor in response to the coalition's clear leadership on this issue, as I said. On 30 April 2022, the coalition announced an election commitment to reduce the PBS general patient charge by $10 as part of an annual $150 million hip-pocket saving for Australians. We planned to wind the clock back on the cost of medications, reducing the cost per script back to 2008 prices. Following this announcement, on the very next day, Labor announced that they would reduce the charge by $12.50, so we're pleased we could lead the government into making commitments on this important policy area to support the hip pockets of Australians who rely on essential medicines and treatments. It's worth reminding the House of the coalition's record on affordable medicines because we do have a strong track record of providing Australians with timely, affordable access to effective medicines, treatments and services.
When we were in government, we listed more than 2,800 new and amended medicines on the PBS, representing an average of around 30 listings a month. Most recently, from 1 April 2022 our strong economic plan meant that we were able to assure that patients suffering from severe heart failure, high cholesterol and high blood pressure could afford cheaper medicines to treat their conditions. We were also able to list life-saving drugs to support Australians with asthma, prostate cancer, Castleman disease, HIV and Crohn's disease. This includes the PBS listing of Trelegy Ellipta 200, which was funded by our government, to be expanded for Australians with severe asthma. Asthma, as members of the House know, is a common chronic condition and can become serious, especially if untreated. Without the PBS subsidy, over 1,000 Australians may have paid more than $1,000 a year for treatment.
Another integral listing supported by the former coalition government was an oral treatment that has shown improved survival outcomes for patients with prostate cancer who have specific gene variants. Prostate cancer is the second-most-common cancer diagnosed in men in Australia and the third-most-common cause of cancer deaths, with an estimated 1 in 6 men diagnosed with prostate cancer by the age of 85. And we did not plan to stop there. In the coalition's 2022-23 budget we provisioned $2.4 billion for more new and amended PBS listings. These listings also included critical treatments for breast cancer, cystic fibrosis, severe eczema, asthma, spinal muscular atrophy, HIV infection and heart failure.
In conclusion, I restate that the coalition, the opposition, will support Labor's bill and we do agree with their intent, which was first promulgated by us during the campaign, to make medicines cheaper. We do encourage them, with the constant advances in medicines, new treatments and expansions of treatments for existing drugs to existing conditions, that they continue and commit to listing medicines on the PBS that are recommended by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee.
Ms McBRIDE (Dobell—Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention and Assistant Minister for Rural and Regional Health) (17:47): Since my first speech, I've spoken many times in this place about the cost of medicines and about Australians faced with difficult choices about which of their prescriptions they should skip or avoid or what else they could go without so they could simply afford to fill their prescriptions—choices people shouldn't be forced to make. Today, as a pharmacist, as a local MP and as someone who has been pushing for more affordable medicines, I'm proud to speak in support of this legislation.
Through the National Health Amendment (General Co-Payment) Bill 2022, the Australian government will reduce the maximum amount Australians pay for their medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, or PBS. But, before I go to the bill, I think it's important that we recognise how we got here. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, or the PBS, was established back in 1948, then as a limited scheme, so Australians had equal and affordable access to life-saving and disease-preventing medicines. Establishing the PBS was not easy. As the Minister for Health and Aged Care has said, it was John Curtin and Ben Chifley who fought hard to create the PBS. It took two High Court challenges, two referenda, constitutional changes and long battles with the British Medical Association, as it was then called, with the Liberal Party and with many others over 15 years to make the PBS what it is today. I am proud that today we're continuing that long Labor legacy of investment in medicines.
It was a Labor government that back in 1944 first introduced the legislation to make life-saving drugs more affordable. After almost a decade of neglect by the former government, it's a Labor government that is determined that medicines will be affordable well into the future.
Under the PBS, patients pay a co-payment towards the cost of each PBS medicine, with the Australian government generally covering the remaining cost. Patient co-payments are currently set at $6.80 for concession card holders and a maximum of $42.50 for those ineligible for a concession card, known as general patients. The co-payment for general patients has doubled since I first registered as a pharmacist in the late 1990s. According to ABS figures, in 2019-20 more than 900,000 Australians delayed or avoided filling a script due to costs. All Australians, whatever they earn, deserve access to the medicine their doctor has prescribed and their pharmacist can fill. No-one should be forced to choose between filling their prescription for potentially life-saving medicines and putting a roof over their head or food on the table. Yet that is what many people, particularly women, are being forced to do.
Over a third of women living in the electorate of Dobell, which I represent, on the New South Wales Central Coast struggle to afford prescription medicines, according to a recent survey. The survey conducted in January of this year showed that 37 per cent of women who were not entitled to a concession card—that is, general patients—have struggled to find the money to pay for essential medication, while 20 per cent of people across Dobell have been forced to go without medication altogether because they simply cannot afford to pay for it.
As a pharmacist, I have seen this firsthand working in community pharmacies or hospitals on the Central Coast. Patients have walked into the pharmacy after a medical appointment, handed me a bunch of prescriptions for their family and asked which medications they could skip or avoid. I've had a mother ask me, following an appointment for her two children, whether they could share a bottle of antibiotic mixture because she couldn't afford to purchase two. Working in acute mental health inpatient units, I've seen the devastating impact on people, their loved ones and their families because they couldn't afford their medications and have ended up in crisis and brought in by police or ambulances for long inpatient stays. In Australia today, that's not good enough. They deserve better.
The PBS is a significant component of the Commonwealth's investment in our healthcare system, providing significant direct assistance, with $30.8 billion in the 2020-21 to make medicines more affordable. Under the National Health Amendment (General Co-payment) Bill 2022, a reduction in the PBS general patient co-payment by $12.50 will mean that the maximum Australians will pay for PBS medicines will drop from $42.50 down to $30. This is a 29 per cent saving. Approximately 19 million Australians will be eligible for savings under this bill. These general patients could collectively save around $190 million each year. A person filling one script a month could save around $150 a year. Those filling two scripts a month could save around $300 a year. With the cost of living rising, this is a significant reduction for people and families and their budgets, and 3.6 million Australians with a current prescription over $30 will immediately save on prescriptions under this legislation. No longer will general patients taking Apixaban for the prevention of stroke have to choose between their script, their groceries or their mortgage. This will mean they receive the effectual treatment to prevent serious illness.
The PBS safety net is intended to protect Australians who rely on a large number of medicines in a year from excessive out-of-pocket costs. Individuals and families who are general patients and who spend an amount equal to their safety net threshold on co-payments in a calendar year receive further prescriptions for that year for the concessional co-payment of $6.80. From 1 July 2022, the general patient threshold is $1,457.10. The amount paid by the patient will still be counted towards the safety net, so no Australians will be worse off under these changes.
Every year—in fact, nearly every month—new medicines are added to the PBS and access to existing medicines is expanded to new patient groups in line with emerging evidence about the safety and efficacy of those medicines for broader indications. Treatment options for patients are ever expanding, and the PBS continues to expand with them.
In the electorate I represent on the Central Coast of New South Wales, there are many people who rely on PBS medicines and Medicare, people like William from Gorokan, who contacted my office earlier this year regarding his health concerns, the number of medications he needs and the increasing costs he faces. He was very relieved to hear of our commitment to reduce the cost of medicines, and I am relieved for William and other people in his position that this legislation delivers on our commitment.
Ross is an aged-care worker from the Central Coast who I spoke to today. Ross told me he takes multiple medications each day and uses a puffer. Ross said that this measure will make a real difference for his family. In Ross's words, 'This measure is putting money back in the pockets of people who need it most.' As an aged-care worker on a modest fixed income, this will make a real difference for his family. Ross said to me that it will go a long way to covering the cost of his kids' registration so that they can play sport. As Ross said, this measure is putting money back into the pockets of people who need it most. Australians across this country deserve to be able to afford medicines and to be able to get the preventative care they need to keep them well.
There is further good news for people accessing PBS medicines. From 1 October 2022 Australians will pay less at their pharmacy for new and updated medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme because of the government's price disclosure policy. A visit to the pharmacist will be cheaper for thousands of families and will result in out-of-pocket savings of over $130 million for Australian patients and almost $930 million in savings for taxpayers.
Conditions for which patients will have access to more affordable medicines include migraines, breast cancer, stomach ulcers and bipolar disorder. Up to half a million patients with stomach ulcers or gastroesophageal reflux disease can now expect to pay a maximum of $26.74 per prescription for esomeprazole 40 milligram tablets—a saving of up to $6.84 per prescription.
As a pharmacist—despite my best efforts I'm still the only pharmacist in this place—I am very proud to be able to support this legislation. My whole working life I have wanted to make sure that people who most need medication can afford it. I remember standing in an outpatient clinic in a mental health unit and a patient coming up to me and saying: 'I can't afford this medication. Which one can I skip or which one can I delay?' This is after someone had had a really long inpatient stay. The whole multidisciplinary care had meant that they were able to recover and have a life ahead of them with some hope and optimism. This is what this does.
This bill today means so much to me personally, having spent my whole working life trying to make sure that the most vulnerable in our community can access the care that they need. To be standing in this parliament today and supporting this legislation means so much to me personally and as a local MP. I know it will give hope to people who are struggling, to people who need it most, to people who struggle to get out of bed, to people who struggle to put a roof over their head, to people who are sleeping rough and to the people we have discharged to caravans, caves and no fixed abode. This has to change. In a country like Australia we can't have the most vulnerable people in our communities—those living with chronic enduring mental ill health—struggling to be able to afford the essential medicine they need to help them get well and stay well. We cannot continue to discharge them back to the circumstances that made them sick. This has to change.
In conclusion, I spoke to a good friend of mine today—pharmacist Robert King on the Central Coast of New South Wales. He was so delighted to know that this legislation was being put to the House today. He said to me, 'In the current environment it's a great cost-of-living measure and will help people improve compliance with day-to-day medication, which is so important for preventative health.' As Robert King said to me today, this is important for preventative health and it's important for household budgets. We must support this legislation so that it can get through in the spring sittings so that next year Australians will be able to afford medicines.
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (17:59): At the start I acknowledge the speech made just then by the member for Dobell. Every year there's just one speech in the parliament that really stands out and makes you think. I acknowledge the words of great empathy, knowledge and compassion of the member for Dobell.
I too rise to support the National Health Amendment (General Co-Payment) Bill 2022. This bill will reduce the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme co-payment for medications to provide Australians with more affordable access to necessary medicines. The bill will cut the cost of the PBS co-payment from the current maximum of $42.50 per script to $30 per script—at most, a reduction of around one-third of the current cost for general patients. That is an extraordinary saving, particularly when people have multiple scripts. This bill will ease the cost-of-living pressures and produce public health benefits. I therefore commend it to the House.
It's excellent we're doing this for scripts, but in order to get the script you have to go to your doctor. That is what I am hearing about from so many constituents and from so many GP practices that are no longer able to bulk bill or have closed their practice. That has really happened in the last six months. I'm deeply concerned for many of my residents, whether they be on JobSeeker or the pension, the age pension or the disability pension. We're finding that in the past many GP practices were able to bulk-bill patients in those circumstances, but they're no longer doing this. In my electorate I have a number of constituents who are, potentially, delaying going to the doctor. It's a false economy, because it's costing our health system more if people delay treatment.
This National Health Amendment (General Co-Payment) Bill 2022 is a very welcome piece of legislation. I have written to and met with the Minister for Health and Aged Care, asking the government to address this urgent issue with respect to GPs no longer being able to bulk-bill. In regional areas, like mine, people are waiting weeks and weeks to see a doctor, and sometimes they're cancelling at the last minute because they just don't have that $80, in many cases, to put forward as a co-payment.
While this is incredibly welcome—around scripts and the cost of medication—we need to make it so that you can go and visit your doctor, particularly if you are on any kind of Centrelink payment. This includes self-funded retirees, the cohort that always gets forgotten in all of this. I'm hearing from many people in my community that are no longer able to afford the doctor at all. I worry that while the scripts have been made cheaper many of them won't visit the doctor to get the scripts in the first place.
To return to this piece of legislation, this is an excellent first step. I do hope that lifting the rate of the Medicare rebate for GPs is the next urgent step we address in this place so that health care can be a universal need for all.
Ms COKER (Corangamite) (18:03): I would like to begin by acknowledging the member for Dobell's emotional and heartfelt words. As a pharmacist she knows just how important it is for people to be able to afford medication that they desperately need. Choosing between buying much needed medications and putting food on the family table or helping another member of your family with their medication, making that choice, is a decision no Australian should ever have to make. My electorate of Corangamite is also impacted. I have pharmacists and GPs in my electorate who are telling me that it is a decision their patients are making.
I have a Drysdale pharmacist, Chris Walsh, in my electorate who says that many who come to him are struggling to afford their prescription medicines. Some families with chronic illness are foregoing their own health needs in order to pay for necessary medications for their children or to pay for food or power bills. It's unacceptable. That's why the Albanese government is committed to reducing the maximum amount Australians pay for their Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme medicines. This bill delivers against our commitment before the election.
It was a Labor government that first introduced the legislation to make life-saving drugs more affordable, back in the 1940s. It was John Curtin and Ben Chifley who fought hard to ensure affordable access to pharmaceuticals. Establishing the PBS wasn't easy. And it is now an essential pillar of our healthcare system. Of course, the other pillar of health care in this country is Medicare. That is also a Labor government creation. The Whitlam government introduced universal health care in 1975, known then as Medibank. The Fraser Liberal government made significant changes to it from 1976 and then abolished it in late 1981. It took the Labor Hawke government to reinstate universal healthcare in 1984 as Medicare.
Together, Medicare and the PBS are arguably the best universal healthcare system in the world, and they're certainly the envy of many nations. Universal health care is in Labor's DNA. That's why the Albanese government will continue to protect it, ensuring affordable access to health care for all. Medicare and the PBS go hand in hand. They are both essential to maintaining the good health of Australians.
The PBS remains a cornerstone of our healthcare system. However, it has to be adapted to keep up with modern medicine, community needs and rising living costs. That's why this bill is so important. The PBS provides significant direct assistance of around $13.8 billion each year to make medicines affordable for all Australians. The Albanese government is committed to ensuring that Australians continue to have access to affordable medicines. It's a refreshing change after nine years of neglect from the former government—years of economic and structural neglect that have contributed to the rising costs of living which are placing increasing financial pressure on Australians.
We know that some people are cutting back on essentials like medicines to make ends meet. This bill will help ease that squeeze on household budgets for millions of Australians—many of them, the most vulnerable in our community. The maximum cost to general patients for PBS medications has doubled since the year 2000. The previous government did little to mitigate the rise. For the first time in its 75-year history, the maximum cost of general scripts under the PBS will now fall, thanks to this bill.
This bill amends the National Health Act to reduce the maximum general co-payment under the PBS from the current maximum of $42.50 to just $30. This reduction of $12.50 for each script represents a saving of 29 per cent—almost one-third—for general patients. Around 3.6 million Australians with current prescriptions over $30 will immediately benefit from this Albanese government initiative. The 29 per cent saving doesn't include brand premiums, which are additional charges imposed by manufacturers. However, the optional discount will allow pharmacists to provide a further discount to general patients on those prescriptions with a Commonwealth price between the new co-payment of $30 and the current co-payment of $42.50. The amount paid by the patient will still be counted towards the safety net, ensuring that no Australian is adversely impacted by the changes.
Millions of Australian will be eligible for that saving under this bill, which will put close to $200 million back into the pockets of Australians each year. That means that an individual will save $150 a year for one monthly script or $300 to $450 a year for two to three scripts a month. And what an amazing difference that will make to families who are struggling.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics has said that the high cost of medications meant that around one million Australians delayed filling or didn't fill their prescriptions in 2019 to 2020. That's a worrying statistic, with real life health consequences. Cutting the price of medications by nearly one-third will mean that more people can afford to have the treatments they need to stay healthy without worrying so much about the price.
It's no wonder that, in my electorate of Corangamite, these changes are being enthusiastically welcomed, by both people needing medications and pharmacists dispensing them. Pharmacist Scott Wilkes, of Bannockburn Pharmacy, told me that this bill is a big step to ensuring medicines are affordable and relieving the pressures on vulnerable people in his community. He said that it's becoming more common for customers to cease having their scripts dispensed due to cost-of-living pressures. He related the story of a recent customer who wouldn't fill her own prescription; she only filled those of her children. She had received her monthly power bill and felt she simply couldn't afford to pay for her medication. That is tragic. She went without her medication to ensure a warm house for her kids.
Scott said that, while many elderly people are struggling with the rising costs of living, affordability appears to significantly worsen for those under 65 years of age. That's the age group most likely to have mortgages and children. So it's appropriate that people aged between 18 and 37 years old make up about 27 per cent of the portion of Australians who will immediately receive cheaper medicines. Scott said that the changes in this bill will provide relief for patients and their families who have had to make stark choices between buying essential food, paying for the energy to keep their houses warm and buying essential medicines.
It's no wonder that the National President of the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, Professor Trent Twomey, recently welcomed the changes in this bill and congratulated the government. Professor Twomey said:
Making medicines cheaper would help reduce medicine non-medical adherence, which directly contributes to higher healthcare costs, including preventable hospital admissions and re-admission.
Other peak bodies, including the Australian Patients Association, Chronic Pain Australia and Musculoskeletal Australia have also welcomed the measures in this bill on behalf of their patients. President of Chronic Pain Australia, Ms Fiona Hodson, said recently that the reduction in the co-payment would be welcome news to one in five Australians living with chronic pain. Ms Hodson said that medical affordability remained a key issue for patients as they manage their complex and chronic conditions.
Over the past year or so I have met with many of the local GPs in my electorate to better understand the challenges that they and their patients are experiencing. I spent a whole day in a clinic in my electorate and was told about the struggles that people are having in seeing a GP and in being able to afford their medications. GPs tell me that it is heartbreaking when they write a script for a much-needed medication for a patient knowing that there is little chance that they can afford to have it filled or at least not for the full period they need the medication for. It seems that patients are often deciding to fill a script that might give them immediate relief—for example, pain medication—while not filling a script that actually is very important for their longer-term health. Under this bill, general patients taking expensive medications, such as for the prevention of stroke or for asthma or diabetes, and so many other life-changing medicines will no longer have to choose between their script and household expenses. This bill will help to ensure that they receive the essential medical and pharmaceutical care needed to prevent severe illness and to keep healthy—and that is a great outcome.
But it is not enough to simply introduce these important cost-easing changes; it is essential that the changes are not overtaken by rising living costs. That's why the general patient co-payment will continue to be indexed on 1 January each year. The indexing from 2024 will be calculated off the new general co-payment amount, securing savings for Australian general patients well into the future. The Albanese Labor government will keep the cost of medicines down and help to ease the cost-of-living pressures that Australians are facing now. All Australians should have access to universal and world-class medical care. No-one should have to choose between filling a prescription that their doctor has said is important for their health or providing for their families.
Right now Australians are paying the high price of a decade of government with missed opportunities and drift. This bill will make a real difference to the household budgets for millions of families. The Albanese government is taking action. We are tackling the day-to-day concerns of Australians. We have plans to make medicines cheaper and to make it easier to see a doctor. Millions of Australians will benefit from cheaper medicines from this bill thanks to an Albanese government. Just as for Medicare, it was Labor that built the PBS, and it is Labor which will protect it. This bill will help ensure that all Australians can access affordable medicines when they need them.
Ms TINK (North Sydney) (18:15): I rise today to speak on behalf of the people of North Sydney on the National Health Amendment (General Co-payment) Bill 2022. As we move into the last quarter of 2022, and with the holiday and festive gifting season rapidly approaching, there is no doubt most Australians are finding it harder to juggle or simply meet living expenses. Whether we're single, coupled or part of a family, we're all experiencing levels of inflation we have not seen since 1990, with economists predicting it will rise yet further to somewhere in the vicinity of 7½ per cent before the year ends. In real terms this means many more people are actively weighing up their purchasing decisions as the price of essential items like fruit and vegetables, bread and cereal and clothing all increase to varying degrees. There are many things driving this inflationary pressure: floods and heavy rainfall in major production areas across New South Wales and Queensland; grain supply shortages prompted by Russia's invasion of Ukraine; higher freighting costs both domestically and internationally; and disrupted production lines due to COVID.
Interestingly, however, one area that has reportedly seen an average consumer price decrease in the nine months to September is medicine. Reports indicate that the price of pharmaceutical products has fallen by 1.1 per cent. This price drop is largely driven by an increasing number of consumers qualifying for subsidies under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. So while the share that these products are taking up in our ordinary consumer shopping basket is decreasing, the overall cost to us as a society via our government is increasing. Reports indicate that the true average dispensed price—that is, the price of the medication with both the patient co-payment and the government benefit—per prescription of a product on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme increased by five per cent to $70.65 in 2020-21, as opposed to $67.34 in 2019-20.
In this context, then, as the government tabled this bill during our last sitting period I confess I was struck by the quandary that this proposed legislative reform creates for us as a society. While this legislation will reduce the price consumers pay for a medicine listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme by around 32 per cent from its current cost of $42.50 down to $30, ultimately the cost differential—the $12.50 that the consumer no longer pays directly—will still be borne by Australian taxpayers as we rightly maintain this parliament's commitment to fund the overall PBS program.
Since the program's expansion in 1960, patients have generally contributed to covering the cost of their medicines by paying a fixed amount of the overall cost. Concession card holders pay less, and rightly so. Overall, once a patient has spent a certain amount on their medicines they can qualify for the PBS safety net, which then sees people pay a lower amount for their medicines, with concession card holders receiving them for free. In the truest sense, then, the amendments proposed in this bill will most benefit those who do not routinely purchase a substantial number of PBS listed medicines a year and who do not qualify for a concession card.
This is when we must recognise the reality that while the price may not be paid up front, it will eventually be covered by the public purse through the tax we pay. The impression of money saved here should not go unchallenged. Make no mistake: I sincerely believe we have one of the best healthcare systems in the world in Australia, and I am a massive advocate of our public health system. Indeed, for most of my adult life over the last 30 years I have worked in one way or another to improve the quality of care that Australians receive when they need medical assistance. In some instances, this has seen me actively work to have life-saving medications added to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
Initially established as a limited scheme in 1948, with free medicines for pensioners and a list of just 139 life-saving and disease-preventing medicines provided free of charge for others in need in the community, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme as we know it today is a much-valued provider of timely, reliable and affordable access to necessary medicines for all Australians. For all its strengths, however, the reality is we must ensure we do not lose sight of the public costs associated with operating the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
Data on the cost of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme in this immediate past financial year does not appear to be available as yet. However, assuming a level of cost consistency, let's look at data from the end of June 2021. Government expense for the supply of medicine for that financial year was nearly $14 billion—or $13.8 billion to be precise. That compares to $12. 6 billion in the previous year. That's an increase of nine per cent in 12 months. At the same time, the overall number of prescriptions written and presented increased by 2.4 per cent to a total of just under 214 million compared to just over 208 million for the prior financial year. There were 906 different medicines across 5,380 brands listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme at that time.
While I'm not proposing to vote against this legislation, I am challenging this parliament to address the question: if this cost is not covered by the consumer, where will the required revenue come from? Are the ultimate financial beneficiaries of the investment made in our substantial Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme—that is, the manufacturers who are benefiting from these purchases—giving back to our society through the payment of appropriate company taxes? What we found when my team investigated this sector was that the way the sector currently works is that it appears that, whilst the total income for the pharmaceutical manufacturers with an Australian business number was just over $29.5 billion, only $2 billion of that income was deemed taxable. That's just under seven per cent. On this income, then, just $420 million in tax was paid. That's $420 million in tax against an expenditure of $14 billion by the Australian government. I'm not an accountant, but something here just doesn't seem to add up.
As I said earlier, I'm not challenging or questioning the value of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme for our society, and I would fight to ensure it is maintained and continues to provide for all Australians as needed. In the current economic circumstance, where research shows us that many are finding it harder to juggle the expense of everyday items like medicines, I support the reduction in the co-payment amount for consumers. But, as a pragmatist and on behalf of the people of North Sydney, I would challenge both this government and our parliament to be clear on how it is that we see this program continuing to be funded into the future. We cannot simply shift costs from one column to another and expect Australians not to notice. As this legislation passes through the House, then, I look forward to seeing what must surely follow in quick succession, and that is greater detail on how this government intends to pursue multinationals to ensure they are, in fact, paying their fair share. I commend the bill to the House.
Dr REID (Robertson) (18:24): Today it gives me great pleasure to speak on this piece of legislation, the National Health Amendment (General Co-payment) Bill 2022. In my experience as an emergency doctor, medication affordability is an enormous issue that has been plaguing our health services both on the Central Coast and right across Australia for a significant period of time.
There are three words that describe this bill: equity, equality and access—three words that we must strive for not only as a government but as a community. This piece of legislation achieves just this. Millions of Australians, including thousands of people in my home electorate of Robertson, will benefit from reducing the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme co-payment from the current maximum of $42.50 per script to a maximum of $30 per script—a discount of $12.50 per script. According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, in 2020-21, 314 million prescriptions were dispensed under the PBS and RPBS, and in total Australian consumers paid $3.2 billion towards PBS and RPBS prescriptions. This is not just a measure that will help ease the cost of living. This is not just a measure that will ensure that those on the Central Coast will have more money in their pocket after visiting the chemist. This measure will save lives. I will repeat that for everyone in the chamber and all those listening at home: this measure will save lives.
To outline the meaning of that, I now take you back to my first speech, which I gave to this 47th Parliament and where I described a particular shift I completed in the emergency department. On that day in the emergency department, people presented for myriad reasons, but one major reason they presented to the emergency department was medication access and affordability. People were presenting to the emergency department because they were unable to afford any of their prescription medications. We are talking about patients with multiple chronic illnesses, with multiple co-morbidities, without any pharmacological intervention, meaning that, due to cost and their ability to meet such costs, they are not taking any of their medication. People have to choose between putting food on the table and filling their scripts. The result is exacerbation of pre-existing illness and people becoming incredibly ill from conditions that can be managed with medication.
People were also found to be rationing medications, meaning people were taking their vital therapeutics for illnesses such as diabetes mellitus, hypertension, hypercholesterolaemia or epilepsy every second or every third day. In these scenarios, these honourable but forced decisions to put the wellbeing of their family and loved ones above their own can have devastating consequences. Manageable conditions like I mentioned earlier—hypertension, epilepsy, hypercholesterolaemia, diabetes mellitus—spiral rapidly out of control, leading to hospital admissions, intensive care or, quite shockingly but real, death.
These are not just scenarios; these are human beings. These are people. These are people's mothers, fathers, grandmothers, grandfathers, brothers, sisters, children, friends, going without and risking their lives. Why? It's because they cannot afford their medications. For those with diabetes, this potentially means uncontrolled hyperglycaemia, numerous microvascular and macrovascular complications or prolonged uncontrolled blood sugar, leading to conditions like blindness or kidney failure. For those with hypertension, high blood pressure or hypercholesterolaemia—high cholesterol—this means a potential cerebrovascular accident, or stroke, or this means an acute myocardial infarction, or a heart attack.
Chronic health conditions not controlled by the consistent medication that they require can rapidly deteriorate into acute presentations requiring immediate intervention, hospitalisation or even worse. This is not something that should be happening in this country. We pride ourselves on being able to care for our most vulnerable, to care for our elderly, to care for our community. Our most vulnerable do not deserve to be punished financially for their vulnerability. They deserve to be supported. Therapeutics are a powerful and essential support. Affordable access to medications is vital for patient health outcomes, vital in avoiding progression of serious illness and vital for sustaining life in so many throughout our community.
Increasing accessibility and affordability of medications has direct benefits not only for the individual, but also by reducing the pressures and the burden on the greater health system. Let us take the example of a patient, a single parent with high blood pressure and high cholesterol. It's a not uncommon scenario. They can afford to either feed their children or travel to the chemist to pay for their medications. They choose their children. Their blood pressure, their hypertension, their hypercholesterolemia—high cholesterol—skyrockets, and they begin to experience chest pain. They call an ambulance. The ambulance arrives, and on scene ECG confirms the patient is having a heart attack. Emergency childcare is organised—another added financial burden for an already struggling family—and the patient is rapidly transported to hospital. A myriad of tests are run in emergency, each with a cost to the health system but a cost that is required to save the patient's life. The patient is transferred to the intensive care unit when there's a bed available. Every hour of waiting is also costing the family in childcare and the health system in resources. They require a surgical procedure to relieve the pressure on their heart and restore adequate blood flow. After a few days in intensive care, the patient stabilises and is transferred to the ward for monitoring.
Upon discharge home, the patient needs more medications as a result; more follow-up appointments with their GP; specialist services with a cardiologist; rehabilitation for deconditioning; and more support at home. These are all additional financial and resource burdens to both the family and the health system right across the country. After all this has happened, the family is now even less likely to be able to afford their medications that they so desperately need.
Put simply, if an individual can afford access to their medications, this means more stable health for that individual, both physical and mental health. Their condition is well-managed and far less likely to acutely deteriorate or exacerbate. This means that they're less likely to require an ambulance. They're less likely to require a bed, tests and resources in the emergency department. They're less likely to take up a scarce bed in the emergency department, the intensive care unit or the hospital ward. They're less likely to need to engage in rehabilitation services. They're less likely to require increased general practitioner appointments and specialist services.
The benefits of this legislation extend well beyond the individual. As I've said before, our overflowing emergency departments, our overflowing hospital wards, our overwhelmed general practitioners, our inundated ambulance services and our national economy all stand to benefit because of this legislation. This piece of legislation is proactive, it is practical and it is sensible, something that has been missing from healthcare legislation for the last decade.
The Albanese Labor government, our government, has committed to reducing the maximum amount Australians pay for their Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme medicines. That was a commitment we made at the last election, and now we are starting the process to deliver on that commitment. Our communities and vulnerable Australians deserve to be supported. They do not deserve to be punished. Financial barriers should not be preventing the people in my electorate on the Central Coast or people right across Australia from complying with their therapeutic regiment. This financial barrier represents a heavy burden for so many people. One of the reasons that I ran in the 2022 federal election was to ensure that all Australians—in particular, those in the electorate of Robertson—have access to universal and world-class medical care. Our goal is equity, equality, access. The introduction of this bill and the associated changes to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme represent this government's, our government's, commitment and investment into Medicare, they represent our investment into health services and they represent our investment into the wellbeing of the Australian people.
The reduction to the PBS general co-payment of $12.50 means that the maximum Australians, including those in my electorate of Robertson, will pay for PBS medicines drops from $42.50 down to $30. This is a 29 per cent saving. This investment will provide savings to general patients of around $190 million each year. This investment will assist in easing pressures on our health services, this will assist in easing pressures on our hospitals, this investment will assist in easing pressures on the economy and this investment will save lives.
What we've been hearing from the opposition since we came into government in May is: how are we going to help with the cost of living for the Australian people? Seemingly that's been the question of choice at question time. But I don't think the opposition's been listening too well, as every moment of our governance has put the Australian people first. This legislation is simply another measure that we are taking to assist Australians and, in fact, rectify what years of neglect by Liberal Party have had on our cost-of-living pressures. I want you all to hear this now: the Albanese Labor government is putting people first. Not only is this an investment into medication affordability and the health of people across the nation; this is providing cost-of-living relief for millions of Australian families.
Mrs ARCHER (Bass) (18:38): It's a pleasure to rise today and speak on the National Health Amendment (General Co-payment) Bill 2022. As we see the cost of petrol, food, rent, mortgages and all other basics rise and rise this year, I'm thankful that there will be some relief on the wallet of Australians with the reduction of the PBS medicines co-payment. On 30 April this year, I joined Professor Trent Twomey from the Pharmacy Guild of Australia and local pharmacist Brad from the local TerryWhite Chemmart in Mowbray to announce our election commitment to cut $10 per script for PBS listed medicines, so I of course welcome this legislation by Labor extending on our initial announcement.
It's important to note the bipartisan support of a reduction in co-payment as the most significant cost action in supporting our community to access PBS listed medications since the scheme began over 60 years ago. I do recognise that the Pharmacy Guild has rallied for adjustments to prescription prices for many years. A few days before the coalition's announcement, Professor Twomey spoke about the impact medication costs were having on the average Australian family, saying:
This is especially affecting middle-income households, with over a quarter … of people who aren't entitled to a concession card struggling to pay for their scripts at the point o f sale.
… … …
Some people have been skipping medicines entirely, with 17 per cent saying they have been unable to purchase their medicines.
He also said, if we can't afford the treatment that is prescribed, we're going to add to the pressures on the health system. Whilst welcoming the announcement in northern Tasmania in April, he recognised the difference that this will make to thousands of Australians, saying:
This is a first and very real step towards addressing medicine affordability, helping our patients paycheck to paycheck at the cash register.
The CEO of the Australian Patients Association, Stephen Mason, also welcomed the bipartisan support for a reduction in costs of accessing PBS medication, saying that the issue of affordability of prescription medicines is an ongoing concern for many Australians. He said:
Our research has found that almost 36 per cent of people believe that prescription medication is too expensive and 20 per cent of people say it's outside of their regular budget.
For thousands of northern Tasmanians taking common medications, including for blood pressure, high cholesterol, pain relief, depression, diabetes and more, this cost saving at the counter will make a demonstrable difference to their budget, particularly those who are spending hundreds of dollars a month on necessary medications.
Nobody should be forced to choose between taking life-saving medication and putting food on the table. I've heard firsthand from pharmacists of seeing patients come in and weighing up which medicine they can afford to buy that week or month and, rather than buying all the necessary medications, they're making choices over what they can possibly purchase to get by, including, for example, asthmatics, who are choosing reliever medication as it's cheaper than preventative medication. As parliamentarians, we should look at taking any reasonable steps necessary to prevent this situation, and this legislation is a step in the right direction.
As proud as I am of my island state, we are unfortunately overrepresented in chronic disease for a number of reasons, but due in large part to our ageing population. Compared to mainland Australia, Tasmania has a higher proportion of people over the age of 45 years and a smaller population of younger people than nationally. Tasmania also has the oldest population nationally. In 2016, Tasmania's median age was 42, compared with the national figure of 38—and it is well documented that chronic diseases increase with age.
A Tasmanian health report in 2018 on chronic disease estimated that the proportion of Tasmanians aged 65 and over is expected to grow from around 19.5 per cent in 2016 to 27 per cent by 2056. Unsurprisingly, this will have profound implications for our healthcare system, a number of which are already being experienced, with our number of diabetes, heart disease and strokes amongst the highest nationally. Further, with an ageing population and people living longer, cancers are becoming more prevalent and are now overtaking all other conditions as a leading cause of disease burden. In Tasmania, this translates to a significantly greater healthcare burden for the community than is generally appreciated.
The report also noted that arthritis was the most frequently reported diagnosed chronic illness by Tasmanians aged 60 years, with more than one in two Tasmanians reporting being diagnosed with arthritis. The second most common was cataracts at just over 28 per cent, followed by depression and anxiety at 19.1 per cent. Asthma was reported by 17.1 per cent of that 60-and-over age group, with 13.8 per cent being diagnosed with diabetes. Of course, we know that these health conditions are not exclusive to older Tasmanians, with many younger Tasmanians living with the same conditions and also, of course, paying for those medications. Thankfully, a number of medications to help with these conditions are listed on the PBS, which will now see a reduction from $42.50 per script to $30 per script.
It takes a community of dedicated health professionals to diagnose, treat and manage an individual's health or sometimes many health conditions, and it's important to recognise the role that general practitioners pay in ensuring the best outcomes for their patients. However, with the provision of the PBS run through pharmacies, I wanted to use this opportunity to highlight the work of community pharmacies, particularly in light of World Pharmacists Day this past Sunday, 25 September. This year's theme was 'Pharmacy united in action for a healthier world', publicly recognising the vital role that pharmacists play in caring for patients. From Brad in Mowbray, Rhys in Summerhill, Ivo and Helen in Riverside and Dianne in Ravenswood, to name a few, I know of the dedication and care that local pharmacists, all across northern Tasmania, have for their patients.
It's estimated that there are more than 14 visits to a community pharmacy per year for each man, woman and child in Australia, and the stronger the patient-pharmacist relationship, the better the health outcomes that can be expected. Pharmacists are the custodians of the PBS and play a vital role in the primary health care of all Australians. Community pharmacists are medicine experts, providing professional advice and counselling on medications, including their use and effects, as well as general health care. Their services are highly accessible, and, in the vast majority of cases, their services are offered to consumers without the need to make an appointment. Regardless of where they live, all Australians have the same access to PBS medicines within 72 hours at no financial disadvantage. And, of course, we have seen the role that pharmacies have played as they join general practitioners and community clinics in administering COVID-19 vaccines over the past 12 months, which is also to be applauded.
I have a few more facts on the strength of community pharmacies. We should be proud of our world-class standards. The majority of pharmacies, currently over 90 per cent, are accredited by a quality assurance framework called the Quality Care Pharmacy Program. The Australian community pharmacy workforce is made up of around 60,000 people, including pharmacists, interns, specially trained dispensary technicians and pharmacy assistants. Community pharmacy is a more than 15-billion-dollar health industry, including more than $10 billion in prescription sales per year, and community pharmacies dispense more than 30 million prescriptions annually, with the average community pharmacy dispensing 54,482 prescriptions per year.
The coalition remains committed to ensuring Australians have access to affordable medicines when they need them, and we have a strong record of providing Australians with timely, affordable access to effective medicines, cancer treatments and services. When we were in government, we listed more than 2,800 new and amended medicines on the PBS, representing an average of around 30 listings per month—medications such as Orkambi, which has been found to reduce the need for hospital visits, some daily medications and physiotherapy for cystic fibrosis patients. Prior to being placed on the PBS in 2018, the life-saving drug was cost prohibitive to most patients, costing up to $250,000 a year. With over 100 cystic fibrosis patients in Tasmania, around 40 young Tasmanians, including northern Tasmania's Luke Emery and Hobart's Jack Dyson, are benefiting from this medication and paying a maximum of $39.50 per script.
Earlier this year, former health minister Greg Hunt proudly announced one of the final treatments to be listed under the PBS under his watch: Trikafta, a groundbreaking drug described by the CF community as life changing and life saving. At the cost of almost $21,000, some families were re-mortgaging their homes to access the medication. Once listed on the PBS, and with the implementation of this bill, the payment will come down to just over $30 a month. And I can only imagine the pure relief and joy that the accessibility of this medication is bringing to so many cystic fibrosis patients across the country.
In addition to Trikafta, the 2022-23 federal budget also included the new PBS listing for Trodelvy, for the treatment of triple-negative breast cancer, giving around 800 Australians precious time with loved ones and saving them up to $80,000 a treatment. The drug has shown reductions in tumours in 30 per cent of women taking it, giving them up to an extra 12 months to live. The success of the listing on the PBS came after 18 months of campaigning by the Breast Cancer Network Australia, who advocated for the medicine to put metastatic breast cancer on the radar and, according to BCNA head of policy and advocacy, Vicki Durston, to also give patients 'one last roll of the dice'. Ms Durston went on to describe the listing of Trodelvy as a significant milestone, highlighting the fact that triple-negative breast cancer is an aggressive form. There are limited options for what these patients can receive, and they have very poor clinical outcomes. We can't underestimate the financial relief this will bring to so many patients and their families, but it is the extra time they will gain to spend with those they love which is utterly priceless.
Reducing the PBS medicines co-payment at a time of ever-increasing cost-of-living pressures is a step in the right direction in supporting hardworking Australians. I support this legislation and I look forward to hearing what other steps the federal government will be taking to bring additional cost-of-living measures relief to our communities.
It is important to note that this does not take effect immediately and, along with other measures that the Labor government has been saying will help address the cost of living, it is somewhat down the road. I reiterate that it's important to note that Australians are suffering from financial stress right now. Whilst these measures will go a long way to help, assist and support with the cost of living, they are down the road and we need to turn our mind to the issues Australians are facing right now.
Ms THWAITES (Jagajaga) (18:50): I am so pleased to be speaking today in support of the National Health Amendment (General Co-payment) Bill 2022, which delivers on one of our government's very important election commitments. It has been a huge day for this government delivering on election commitments. We've had introduced today legislation for cheaper child care—thank you, Minister Aly. We have had our legislation for a national anticorruption commission introduced today. In fact, we've also had our legislation for the respect at work amendments, which will really make Australian workplaces safer places for women. And now we have this legislation around making medicines cheaper for Australians.
All of these are really important reforms that directly affect the lives of people in our communities, because that is what this government is about. We are about introducing changes that make this country a better place and that directly affect lives. I have to reflect that that was certainly not my experience during the three years I spent sitting on the other side of this chamber. In fact, we came into this chamber for bills that were really about presenting a political wedge. They were not about things that impact people's lives. As I said, I am so proud to be standing here today to talk about this important piece of legislation, delivering on our election commitment and, importantly, really making a difference to the lives of people in my community and to communities right across Australia.
Of course there are challenges that communities across Australia are facing at the moment. As the federal government it is for us to do the best we can to support people and to make sure that we are making their lives easier where we can. I do know that this bill will make a difference in the lives of people in my community. Whether you are in postcode 3081, 3087 or 3088, or in Jagajaga, I know you're facing cost-of-living pressures. I know that this bill, which makes medicine cheaper, will make a real difference in your life.
Put simply: this bill is about making medicines cheaper. It's part of our plan for strengthening Medicare and strengthening the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. In the last few years we've seen cost-of-living pressures continue to impact across our country. I have had many people in my community, particularly older people when it comes to the cost of medicines, come to me and talk about how day by day, week by week these costs are adding up and they hadn't felt prior to the last election that they had a government that understood and was taking action on cost-of-living pressures.
We know that, when people are facing cost-of-living pressures in these areas, sometimes spending on medicines can be one of the areas that go. That, of course, should not be the case in a country like ours. People should not be facing difficulties getting access to affordable medicines. While there's no single fix to cost-of-living pressures, our government is doing a bit that will make a difference to people's lives and deliver some relief. They will get the support. It will help make a difference to those day-by-day, week-by-week budgets and pressures.
Through our government's reduction to the PBS general co-payment we will be putting more money back into the pockets of Australians. This is the first time in the 75-year history of the PBS that the maximum cost of general scripts will fall. Under this bill the cost of scripts is being cut by 29 per cent, with the maximum cost to drop by $12.50, dropping the price overall to $30. So, for someone—say, a parent or a grandparent—in my community who might be filling one script a month, this means they could save $150 a year. For a family in my community who might be filling three scripts a month, this change means that every year they could save $450. That is a substantial difference.
By cutting the price of medications by nearly one-third, we're ensuring that more people can afford to get the medications they need to stay healthy, without having to worry so much about the price. Of course, we know that, in addition to the cost pressure, there is that worry pressure for people around how to make sure that they and their families stay healthy. We do want to reduce that burden as well as the cost pressure—because medicines aren't an optional extra; they're essential, and they shouldn't be the things that people are cutting from their budget.
Since 2000, the price Australians have paid for prescription medications has doubled, which is putting more and more pressure on those who are filling their scripts every month. Under this measure, our government is helping to address this by putting close to $200 million back in the pockets of Australians each year. This change will benefit about 19 million Australians, and 3.6 million Australians will immediately benefit when these changes come into effect from the start of 2023.
As the minister highlighted in his contribution to this debate, the PBS has a long history. And it's a proud Labor history. It was due to the hard work of two Labor giants, John Curtin and Ben Chifley, that the PBS was introduced in the 1940s—despite pushback from others of the time, including the Liberals. So I can assure those in my community and beyond: under our government, the PBS will continue to be supported. We are committed to seeing the PBS work as well as it can and to providing it as an avenue for people to access medicines at an affordable price.
We do know that, as I said, making medicines cheaper needs to be just one part of our plan to reduce the cost of living—and, again, I point to the cheaper childcare reforms that our government brought in this morning. This is another significant cost that families face, and it's a cost that, again, has really significant costs if people are cutting back on childcare through being unable to afford to access it. So there's absolutely more for us to do, and we are getting on with it.
There is, of course, more for us to do in health. Before the pandemic, we knew there was work to do to make our country's health systems the best they could be, and, post pandemic, that has obviously been reinforced. It is going to take hard work from our government, and from governments and service providers across the country, to make sure that Australia's health system is as robust and as strong as it should be, so that it provides the care that all of our communities rightly expect. Our government is taking the challenges in our health sector seriously. Beyond this bill, it is an area that we are focused on and will continue to focus on.
I recognise that, in my home state of Victoria, there are significant commitments also being made by our state government, which shares that focus on supporting the health sector and the workers who keep it going every day. My electorate is home to a sizeable medical precinct, with the wonderful Austin Hospital, the wonderful Mercy hospital, Warringah Private Hospital—we are very fortunate to have some wonderful health care locally. And, because of that, we also have wonderful health workers—doctors, nurses, administrative staff, cleaners and many others—who either call Jagajaga home or work in my electorate. I do want to take this opportunity, while I'm talking about our health system and how we can make it as strong as possible, to once again thank all of those workers for the extraordinary work that they have done throughout the pandemic and continue to do today.
We have, in my electorate, recently seen a fantastic commitment from the Andrews Labor government. It will upgrade the emergency department at the Austin. That reinforces once again that it is Labor governments, at both state and federal levels, that deliver on health.
We know that, when the cost of medicines is too high, we see situations where people feel that they have to make an impossible choice between getting the healthcare they need, providing for their family or in fact putting their health at risk. My colleague the member for Robertson did a wonderful job of explaining the very real consequences of that, which he has seen in his work as a health professional. I'm sure we'll hear from the member for Kooyong about her perspective, as a health professional, on that. And we certainly benefit in this place from having so many people with direct experience here.
According to the ABS, in the 2019-20 period there were close to one million Australians who delayed getting a prescription filled or who didn't get it filled at all because of costs. That's a situation our government doesn't want to see anyone having to face, for them or a family member or a friend. We also know from recent data that nearly two in three Australians have been provided with at least one PBS medicine. So it's clear the PBS is well utilised and is a benefit to our overall health system. It's something that people do rely on. As people age, or for people with a disability or experiencing health conditions, there is an increased likelihood that they will need to be supplied with medicines. If you are not personally someone who receives medicines on the PBS, you would, of course, have friends or family members who do. For people who need multiple medications, the situation with prices has meant that they've had to decide between medication for immediate relief of pain or other symptoms or medication that will support improvements to their long-term health. In the cases where this choice has come up for people, it's understandable that they have chosen to look at that short-term fix, potentially exacerbating long-term conditions. This is not a situation that we want people to be facing. It's not good for them or our wider communities.
Every Australian should be able to access world-class, universal medical care. It is one of the things that I think really sets our country apart from others, that in our community people know that if they need care they will get it and they will get it at an affordable price. It shouldn't send them to situations where they feel they are making unacceptable choices or facing unacceptable levels of debt or cost pressures. So by making medicines cheaper we are supporting some of the fundamentals of our health system and we are helping to address the cost of living pressures that I know many in my community and other communities are experiencing at the moment.
Importantly, no patient will be worse off under these changes. Pharmacies can still offer optional discounts in situations where the Commonwealth price is between the new and current co-payment amount. The savings this will deliver for Australian will continue over coming years. The general patient co-payment will continue to be indexed each year. From the start of 2024 it will be calculated off the new co-payment amount.
This bill before us will make a real difference to people and families in my community and to communities across the country. It will make a real difference to household budgets and it will help to relieve cost of living pressures. It is just one of the many ways our government is taking action to deliver on our election commitments and to respond to the needs of Australians. We're not wasting time. We're getting on with it because we know that people are looking to us for reforms that make their lives easier, that make this a better country for all of us. We are making medicines cheaper, and more broadly we will be making it easier for people to see a doctor and access a world-class system.
Labor's record in this space speaks for itself. We built Medicare and we will always protect Medicare and do the work needed to make sure that it continues as one of the fundamental underpinnings of our health system—the system that people know means they can see a doctor and do so in an affordable way when they need care. We built the PBS and we will always protect it, as I have explained. We know that people have been facing really difficult choices when it comes to the cost of medicine and making those decisions around their household budgets and whether they are deciding to take, perhaps, all the medicines that have been recommended for them. We have heard as part of this debate conversations that people have been having with doctors or pharmacists: 'Do I really need this one this month? Can I choose to just take this one this week?' Because they weren't sure that they would be able to afford all that had been prescribed for them.
That is absolutely no way to run our country's health system. That is not a choice that Australians should be facing. It is a choice that our government is trying to make sure no-one will face, so that families will know they can afford the medicine for their children, and older people will know that when they have complex needs they will be able to afford all the medicines they have been prescribed. That's what this bill is about. It is about making sure that we have a health system that delivers now for our country and our communities, but it's also about making sure that we have a health system that is built to deliver into the future and that makes sure that people in this country know that they have affordable access to life-saving medicines. I commend this bill to the House.
Mr STEVENS (Sturt) (19:05): I rise to happily speak in favour of the National Health Amendment (General Co-Payment) Bill 2022, which is about implementing an important coalition policy commitment that was made during the election and, I think, matched by the Labor Party later that afternoon. It must have been quite cruisy being in the policy team of the Labor campaign in the recent election, because, most of the time, they spent the day just agreeing to do the same thing that we'd announced earlier in the day. I'm starting to enjoy coming here and speaking about all these bits of legislation that see us implement policies that we announced during the campaign and would have implemented if we were successful. Thus, the Labor Party are happily obliging us in some of those areas. I think this is the third bill this week that I've spoken on which is a bill from the previous government or a commitment that we made during the election. I'm very pleased to have the Labor Party supporting that commitment that we made and to speak in support of a bill that will put it in place.
In the midst of this cost-of-living crisis that we are facing in this country and, frankly, across the globe, it is very important that we take every opportunity to relieve pressures on people. The cost of pharmaceuticals is probably one of the most worthy areas in which we can reduce that burden on people across the country, and this bill enables a reduction in the co-payment for people who purchase medicines that are listed on the PBS. I'll come to that in a bit more detail in a moment, but, firstly, I want to take the opportunity to reflect on how lucky we are to have the health system that we have in this country.
Yes, it is commonplace in political debates for people to pointscore—there will possibly be some of that later in my contribution, and there has been some of that in other contributions—but we are really, really lucky to have the health system that we've got in this country. There are definitely members of this House who have more experience than me—those who are healthcare professionals—and have probably seen parts of the world that have health systems with elements that they argue are better than in this country. But, whilst we can always improve, I think we are really lucky to live in this country and to have the standard of health care that we've got, the dedication of the healthcare workforce that we've got and the standard of care that we've got. Our system is comparatively much more affordable than some countries that are known to be wealthy countries. People would be surprised to realise and recognise just how unaffordable health care and basic, fundamental medical treatment are in some of those nations.
I've experienced a few of them. I was travelling in the United Kingdom, which has a pretty good health system, and took a companion who'd had an accident to the NHS. It was very similar to and as accessible as our system, and I had just as good an experience as I've had in the Australian system. Equally, I've had experiences with the health system in the United States and, in particular, the struggle to access that system. It's not just the experience that I had but also one that is so common—the stories you hear about how unobtainable proper health care can be for so many millions—probably hundreds of millions—of Americans and the exorbitantly high costs that they have.
I was an employer in the United States. A subsidiary of my business unit operated in the United States, and I had a few employees under the American system. I came to understand that, when you get a job in the United States, the most significant thing is getting your health insurance paid by your employer. They're more interested in that than what the rate of salary is, because it is vitally important to have employer funded health insurance. If it's not through your employer, you really have a very limited safety net in place to provide your health services in that country—or sometimes none at all. I'm very glad that we don't have that circumstance in Australia. I'm very proud of the system that we've got.
I also take the opportunity to thank all the people that work in our health system—all the healthcare professionals right across the various disciplines, who have always done a great job looking after the most vulnerable in our society but have had particularly significant challenges in the last few years, doing all the things that ordinarily have to happen in our health system and on top of that managing a pandemic and doing so many things that have made the burden of their already very difficult roles that little bit higher. They do it not with complaint; I think it was just remarkable and a great testament to people in the system, the extent to which, despite the additional burdens that were added to their workload, including the various elements of managing the pandemic and the facilities they were in, sometimes dealing with some quite difficult people who were not being reasonable and not being understanding of what they were doing and going through—not understanding restrictions placed on them that were all about keeping them safe. We thank all of those great heroes of the last couple of years for what they have done.
We are debating, though I don't think there's a lot of argument. I think everyone is in agreement to support this bill, so we're having a discussion about the importance of the government program the PBS and something that will reduce the co-payment that is made by the two elements of this, the general and concessional rates and then the safety net within that as well. In particular, at the general level, there is a significant reduction to the co-payment. As I said, this was announced by the coalition in the election campaign, and we made many announcements on an ongoing and in the budget a significant announcement about the PBS from an access point of view. In the election, we announced this dramatic reduction in the co-payment, and the Labor opposition said, later their day, I think it was, that they would match it, and so here we are implementing it.
The cost of medicine is a significant burden on anyone that's got a requirement for ongoing prescription medicine, and in particular this tends to be the most vulnerable people in our society. We do have the concessional stream as well as the general stream, but any people that have a burden of ongoing requirement for prescription medication under the PBS deserve as much support as we can afford to provide them. I think the statistics are that a little over 80 per cent of the total cost of PBS related prescriptions are borne by the government. I think it was 81 per cent for the government and 19 per cent for the consumer co-payment. I apologise if I got those statistics slightly incorrect, but it's in that vicinity. I think that's great. We'd obviously love to be able to finance the system completely, but it's certainly important that there is a stake in it so that people, where they can afford to play a part, do so under the system we've got.
This reduction is an important step to recognising that the burden probably was a little higher than any of us would have liked, and this is a way to put a reduction in place. We also feel particularly for people who have got very significant medication requirements. There's obviously the PBS safety net that kicks in for people once they reach a certain number of scripts in a year, and that's a very important additional support for people who have a large volume of medication requirements. This is obviously something that's further providing support to people that require the PBS.
In the previous government, I was very proud in the term that I was a part of that government, but over its nine years a large number of medications were listed on the PBS, and that in particular is one of the great legacies of the nine years of the coalition government. That was because we had the economic settings in place and the budget position to be able to afford it. We listed a huge number of new medications on the PBS and, of course, they were all extremely worthy listings. We had very robust processes in place and undertaken to list drugs on the PBS. I'm sure that those with much more expertise than me would have a lot of examples of more that need to be listed. I hope that this new government can take some inspiration from our record and list more drugs on the PBS that are worthy and legitimate to be within that scheme at the same rate that we did. When we came into government, there had been a freeze on listings. The previous Labor government had eventually said, 'We just can't afford to list any new medication for the foreseeable future.'
Obviously we want people of this country to have access to the most up-to-date, most effective medications recommended by clinicians, researchers and experts or any treatments that they need that will put them in the best place to deal with their condition or that will bring comfort for whatever condition needs to be treated. All Australians should have the highest standard of care, including pharmaceutical care, that is available. It's really important we remember to hold the new government to account as far as making sure that we are seeing the listings on the PBS so that treatments that are agreed by clinicians and researchers as effective are being supported through the PBS.
It would be a spectacularly additional burden on anyone that already had a significant health or medical condition that they were confronting and getting treated for to need any form of prescription medication that was not on the PBS. I'm sure some of the costs for non-listed medications would be absolutely horrendously expensive and probably prohibitive for people in getting access to that treatment. If we ever had a circumstance where people couldn't get treatment in this country because we didn't have a system that was providing them access to that without the need for exorbitant financial contribution from them then we would, in fact, be in that situation that I experienced in the United States, which I hope we never see in this country.
I think there's complete unanimity amongst the legislators of this House and amongst all participants in our political process that we want to have a health system that is adhering to that fundamental principle that your personal economic situation should have nothing to do with your ability to access the best-quality health treatment that you need to hopefully help you recover from or live with and manage to the highest ability of modern medical science at that point in time that you can. That's certainly the society that I want to always live in. For quite a few decades now, there's been relatively strong bipartisanship around that fundamental principle.
Health is such a significant area. It's an important area to all of us. It's also a significant area as far as the resourcing that's required to provide that absolutely world-class system. I'm not delusional enough to think that we won't have ongoing debates about various elements of health policy and how we should be delivering different programs. It's a particularly added complexity in this country because we have multiple levels of government with various involvement and roles within the full ecosystem of health and health treatment. Those fundamental principles are vitally important. We all want to live in a country where every Australian has access to the highest possible standard of health care. So this is a bill that we happily support on the basis that it will contribute, in some way, towards enhancing our system to be even more than it is right now. I commend the bill to the House.
Ms KEARNEY (Cooper—Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care) (19:20): I rise to support the National Health Amendment (General Co-payment) Bill 2022, and it is my great pleasure to stand in support of this legislation today. It's a bill that we know will have a real, tangible impact on people's health and their hip pocket. The bill will implement our election commitment to reduce the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme general patient co-payment by $12.50, by amending the National Health Act 1953.
From 1 January 2023 the current co-payment of $42.50 will be reduced to $30. This is the first time the PBS co-payment has been reduced by any government. We went to the election with a plan to create a better future for all Australians, and, with the rising cost of living that's hitting Australians at the moment, this bill will deliver on that commitment and give much needed cost-of-living relief. Delivering a stronger, fairer Medicare system will mean a better deal for all Australians and will mean better health care.
Coming out of the recent census, the ABS have reported some disturbing statistics about the social determinants of health. We know that a postcode can actually determine your life expectancy. This is shocking for a wealthy country like Australia. There can be up to, in some parts of this country, a 30-year difference on your life expectancy depending on where you live. This is unacceptable. It's policies like this, universal access to health care and decreasing the cost of medicines across the board, that could indeed go a long way to helping that gap close.
My partner has multiple health issues. He spends a lot of money on medications every month. I tell him it costs our family a fortune to keep him alive, but it's a good thing. That's because we can afford that. I have a good income; he has a good income. We know that he can afford those pills and will get that medication. But there's no question that many Australians are doing it tough and may not be able to afford it like I can, like he can. Their health loses out because of it. They sacrifice their health because they can't afford it.
It's issues like this that contribute to that shocking statistic about the social determinants of health care. I've heard from my constituents, in my electorate of Cooper, and people from right across Australia about how hard it is right now, how the cost of living is hitting their family budgets. I'm proud to be part of a government that is taking this incredibly seriously.
I'm proud to be part of a government that thinks health care should be universal, that where you live shouldn't determine whether or not you can afford to see a doctor or buy the medications you need, that where you live shouldn't determine what your life expectancy is. I'm proud to be part of a government that is taking this incredibly seriously. From our Jobs and Skills Summit and the actions that have come from it—a strong push to get people trained and into work to make sure that anybody who wants a job can get a job—to an increase in the minimum wage which will ensure our lowest paid workers get a pay rise, from our decision to back the Fair Work Commission in giving a pay rise to everybody on the minimum wage or in aged care, to making child care cheaper, to ensuring that people can get cleaner, cheaper energy, we know there's more to be done.
That's what Labor governments do, and I'm proud to speak in support of this bill today. It will make a substantial difference to household budgets and the long-term health of Australians. In 75 years, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme has not seen a cut of this size in the cost of medicines. From establishing Medicare to introducing the NDIS, Labor governments have delivered on health for all Australians for decades. Nineteen million Australians will be eligible to benefit from the savings created from this bill. That's $190 million each year that will be saved by patients.
Under this legislation, the maximum cost of scripts will be brought down from $42.50 to $30. That's a reduction of almost 30 per cent. That is significant to a family on the minimum wage. There are 3.6 million Australians with current prescriptions over $30 who will immediately save on medical scripts. That's 14 per cent of the population—from our kids to our elderly Australians—who are looking at a real change to cost-of-living pressures as a result of this bill.
It's vital that they receive this support, because we know that right now there are individuals and families who are choosing between filling a script for a medicine they need or putting food on the table, and taking daily medications—medications that have been prescribed to be taken daily—only every other day thinking that they are saving costs by doing that, when actually they are making sure that the medication is not having the effect that it should.
Let's not forget that we are the country of Medicare. We are the country of universal health care, yet this is a reality facing so many Australians right now. Australians haven't just magically found themselves in a situation where it has become harder and more expensive to see a doctor or more expensive to pay for medicines or to stay healthy. This is the result of a decade of neglect and negligence by the former government. They failed abysmally when it came to dealing with the issues facing our economy and our health system, and Australians are paying the price for their inaction, quite literally.
When the costs of medicines and medical treatment are prohibitive, when everyday people can't afford the treatments they need to live full lives, there are really serious consequences. It's led us to a situation where we know that individuals are desperately trying to negotiate which medication they can go without that month, that week or that day. We have heard some compelling arguments from other members of this House today about how that is affecting their constituents, the people that they deal with on a daily basis that they see. I see the member for Kooyong is about to make a presentation. I'm sure she would know firsthand the impact that this could have on her patients.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics has told us that 900,000 Australians delayed or didn't get a script filled in 2019-20. That means that they are choosing to go without medicines that a doctor has prescribed for their health, that a doctor said is important and necessary for them to achieve or maintain good health. We have talked to people and industry leaders about this issue for a long time, and we have consulted with key pharmacy stakeholders, who have shared it's like on the ground with patients. From my time as a nurse, hearing these stories is heartbreaking. I've seen up close the risks of going without crucial preventative medicines and the impact on people's long-term health. This is serious; this is about risking people's lives No-one should put in that situation.
So, as we embark on the important task of reforming our health system, I'm proud to support this bill, which will help people avoid ever having to make that awful choice. It will mean that parents and carers will not have to skip out on essentials that month so that their kids with asthma have their puffer. It means that John, who takes the drug Apixaban to reduce his risk of stroke can afford to keep scripts filled. This is a life-saving medication. It is an anti-coagulant medication which lowers the risk of life-threatening blood clots that can lead to stroke. It is listed on the PBS and it currently $42.50 a script. John has been prescribed the recommended dose of five milligrams twice daily, which means he needs 26 prescriptions a year. That is a cost of $1,105 a year that John has to find in his budget or risk going without.
And John is not alone. Approximately one million Apixaban prescriptions are dispensed every year. With a reduction to the patient co-payment, John and thousands like him will now save $325 a year on this life-saving medication. That's a massive saving, and it's one that will make it much easier for people like John to be sure they can afford the medicines that they need. So it's not just support with the cost of living that this bill delivers; it also delivers greater access to healthcare and a healthier life, the ability to avoid serious illness and the ability to keep your family healthy. In cases like John's, it delivers the ability to avoid life-threatening illnesses. This is an incredibly powerful reform. As a nurse, I know how difficult it can be for people to manage the health needs of themselves or their loved ones. It's complex and often tiring and stressful to navigate managing your health—
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
The SPEAKER: It being 7.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Economy
Ms CHANEY (Curtin) (19:30): Focus on economic growth has delivered huge increases in material living standards since the postwar period. Gross domestic product, GDP, is almost universally used as the primary measure of the success of an economy. But GDP and this singular focus on economic growth has its limitations. In a world of finite resources, we're increasingly becoming aware that endless material growth is a myth. We need to work out how to keep progressing but in a way that doesn't put impossible demands on our planet. In the 1960s Robert Kennedy said, 'Our gross national product counts air pollution and cigarette advertising and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for the people who break them. It counts the destruction of the redwood and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play.'
We now have widening economic inequality, despair and loneliness, climate breakdown and political disengagement—none of which are measured by GDP. Our supports are focused on cure, not prevention. We are paying to fix what we continue to break. Our economy should be the means, not the end. COVID provided a real reminder about which parts of our economy were essential: the parts that involved providing for each other—the nurses, teachers, carers and supply-chain workers.
So how do we get the economy to serve the people, not the people to serve the economy? We need to start by rethinking the purpose of our economy. Personally, I think the purpose of our economy should be to create the opportunity to lead good lives. This requires some changes, but they don't need to be radical. There's an emerging approach to public policy globally known as the wellbeing economy. Countries like Scotland and New Zealand are already rethinking how they measure success, to put wellbeing at the centre of budget decisions. In fact, half the OECD countries have wellbeing frameworks, both developed and developing countries, with conservative and progressive leaders.
So what will it take to change our system from serving our economy to serving our people? Australia was an early leader in measuring wellbeing, but progress has stalled in the last decade. To make this happen, the government would need to lay out a roadmap for how we get to a wellbeing economy. This could include two things that the government could do in the next 12 months. Firstly, let's start a national conversation about what we actually value. What makes a good life? Different countries have developed different answers to this question. In New Zealand, the swimmability of the water is important. In my electorate, UWA has been working with Aboriginal elders to build an understanding of what people value through its Good Spirit Good Life project. That research has shown that for Aboriginal elders it's about connection with family and friends, with country, with community and culture. It's about health and happiness, respect from others and fulfilling your community role as an elder. It's also about meeting basic needs, safety, security and support, spirituality and future planning. By having conversations about what we value, we can identify the tensions and appreciate the unintended consequences and the trade-offs.
Secondly, let's work out how to measure the things we value. Other countries have started this work, with suites of measures identified in Scotland, Wales and New Zealand. No doubt these will be imperfect, but they will focus the conversation on what we should be trying to preserve and trying to change. Here in Australia, there are a number of projects working on this approach, including the Australian National Development Index and the Western Australia Development Index. This is a full-scale state version of the Australian development index, championed by Fiona Stanley in my home state of Western Australia. These provide great head starts for a national approach.
Once we know what to measure, we can start breaking down silos and focusing on outcomes rather than outputs. This would enable our Public Service to focus on prevention rather than cure. Even if it took a decade or two, this would point us in the right direction to proactively build a path to a happier, healthier, more resilient future. To rethink what we value and how we measure it will require community engagement and political courage. I urge my parliamentary colleagues to be part of this emerging conversation in their communities and in this parliament. (Time expired)
Human Rights: Iran
Mr KHALIL (Wills) (19:35): I've spoken numerous times in this place in support of peaceful protests around the globe, whether it be in Myanmar, Hong Kong, Chile or Iran. Why have I done this? I think for the same reason as most members in this place: because, as democratic representatives, I believe we have a responsibility. We have a responsibility to defend the values and principles that underpin the very freedoms that we enjoy, such as freedom of speech and expression, an independent press, equality before the law and the right to go about our day-to-day lives without fear. So I speak out in solidarity with people protesting in support of these principles, wherever they may be, because freedom is not just a remote concept. It's not just an ideal for a lucky handful of countries. I think it's an innate human desire—a desire to live our lives the way we choose to.
In this place, we are regularly focused on the big geostrategic challenges of the Indo-Pacific, our region, and the challenges to human rights in our own region, which Australia has a very important part to play in advancing, of course. But we need not be limited in our ambition to see everyone enjoy the same rights as we do here.
Today I want to speak in support of those demonstrating peacefully in Iran for their own freedom. The Iranian people, I know, are a proud people—an ancient and storied civilisation that has bequeathed so much knowledge and culture to humanity. They are also a passionate people, and that passion and that courage is on full display right now.
For nearly two weeks, people have been taking to the streets in Iran following the death—the murder—of Jina Mahsa Amini. Mahsa died in custody. She was killed. There are corroborating witnesses for that evidence. She was killed at the hands of the so-called morality police, the Gasht-e Ershad. They arrested Mahsa for improperly wearing a headscarf. There is no morality to be found in arresting women for the clothes they choose to wear or not to wear, and it is appalling to think that she would lose her life as a result. Whether it be in Iran or elsewhere, anywhere in the world, whether a woman wants to wear a hijab or not, it should be her choice. I stand in solidarity with the people in Iran and here in Australia protesting in Mahsa's name.
Many are doing so at great risk to their own safety. The Iranian regime has targeted protesters with the same violence they directed at Mahsa. Students have been met with tear gas, batons and water cannons. Dozens of protesters have been detained and some taken to unknown locations. This includes journalists reporting on the unrest, as the government has sought to shut down the internet. Security forces have fired indiscriminately at protesters. Dozens of people are reported to have been killed, including 23-year-old Farjad Darvishi and 16-year-old Zakaria Khayal—young people protesting for their freedom, slain on the streets by the forces of the theocratic government in Iran.
The Australian government condemns the use of deadly force against these protesters. Our concerns around the death of Mahsa Amini have been raised directly with the Iranian embassy here in Canberra, as we have previously raised our opposition to human rights abuses and discrimination with Iranian officials across multilateral fora, including at the UN. We also support the calls for an impartial investigation into Mahsa's death by an independent body. The people responsible for these crimes must be held to account, because her friends and her family and the Iranian people deserve truth. They deserve justice. They deserve the freedoms they have fought for for so long.
To stand up for freedom is really to stand up for freedom everywhere. They are an example to us. People, young and old, are standing up in the face of great and serious and grave threats to their safety and to their lives to demand the right to make decisions about their own lives. That's what they're fighting for. So I want them to know, and I want all the Iranian Australians watching this to know: we stand with you here in Australia. Whether it be on the streets of Melbourne, where many people have joined protests in solidarity, or here in this place, in the federal parliament of Australia, we stand with you in your fight for your freedom. To the people of Iran: we stand with you. Zendebad Iran, zendebad azadi!
Bonner Electorate: Koalas
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (19:40): It is no secret that the koala is an iconic symbol worldwide for Australian wildlife. Despite greater awareness and an overwhelming understanding of the need to do more for koala conservation, it is unfortunate that we continue to see a dramatic decline in koala numbers across the country. South East Queensland alone has seen our koala population decrease by 80 per cent over the last 20 years.
In my electorate of Bonner, the koala has been under threat due to the impact of illness, loss of habitat, car strikes, and the devastating recent floods in February. However, there is a shining beacon of hope for the protection and rehabilitation of Bonner's local koala population, and that comes from the team at Queensland Koala Society and its president, Angela Cristodoulou. I first updated the House on the Queensland Koala Society in June 2020, after Angela had established this wonderful not-for-profit organisation in Belmont. Since then, Angela and her team have been working tirelessly to protect, rescue and rehabilitate koalas in our local area. Angela has personally rescued over 800 koalas, and in one night alone her team recorded seven koala rescues in South East Queensland. The Queensland Koala Society do an incredible job, and it is no small thing for me to say that I am in awe of the passion, dedication and determination from Angela and her team to create a better future for koalas.
But the Queensland Koala Society is missing just one major component from a truly comprehensive rehabilitation plan, and that is a koala kindy. Since the foundation of the society, Angela has had a vision for the development of a koala kindy. A koala kindy would allow locally rescued koalas, especially joeys, to be rehabilitated, grow and develop in one location before being released back into the wild. Currently, koalas rescued by the Queensland Koala Society need to be transported to Australia Zoo or to the Moggill Koala Rehabilitation Centre for the final stages of treatment and vet checks before release. Not only is the transport time-consuming and costly for volunteers, it can also cause further trauma for rescued koalas. That is why, before the last election, I fought to secure funding for the establishment of a koala kindy in Bonner.
I'm here to say that, despite the election results, I am still committed to fighting for the funding of a koala kindy. A koala kindy in Bonner would not only prove vital in the fight to save our koalas but would also be an incredible educational tool for local schools and universities. There is no better way to help create future leaders in wildlife protection than providing hands-on learning opportunities for students. The koala kindy would also be in a prime position to highlight Australia's commitment to wildlife rehabilitation during the 2032 Olympics, as it would be located opposite a future Olympic venue, the Chandler Arena, where many Olympic events will be held. The need for a koala kindy in Bonner is clear. I am calling on the new government to honour this commitment and help establish a koala kindy at the Queensland Koala Society, not just for the benefit of my community, but for all Australians and for generations to come.
National Anti-Corruption Commission
Ms MILLER-FROST (Boothby) (19:44): Tonight I rise to speak about the Albanese Labor government's commitment to introduce a national anti-corruption commission. Specifically, I want to talk about how delivering a federal integrity body motivated me to run for the seat of Boothby at this year's election. Like all Australians, I believe our government should act ethically. It should act in a way that builds trust—that fosters trust in the government and in our society. It should promote accountability. And that should extend—nay, particularly apply—to us, here in this place.
There is, of course, a practical reason why an anticorruption commission will improve the relationship between our citizens and government. Integrity is directly related to our ability to deliver for the Australian people. And that's what we said we would do. We said, at the last election, and when we campaigned, and when we were elected, we would deliver for the Australian people.
I'm somebody who comes to this place with a background of delivering services designed to improve the lives of the most vulnerable amongst us. So I know how far even relatively small amounts of government funding can go, to really improve the lives of Australians—to get people off the street and into homes; to get Australians the health care, the aged care and the education they need and deserve; to deliver the better future that all Australians deserve.
The money that the Australian people entrust to us must go to bettering their lives. So it simply makes my blood boil to see any of that money wasted, and I know that Australians—and the people of Boothby—feel exactly the same way. I know that because they told me. They told me over and over again. I heard it from people of all political persuasions—from retirees, from business owners, from workers, from carers, from those voting for the first time. I heard it from Labor volunteers. I heard it from academics. And I heard it from people who had spent years campaigning on the issue of integrity. When I asked the constituents of Boothby what they were looking for in an incoming government, 'an integrity commission' was one of the most universal answers.
They want to know that they can trust their government. They want public servants and politicians held to account for what they do—for what we do—because, ultimately, integrity isn't a partisan issue. It shouldn't be a partisan issue. It is the foundation upon which our democracy rests.
The Australian people are entirely correct to demand integrity from their elected representatives. Without it, faith in our democracy, in our parliamentary processes and in this place erodes. As we've seen from events around the world and closer to home, this can happen very quickly, with dramatic and disastrous results. Lack of trust in government spawns distress, divisiveness, disinformation and disunity. Conversely, the strength of our democracy is that it's for all of us—it's Australians for Australians; it's government by the people for the people. Australians want to know that we, their elected representatives, make decisions on their behalf and that those decisions are for their benefit. That is why I was motivated to leave a job that I loved, that made a difference to South Australians, to instead run for parliament.
I share the people of Boothby's passion for integrity. The Australians I speak to value our democracy, but their faith and their commitment in democracy requires trust in the integrity of the government that they've elected and the decisions being made in their name and with their money. That's why I'm so proud to stand here as a member of a Labor government that will be introducing legislation to establish a national anticorruption body. It was a key election promise for the Albanese Labor government, and it was a key election promise for me. And here we are, just over four months later, with legislation ready to be introduced into this place. I hope all people in this place will stand up for democracy, stand up for accountability and stand up for integrity by committing to stamping out corruption in our politics for good.
In May, Boothby voted for integrity. The Albanese Labor government will deliver it.
Arts and Culture
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Manager of Opposition Business) (19:49): With Australia's arts and entertainment sector still rebuilding from the COVID pandemic, you might have expected that this government would be focused on moving quickly with practical measures to support the arts and entertainment sector. But, since the election, the Minister for the Arts has refused to release $20 million in committed funding under the coalition government's RISE program that was included in the budget and which could have assisted the arts sector over the last few months. Instead, the priority of this government has been to have a plan about a plan—their so-called National Cultural Policy. The recent discussion paper gives some clues about what it might cover, with a first chapter mystifyingly titled in opaque bureaucratic language 'National Culture Plan Consultation Framing Submission'. According to this paper, the arts sector urgently needs a 'conversation about industrial standards and settings'. In other words, the new Labor government wants to force the arts sector to sign up to a new union-friendly industrial framework. All of this is a long way away from supporting the delivery of great shows seen by as many Australians as possible.
There were some quite bizarre views put forward to the consultation process. According to one submission, a focus on reaching the audience is a bad thing: 'a commercial expectation that can adversely impact on cultural benefit'. Another submission sneers at audiences, saying: 'Australian arts audiences are largely educated white people, mostly middle-aged women. Surely we can get better at this.' Yet another claims, 'After decades of being ignored and even deliberately suppressed, artists have come to expect nothing from government but open contempt.' Author Clare Wright, appointed to the minister's expert advisory group, says that the cultural sector has been 'trivialised and marginalised'.
In fact, arts and culture receive strong support from both sides of politics. Under our Liberal-National government, in 2021-22 total Commonwealth arts funding was a record $1 billion, higher than any previous government, Liberal or Labor. It's true that just today the Minister for the Arts finally announced some COVID support for the arts sector, many months too late. Even now, all we have is a vague announcement. The full details of Labor's scheme are yet to be revealed, including how much funding is available and the specifics of what determines eligibility to receive payments under the fund. All the minister needed to do was to use the existing RISE funding, and the money could have already been flowing into the sector. That could have happened some months ago. Instead, his new fund is not kicking off until November and only runs for three months.
RISE effectively operated as a pre-insurance scheme, because grant recipients knew that the funding they received did not have to be returned if an event was cancelled due to COVID. RISE funded more than 541 projects, creating over 195,000 job opportunities across Australia. A very good example is the Byron Bay Bluesfest, held in April this year following the very unfortunate cancellation of that event last year. This year's blues fest could not have gone ahead without the $2.4 million injection it received from the RISE fund. This was confirmed to me by the organisers when I had the chance to visit and see some terrific performances.
There are plenty of sensible arts priorities which the new government could consider as it works on its so-called national cultural policy. Boosting the market for Indigenous art makes good sense. Using the internet to help show live performances all around Australia, just as the Australian Digital Concert Hall successfully did during COVID, is a powerful tool so more Australians can access the arts. Making the arts more available to Australians who live in our suburbs and in regional and remote areas, who today are rather underserved in contrast to the abundance of inner city and CBD venues, would be a very good thing. Keeping government funding for the arts competitive and contestable, instead of locking in the money to the same cosy club of arts companies for decades, is important. All of these were priorities for the previous government, and I think they would make good sense for the new government. But, sadly, it looks like this government's national cultural policy is more about ideology and industrial relations than making the arts more accessible and supporting more great Australian performers.
Child Care
Mr LIM (Tangney) (19:54): A small stone was cast today into the great lake that is our nation, and its ripples will be felt for generations going forward. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, there were 73,000 people last year that wanted to work but did not even look for work because they could not make the cost of child care work for them. This government has followed through on its promise to the Australian people to introduce cheaper child care. It brings me great joy to say that almost 5,600 families in my electorate will benefit from this bill. Five thousand, six hundred families will have access to affordable child care. Five thousand, six hundred families will not be left with a partner considering whether it is even worth going to work when the fees for child care are exorbitant. Five thousand, six hundred families will be enabled and empowered to fully participate in the workforce of their industry and be considered for promotions that require full-time work; they may even go back to study to get a better job that makes them happier and enables a better life. Five thousand, six hundred families will be assisted with the cost of living, enabling them to keep their hard-earned pay and have it accessible to them for whatever they need.
I am passionate about the lives of all Australians being made better. Under this government, no Australian will be left worse off.
Early education pays dividends. The earlier this government can implement access to child care, the sooner families are able to get ahead. The sooner our children are school-ready, the sooner our nation will benefit from their contribution, because of this policy.
This bill also makes strides towards closing the gap in an area where First Nations children are going backwards: school-readiness. Currently, only 4.3 per cent of children in early education are First Nations children, despite being 6.1 per cent of the population aged zero to five. It is not good enough for this country to have its mothers having to decide between affordably caring for their children, or going to work to provide for their family and contribute to the workforce. This government believes in both, and this bill enables that. By increasing the hours that First Nations children are eligible for subsidised child care from 24 to 36, this government says: 'It's no longer one or the other—you can both afford to have access to child care and go to work,' because, with more First Nations children having access to early education, we're setting them up to have opportunity and benefit for the rest of their lives.
As you know, I moved to this country to give my children access to better education and a better life. I know that mothers, fathers, grandparents and carers would move mountains for their children. We would do anything for our kids. And I also know how difficult it is to not provide what is adequate for our children. I lived it. Hunger can keep you awake at night. Stress and guilt can keep you awake at night. But I am very proud to say that, tonight, I will sleep so much better knowing that this government has delivered for one million families across the country and for 5,600 families in my electorate of Tangney.
House adjourned at 19 : 58
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
MS BURNEY to make a statement on Wednesday, 28 September 2022 on the following significant matter—Death of Uncle Jack Charles.
MR DREYFUS to present a Bill for an Act to provide for the establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, and for related purposes. (National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022)
MR DREYFUS to present a Bill for an Act to deal with consequential and transitional matters arising from the enactment of the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2022, and for other purposes. (National Anti-Corruption Commission (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2022)
MR BOWEN to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to offshore electricity infrastructure, and for related purposes. (Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2022)
MS PLIBERSEK to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Act 1989, and for related purposes. (Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Reform (Closing the Hole in the Ozone Layer) Bill 2022)
MS C KING to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to the funding of Australian Animal Health Council Limited and Plant Health Australia Limited, and for related purposes. (Animal Health Australia and Plant Health Australia Funding Legislation Amendment Bill 2022)
MS RISHWORTH to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to social security and veterans' entitlements, and for related purposes. (Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Workforce Incentive) Bill 2022)
DR LEIGH to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001, and for related purposes. (Treasury Laws Amendment (More Competition, Better Prices) Bill 2022)
MR BURKE to move:
That standing order 31 (automatic adjournment of the House), standing order 33 (limit on business) and standing order 133 (deferred divisions) be suspended for this sitting.
MR DREYFUS to move:
That:
(1) a Joint Select Committee on National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation be established to inquire into and report on the provisions of the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022 and the National Anti-Corruption Commission (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2022;
(2) the committee consist of 12 members, three members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, two members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, one member of the House of Representatives nominated by any minority group or independent member, three senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, two senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and one senator to be nominated by any minority group or independent senator;
(3) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(4) in the event that a House is not sitting and is not expected to meet for at least two weeks, the relevant whip in the House of Representatives, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, minority groups or independent senators may nominate any appointment or discharge of a member of a committee in writing to the relevant Presiding Officer. The change in membership shall take effect from the time the Presiding Officer received the written nomination. At the next sitting, the Presiding Officer shall report the change to the relevant House and the House shall resolve membership of that committee;
(5) the persons appointed for the time being to serve on the committee shall constitute the committee notwithstanding any failure by the Senate or the House of Representatives to appoint the full number of senators or members referred to in this resolution;
(6) members of the committee hold office as a joint select committee until presentation of the committee's report;
(7) the committee elect a Government member as its chair;
(8) the committee elect a member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;
(9) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote;
(10) four members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include at least one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(11) the committee have power to:
(a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;
(b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;
(c) sit in public or in private; and
(d) adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives;
(12) the committee report on or before 10 November 2022;
(13) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and
(14) a message be sent to the Senate seeking its concurrence in this resolution.
MR BURKE to move:
That:
(1) the resolution of appointment for the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters be amended to replace paragraph 3 with the following:
(3) the committee consist of 12 members, four Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, two Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, one cross-bench Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, two Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, two Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and one Senator to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator; and
(2) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.
National Health Amendment (General Co-payment) Bill 2022 (Minister for Health and Aged Care): Second reading—Resumption of debate (from 27 September 2022—Ms Kearney, in continuation).
MS BELL to move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges the Baha'i faith and their right to express their religious beliefs;
(2) condemns the actions of the Iranian Government's persecution of those of the Baha'i faith including the:
(a) imprisonment of Iranian Bahai's due to their faith;
(b) destruction and repossession of property and belongings of Iranian Baha'is;
(c) propaganda and incitement of hate and violence against those of the Baha'i faith; and
(d) barred access to education, including higher education for many Iranian Baha'is
(3) endorses the work of the Baha'i community in Australia who support citizens escaping persecution, and draw attention to the violation of humans rights of Baha'is in Iran.
Federation Chamber
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Stevens ) took the chair at 16:00.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Stevens ) took the chair at 16:00.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Emergency Management
Ms WATSON-BROWN (Ryan) (16:00): The Bureau of Meteorology has just declared that a La Nina event is underway, the third in a row. In Ryan we are particularly vulnerable. We've had three cataclysmic floods in my lifetime. They won't stop, and, with climate change, they're becoming more frequent. Our 60 kilometres of river frontage and 300 kilometres of creek and waterway frontages in Ryan put us at very high risk. And, as around 50 per cent of our total area of 366 square kilometres is bushland and conservation areas, bushfire is also a future risk in El Nino situations. So it's perfectly reasonable to ask, as La Nina 3 bears down on us, what action is coming out of this knowledge. Natural Hazards Research Australia chief executive Andrew Gissing says:
It's a really good idea to sit down with your family members or your employees and figure out what you're going to do …
Okay. Is it entirely up to our frightened, exhausted community? It can't be. So where's the government plan? Where's the funding? Currently 97 per cent of disaster spending happens in response and recovery, while only three per cent is in preparing for disasters. I believe this has to change.
The National Emergency Management Agency, NEMA, has recently formed, through a merger of existing agencies, and is now the primary agency responsible for most Australian government disaster preparedness and response. The head of NEMA, former New South Wales fire chief Greg Mullins, who is now with Emergency Leaders for Climate Action, says we need change, a shift from responding to disasters to preparing for them. I agree, but my community in Ryan is sceptical that the full scale of what we need to be prepared for the disasters to come has actually been understood. The money is there for a full disaster preparedness plan. It's about priorities. The Labor government is about to spend over $100 billion on nuclear submarines from the US. The government's new Disaster Ready Fund, on the other hand, gets only $200 million a year. What we need right now is an action plan, coordinated, detailed, well funded and localised—an action plan to deal with the immediate, like escape infrastructure, rescue capacity, emergency support, housing food et cetera; the medium term, like compensation, buying back homes, rebuilding, integrated planning, no more development in flood plains; and the long term, like mitigation and climate action now, so no new coal and gas. In the absence of this, we in the Ryan electorate office are already rallying volunteers. (Time expired)
UCI Road World Championships
Mr JONES (Whitlam—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services) (16:03): The 2022 UCI Road World Championships have concluded in my hometown of Wollongong. More than a thousand of the top international cyclists from over 90 countries took part in the course. Our Aussie team made the country and the region incredibly proud, and I'd like to extend my congratulations to the men's and the women's elite and time trial teams. We scooped up a few medals, including a bronze in the team time trial, mixed division; a bronze for the Aussie rider Michael Matthews in the main event, the men's elite road race; and two silvers, for Grace Brown, in the elite women's individual time trial, and Hamish McKenzie in the junior men's individual time trial. I'd also like to congratulate Illawarra local Josie Talbot for her efforts. In a spectacular turn of events, she was able to ride past her home along the course in Wollongong in her UCI debut. You made the entire region proud.
Wollongong put on a show, with the race broadcast globally to millions of viewers. Event organisers estimate that across the nine days there were over 200,000 attendees enjoying the city. The Wollongong 2022 Community Ride saw over 2,600 participants jump on their bikes and over 1,300 volunteers dedicate their time to show the world how amazing and beautiful the region really is. The event is going to have a long-term ongoing impact for the region's tourism industry, with a direct injection of money into the local economy, as well as the City of Wollongong being awarded the UCI Bike City status prior to the event, as a show of the commitment that the international body has and for the effort that the region made. This makes Wollongong the only city in the Southern Hemisphere to have received the status with the official label, and it was received by the city and my good friend the deputy lord mayor, Tania Brown, at the opening ceremony. Holding the UCI in Wollongong has had a direct flow-on effect for the region.
No telling of the story could pass without making remark of Dutch female cyclist Annemiek van Vleuten, who won the female elite event with a broken elbow—she made an amazing final dash in the last kilometre to pass the peloton and take the gold—and also Remco Evenepoel from Belgium, who headed a fantastic team from that country with a spectacular finish as well. For me, as an avid cyclist myself, it was a privilege. I couldn't spend as much time as I would have liked to at the event. I spent most of my time watching it on telly, but it was a great event, and the city did the region and the country proud.
Death of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
Mr ROBERT (Fadden) (16:06): I rise on behalf of the citizens of the northern Gold Coast seat of Fadden to express our deep condolences on the loss to the world of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. The world has lost a true servant, but heaven has gained a true saint. Many of my constituents who've come in to sign the condolence book—many in person, many more online—have found themselves expressing a sense of loss, a sense of sorrow and a sense of grievance—many of them not even quite understanding why. Why do they feel such a sense of loss for a monarch so far away? Yet she was a monarch who managed to become so close to the Australian people; a monarch who visited so many times; a monarch who stood the tests of time, of decency, of stature and of service; a monarch who had outlived the reign of some 14 or 15 prime ministers in her country and, indeed, in ours.
It is an extraordinary story, that of Elizabeth Windsor, the late Queen Elizabeth II. One of the reasons the citizens of the Gold Coast find themselves sorrowful and reflective is that the monarch has stood as a testimony of stability and service for 70 years. It was a life that put service before self; a life that saw others before her own needs; a life that saw her give up whatever hopes and dreams she may have had for her life and put them second to the call of duty and service for national life.
This is a monarch who saw the dismantling of colonisation; the opening up of countries; and many countries stepping forward in terms of republicanism, self-determination or the lessening of the stature of the Queen and the office. In our country, she saw the lessening of the stature of the Privy Council, the raising of our own national anthem and the moving forward in our own sense of self-determination. She did that with the grace and the status of a true world leader.
It's estimated some half the world may have watched her funeral. The Brits always do pomp and ceremony well; they're renowned for it. But this time they did it because it was deserved—and, in this case, richly so. Few funerals have garnered such attention. The last one I could think of, perhaps, may have been Mother Teresa or Nelson Mandela—for truly Queen Elizabeth II, through her acts of service, walks in such company, stands with such grace and has such a legacy. Indeed, God save the King, for we have lost the Queen.
Youssef, Mr Salim
Devereux, Mr Michael
Holmes, Mr Stuart
Mr KEOGH (Burt—Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister for Defence Personnel) (16:09): I rise to pay tribute today to beloved members of our community who we have lost recently. I begin with my friend and Burt community leader, Mr Salim Youssef. Salim—or Sam, as many of us knew him—was a powerhouse in our community who we recently lost too soon on 31 August. Salim came to Australia in 1991, fleeing war in Lebanon and settling in Perth in 1988.
Salim's legacy will be the Australian Arab Association. He recognised the importance of diverse voices and points of view being heard. Salim and his wife, Amal, had a vision of a truly multicultural society, and our community will be forever proud of what they have achieved. The Australian Arab Association of WA is a non-profit, non-political, non-religious organisation that aims to help all newcomers to Australia, especially those of Arab origin, and to provide a friendly place to socialise and to reach services and opportunities. The AAA has always been about outreach and bringing communities together, especially through their annual Eid and multicultural festivals, which have grown every year and provide an amazing opportunity for the sharing of cultures.
More recently, Sam and his brother, Raif, started a Lebanese sweets and catering business, following in the footsteps of their father in Lebanon. It is the only such business in Western Australia. Sam's support for our community is also reflected in his extensive community work, including with Rotary, in the area of health care, as a local justice of the peace and a key member of the WA government's multicultural advisory council. Sam's work has been recognised by state, local and national awards, including as a People of Australia Ambassador in 2012 and 2014. Sam was a dedicated member of the Australian Labor Party, serving as president of Gosnells Thornlie branch in Burt and working with the state MPs. He always supported me and supported our state MPs, such as Chris Tallentire, Terry Healy and Tony Buti, in our campaigns and in the community.
Salim will be deeply missed by so many of us. You were such a great friend. I offer our sincere condolences to Amal; his children, Natasha and Aisha; and the extended Youssef family, colleagues and friends. Vale Salim Youssef.
I would also like to take this opportunity to express my condolences to the family of Mike Devereux, a former deputy mayor of the City of Gosnells and Labor stalwart. He was someone I met and shared office with in the then Canning Electorate Council. He taught me so much about the importance of grassroots politics.
Finally, I'd to like to remember a titan of our community, the Gosnells RSL president, Stuart Holmes, and thank him for his service to our community.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 16:12 to 16:21
Death of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Opposition Whip) (16:21): I was unable to be present last Friday for the special sitting of parliament to debate the condolence motion on the passing of Queen Elizabeth, and I thought might take a few minutes here this afternoon to make some remarks.
The level of emotion raised by the passing of Queen Elizabeth II has surprised many, not just here in Australia but across the Commonwealth and in countries beyond, as people have paused to reflect on a life and contribution in this fast-moving world in which we live. Through changes of government, major conflicts, natural disasters and huge economic challenges, the Queen remained concerned, informed, compassionate and committed, and that in itself is remarkable. That she was able to keep that level of incredible commitment to her constituency, right across the Commonwealth, is unlikely to ever be equalled. That she was able to keep that intensity up for seven decades, across two centuries, is quite remarkable.
Most of us alive today, and that's anyone under about the age of 75—I notice you raise your eyebrow, Mr Deputy Speaker; I'm certainly not one of them—cannot remember a world without Queen Elizabeth. She visited Australia on 16 occasions. She came to South Australia seven times. However, she was renowned for taking an interest outside the capital cities and, on a number of occasions in South Australia, found time to visit the regions, including visits to Woomera, to Port Lincoln and twice to Whyalla, all in my electorate of Grey. Many will have personal memories of those occasions. In fact, she was the only reigning monarch to have ever visited Australia. Considering how much the world, and particularly international travel, has changed in that time, that may not be as remarkable as it seems at face value, but nevertheless it is a fact and should be noted. It is a status that I suspect may change fairly soon, as I would expect that King Charles, who has visited Australia many times in the past, would become the second ruling monarch to visit us.
Queen Elizabeth II was loved and respected by the global community, and our affection for her continued to grow as her reign progressed. She reigned across seven decades, and her tours to Australia forged a bond which has survived throughout that time. I wish her family all the best as they deal with their personal grief, and I extend good wishes to King Charles III.
I would also like to thank my many constituents who found their way to my electorate offices to sign condolence books. I apologise to the people of Whyalla, who had two visits from the Queen, for the fact that my office was actually shut owing to a long-term commitment around leave and an employee being replaced, but a condolence book is in place now and they can now sign it.
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade: Australian Passport Office
Mr LIM (Tangney) (16:24): I am new to this role as a member of parliament. So many people come to my office every day about the issues that matter to them most. We have even more coming through via emails. I'm going to read out a few emails here. This email was received on 24 August at 12.06 pm:
Dear Mr Lim,
Congratulations on your appointment to office this previous May. I was very pleased.
Mr Lim, I am having an issue trying to obtain a passport for my daughter … and I don't know where else to turn.
We applied for a passport for my daughter … in April of this year.
… … …
We are travelling on September 6th, which is only 7 business days away.
… … …
We will be devastated if the passport does not arrive in time and we have to cancel. I think this would also be a massive failure in the system.
Please can you intervene for us and call DFAT on our behalf and urge them to process the application?
We replied straightaway. On the same day, at 1.46, she replied, 'Thank you so much for you fast, prompt reply. If there is anything within your power that you can do to help my daughter's passport issue in time for her travel, I'll be so grateful.' There was a bit more correspondence done from our office to her. On 26 August she wrote a letter to us, saying:
I went to the passport office today and they couldn't really help. Please don't bother trying to help my daughter - I don't think it is going to make any difference.
But we kept doing what we were doing, and on 29 August she sent us a very happy email:
My daughter's passport is ready for collection! Thank you so very much.
For the last three months, we have been dealing with an ocean of passport and visa inquiries. These have been the top two issues for my electorate office. I'm very proud my staff have helped to solve many cases, and many happy constituents have walked out of my office with a big smile on their face. A passport is something that every Australian should have access to without causing them so much stress and headache. I'm glad our government is taking action to rectify this issue. Special thanks go to Minister Giles for his hard work. I'm very satisfied to see myself, as a new member of this parliament, contributing to and providing support and reassurance to our community.
Deakin Electorate: Infrastructure
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin) (16:27): It's a great opportunity today for me to provide a bit of an update to members of the Deakin electorate on a range of projects that the former coalition government funded in our area that are coming to fruition—indeed, projects that are going to continue to improve our area and make sure that we invest in the infrastructure that we need.
Firstly, many constituents in the Whitehorse area will have seen that work is progressing very quickly on the Heatherdale Reserve Pavilion. We provided $2 million of funding to kick off this project, and, thankfully, Whitehorse City Council have got involved to assist with the Heatherdale Cricket Club and the Heathmont Jets Junior Football Club home ground. We expect completion of the project by the end of this year in time for at least part of the cricket season. It is an outstanding facility.
Work has also recently begun—again partnering with Whitehorse City Council—on the Sportlink redevelopment, which will see a number of outdoor netball courts covered. This was a project that I was again proud to kickstart with a $1½ million grant to the Whitehorse Netball Association. We will see not only upgraded courts and a roof but also LED lights and improved drainage. This will make sure that all of the players can get on the courts far more often and not be subject to inclement weather. Again, completion of the project will be this summer.
We're also pleased to see that work will commence soon on the Vermont South Club—an important project to increase the capacity of the club.
In Maroondah, we've got a number of projects that are really coming to finalisation, the first being the upgraded pavilion in Cheong Park, for the South Croydon Cricket and Football clubs—a project that was delayed by COVID, but it's getting there. The Ainslie Park Cricket Club and East Ringwood Junior Football Club will soon see the Ainslie Park pavilion upgrade completed. Again, I was pleased to kick this project off with a $500,000 grant. It's now being supported by Maroondah City Council.
A number of local road projects are also coming to fruition. Firstly, there is the notorious intersection at Wantirna Road and Reilly Street. Work is basically done; we're just waiting for VicRoads to signalise and get things going with the new lights. This is going to provide enhanced safety for our community. There is also the Tortice Drive and Warrandyte Road intersection, which we committed $4.8 million towards. Again, that project is with VicRoads. Planning has basically been completed and design has been completed; we're just waiting on VicRoads to get started. These investments from the former coalition government into our area will make our community better.
Rockingham Rams Football and Netball Club
Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand—Minister for Resources and Minister for Northern Australia) (16:30): Well, it's been a big month of sport in my electorate of Brand, particularly for the Rockingham Rams Football and Netball Club. Last weekend I watched the Rams take on the Pinjarra Tigers at the women's Peel football league grand final at Rushton Park. It was great to see that some of the young women playing were in the first girls team that I sponsored when I was first elected back in 2016. This is the jumper that they get to wear. They love it, and I love it. It's been awesome to see how some of the young women, like Kalani Ingram, Aiesha Ugle Woods, Amber Henn, Gabbi Collica, Ella Bailey and Dakota Dal Bello, have developed their skills and commitment to the game and their team over the last six seasons. They've come a long way, and it's really been great fun and a great honour to witness.
The game was hard fought by both sides, with the Tigers eventually clawing their way to a four-point win. To the team themselves, I congratulate you all on reaching the big game. I know losing a grand final hurts—goodness knows I've lost a few of them playing hockey—but you should be so proud of your efforts on the day and over the course of the season. I know it will not be your final grand final. I also want to congratulate other parts of the club, the men's Colts for making their grand final, and of course the reserves team, who are the 2022 premiers after defeating South Mandurah 52-54 in a clearly very close game.
On the netball side of the club, in August the Rams took home three premierships in the Peel netball league, with the reserves, league 3 and the under-23 team all winning their grand finals. Congratulations to all the teams, all the players, all the volunteers, all the parents, all the coaches—everyone that helps. Results like this for the footy and netball club only come about with the dedication and hard work from all the players, the supporters and the coaching teams.
The Rockingham Rams should be extremely proud of the community culture they have developed over the years. It's clubs like the Rams that cultivate champions like Aaron Naughton at the Western Bulldogs and Courtney Hodder, who currently plays for the Brisbane Lions. Courtney is a premiership player and winner of the 2021 Goal of the Year and was nominated for the 2021 Rising Star Award. She achieved all of this in her debut season. She also designed the Brisbane Lions Indigenous Round jersey. I want to congratulate the Rockingham Rams on a stellar year of results in football and netball. I'm looking forward to attending the club's 75th anniversary on 1 October and celebrating with you all.
I also want to shout out to and congratulate Michael Holland, President of the Rockingham Rams Football and Netball Club, who first got me involved after I was elected in 2016. He's been a committed president of the club. He's done a great deal for the community that is the club. I understand he might not be continuing as president, because he wants to give someone else a go. To you, Michael, congratulations and thanks so much for being so welcoming to me.
Macneil, Mr Angus, AM
Ms LEY (Farrer—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:33): I rise to acknowledge the sudden passing of Angus Macneil AM from Rand in southern New South Wales. Many members and senators from my side of politics will know Angus as a true Liberal Party stalwart, serving on the New South Wales Liberal Rural and Regional Committee and as FEC president in the seat of Farrer for well over 20 years.
Alongside his strong commitment to family, Angus dedicated much of his active working life to the wider Rand community's social and environmental wellbeing and benefit, using a gentle, spirited passion and enthusiasm. This service to community started young, when, in his early 20s, he attended a local football club meeting where no-one had put their hand up for the vacant role of president. With everyone turning around looking blankly, in the end, Angus said, 'I'll do it.' In his words, 'I didn't have a clue how to run a meeting or anything like it, but that's really where it all started.' Over the next 50 years he would play pivotal and voluntary roles through New South Wales Farmers, Grain Producers Australia, Landcare and the Murray Catchment Management Authority.
He became a local councillor with the Urana Shire and chaired or organised numerous committees and groups to benefit Rand and citizens through the southern Riverina. He did all this while running his own family farm in a very progressive, forward-looking way—and he was always, like many farmers, keen to share his knowledge and his experience. When the railway lines were removed from the town of Rand and trees were planted, he went out during hot summers and watered them to make sure they survived. I doubt anyone else would have. When everyone was painting their silos, he was determined that the Rand silo should be part of this and that people could find this unusual and rather special town in the Riverina. Those are just two simple examples of his community spirit.
On his first meeting with you, he would lope towards you with a long, outstretched hand and a cheerful grin, a bit like a character popping out of a Ken Maynard Ettamogah Pub cartoon. He was the one constant in my political life. He had called me on the phone out of nowhere, suggesting that I become the candidate for Farrer, in a contest where the Liberal Party was never expected to win. In politics his profound belief was that the Liberal Party is best placed to help people wanting to give life their best shot, whether they live in the city, the country or beyond. His motto in life was a simple one: 'You can achieve a great deal if you don't care who claims the credit.'
Angus was honoured with an Order of Australia Medal in 2019. He passed away suddenly, aged 80, on Sunday night, leaving behind his beloved wife, Gail, daughters, Georgie and Kate, and their families. On behalf of myself, our local community and the Liberal Party, I extend our heartfelt sympathy and best wishes and warm thanks for all he was able to achieve. Angus Alan John Macneil, rest in peace.
Ballarat Electorate: Bus Crash
Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat—Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) (16:36): I'd like to extend my thanks to our emergency services personnel, our health services, both in Ballarat and across metropolitan Melbourne, and the Loreto school community for their incredible efforts in rescuing and supporting the 27 students, the teachers and the driver who were involved in that awful bus crash near Bacchus Marsh last week.
Like so many in my community of Ballarat and across the country, I was pretty shocked to wake to the news and the images of the crash on the Western Highway. It didn't take very long, after seeing that it was a Little's bus and hearing the news that it was an all-girls school, to know exactly where the students, the teachers and the driver had come from. As a parent, it must have been absolutely the stuff of nightmares. Leaving in the early hours of the Wednesday morning, with great enthusiasm, the 27 Loreto students were to take part in a NASA-run space camp, the trip of a lifetime, initially delayed because of the pandemic.
Frankly, when you see the images and you hear about what happened, it is absolutely extraordinary that there was no loss of life. I understand the bus actually flipped four times, so it is incredible. It is a testament to our emergency services and hospital staff, who worked tirelessly all morning to make sure that those injured were safely transported and cared for. I understand the bus company itself also assisted in transporting a number of girls and their parents to hospital in Ballarat.
Of the 32 people who sustained injuries in the crash, I know two young women are still in hospital, with the rest now discharged. It is an incredibly traumatic event to have occurred and it will have lasting physical and mental health effects on all involved. I'm very grateful for the excellent support services that Loreto have put in place. It's a very tight-knit community and a very supportive one that I know will wrap their arms around the affected members.
I particular want to say, to our paramedics, our police officers, our rescue firefighters, our SES, our tow truck drivers and, of course, our nurses and doctors, a heartfelt thankyou. It's also an important reminder about the use of seat belts, without which I'm sure the outcome would have been much more disastrous. There will of course be an intensive investigation into the crash. It's important that we let those investigations do that job so we can learn what happened in this accident.
My thoughts are with all those involved but particularly with the two young women still in hospital. I know it'll be a long road to recovery, but I do want them to know that all of the community is behind them. You have our very, very best thoughts and care for your recovery in the weeks, months and, potentially, years ahead. I am so proud of how the young women of Loreto looked after each other, stayed calm and assisted in their own rescue efforts. You're a credit to the school community and a credit to the community of Ballarat.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Stevens ): In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
CONDOLENCES
Webster, Hon. James Joseph (Jim)
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That the House record its deep regret at the death, on 3 April 2022, of the Honourable James Joseph Webster, a former Minister and Senator for the State of Victoria from 1964 to 1980, place on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service, and tender its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.
Mr BIRRELL (Nicholls—Deputy Nationals Whip) (16:39): I rise to offer my condolences and to recognise the life and service of the Hon. James Joseph Webster, a senator for the state of Victoria from 1964 to 1980, a National and a fine example of leadership in public policy. Jim Webster joined the Young Country Party in 1940. Later, he was the junior vice-president and then the senior vice-president of the Victorian branch of the Country Party, and he was its president in 1963 and 1964. He served on the party's federal council from 1960 to 1964 and was an unsuccessful Country Party candidate for the Legislative Assembly seat of Broadmeadows at the Victorian state elections in 1955.
On 9 December 1964, at a joint sitting of the Victorian parliament, Jim Webster was chosen to fill a casual vacancy in the Senate, and he remained a senator until 1980. His elevation to the Senate, and even his membership and participation in the Country Party, was remarkable, given his background, which included serving as a delegate to the Australian Timber Workers Union while working as a clerk in charge of a log mill at Orbost, and, later, joining the Waterside Workers Union, where he took up a job on the wharves in Melbourne.
While his life prior to entering the Senate had the outward appearance of a contradictory existence, throughout his career he proved to be a champion for the cause of regional Australians. The Nationals' strong and consistent voice for productive agriculture is often misconstrued as being anti-environment. This ignores the fact that farmers are the stewards of the land, and they care for it and their surrounding environment. Jim Webster was the Minister for Science and later the Minister for Science and the Environment for the Fraser government—not a portfolio usually associated with the Nationals. His achievements include, most notably, his work for Australia's Antarctic research efforts, by establishing the National Marine Science Research Centre in Hobart. He twice visited Australian bases and Webster Bay in the Australian territorial section of the Antarctic, and this territorial section was named in his honour.
He also established the CSIRO's Australian Animal Health Laboratory at Geelong, which provided a world-class facility for the safe handling of exotic animal diseases. Now known as the Australian Centre for Disease Preparedness, it remains a critical frontline defence, including against foot-and-mouth disease, which is an issue as we speak due to outbreaks in Indonesia. Kakadu was declared a national park during his tenure in the Science and Environment portfolio, and whaling was banned in Australian waters. Senator Webster assumed responsibility for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, whose principal function was to recommend areas within the Great Barrier Reef region for declaration as part of the marine park, an event that occurred when the Capricornia section was proclaimed in October 1979.
Of course, being Minister for Science means you must be across a myriad of issues, not all of them pressing concerns for humanity, like the question as to whether the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation's division of radiophysics had—and this is in 1979—the necessary equipment and qualified personnel to carry out a program in search of extraterrestrial intelligence. Senator Webster advised:
I have asked the CSIRO to examine the matter and I'm advised that the facility at Parkes would be capable of adding basically to research in this area. However, the priorities of the Organisation are such that this project is not seen as one which should direct its attention at an early stage.
During his time as Minister for Science, Senator Webster did have to pay attention to space. It was in 1979, and the abandoned US space station Skylab was ready to crash back to earth. Senator Webster told the Herald newspaper, 'Twenty-one tonnes of debris, consisting of thousands of pieces, may survive re-entry and impact the earth's surface.' But he calmly reassured readers that the Skylab communication centre would coordinate any action required if the spacecraft re-entered the atmosphere over Australia. As history records, Skylab did crash to earth over Australia, but away from populated areas and without any harm being caused to a single Australian, which was no doubt a great relief to Senator Webster.
Jim Webster's Senate biography describes him as:
… a hard-working backbencher and a meticulous minister, reputed to have been in the habit of carrying a ten centimetre pile of briefing papers into the Senate. He adopted a businessman's approach to the work of the Coalition Government, while remaining an astute Country Party politician, who spoke frequently for, and to, his electorate. As the Australian observed in 1979, Webster had survived 'a lengthy court battle aimed at taking him out of the Senate, slipped into the ministry almost by chance …
and resisted a number of attempts to replace him.
Jim Webster was a great contributor to his party, to the Senate and to the advancement of good public policy in Australia, particularly in relation to regional Australia, the environment and scientific endeavour. As one of the newest members of the Nationals in this place, I am honoured to speak today and to reflect on his great service, acknowledge some of his many achievements and offer my condolences to his family.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Stevens ): I understand it is the wish of honourable members to signify at this stage their respect and sympathy by rising in their places, and I ask all present to do so.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the Federation Chamber.
Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (16:46): I move:
That further proceedings be conducted in the House.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (AFP Powers and Other Matters) Bill 2022
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr PIKE (Bowman) (16:47): This bill provides a 12-month extension to AFP counterterrorism powers that are currently scheduled to sunset on the seventh of December this year, which is not very far away when I think that, when I visited the shops over the course of the weekend, I noticed Christmas decorations were already out. Perhaps there should be some legislation in this place to outlaw that practice this early in the year! But the powers that will sunset on 7 December concern, particularly, stop, search and seizure powers, control orders, and preventative detention orders. As the provisions of this bill provide merely an extension of the current AFP powers, there is no financial impact anticipated.
The parliament previously granted these special AFP powers for a very sober reason—that being the existence of a probable terrorist threat to Australia and Australians. This threat has not abated. While the attention of the Australian public has been somewhat distracted by the recent COVID pandemic and the ongoing war in Ukraine, I think that it's very timely that the parliament consider the extension of these provisions and recognise the fact that the terrorist threat is still out there. It hasn't gone away, even though perhaps the attention of the media and the Australian public has quite rightly gone on to other, newer threats. That threat remains—to this day—probable, and I'm sure every member of this House believes strongly in safeguarding all basic human rights and freedoms enshrined in law, without exception.
While I'm new to this chamber, I also believe with some confidence that all members in this place also hold as their highest priority the obligation to keep Australians safe, especially from those who wish to do us harm, both from abroad and from within. It is to this end that the coalition acknowledges the vital importance of maintaining the security architecture that it previously put in place to meet the threat of terrorism on home soil. For this reason, the opposition is going to be supporting this bill.
The coalition recognises that terrorism presented and still presents an enduring challenge for our social cohesion and personal safety. Australian police and security agencies have a really strong record of successfully defending Australians against such threats, but our success against terrorist threats is highly dependent on having quick, effective and reliable access to the right tools. We should not remove these public safety tools from the hands of Australian Federal Police, who have been incredibly responsible in dealing with these powers and utilising them sparingly. When threats do emerge, we want to make sure that our AFP have these powers at their disposal if needed.
In 2014 the Abbott government, following the best security advice, raised the threat level to 'high' on the scale then, or 'probable' in today's scale. Australia's national terrorism threat has been maintained at 'probable' ever since, despite all the changes that we have endured over recent years. This fact—together with the shocking incidents of the intervening years, and many successfully averted terrorist threats—highlights the importance of eternal vigilance and the ability to respond with the appropriate tools. The stubborn persistence of the 'probable' threat, together with some appalling incidents which played out on city streets—and others that were prevented just in time from impacting on the Australian community—led the coalition to decisively enact the current AFP emergency powers regime.
I think it is important to acknowledge the great work that the Australian Federal Police have done over recent decades to defend the Australian community from the threat of terrorism. In Australia we do an amazing job of recognising the service and the sacrifice of our defence personnel. It's probably an area where we can improve a bit more, to recognise the work of police, both at the state and territory level and our Federal Police and, particularly, the amazing job that they've done in handling threats that don't enter the consciousness of many Australians, but the AFP are quietly doing their work in this city, and others around Australia, to keep us all safe. I acknowledge that on Thursday we're going to be commemorating the Australian Police Remembrance Day. We've lost 11 AFP and Commonwealth Police and Peace Officers over the course of the history of Australian federal policing. I think it's important that we take a day out to recognise that and acknowledge the amazing work that they've done under incredibly trying circumstances.
In September 2014, the same month Prime Minister Abbott raised the threat level, Australian police carried out the largest counterterrorism operation in our nation's history, sending 800 armed officers into households across Sydney and across my hometown of Brisbane, to detain Australian citizens who had recently returned from fighting alongside IS militants in the Middle East. One of the men arrested was Omarjan Azari, who was later charged with conspiracy to commit demonstration killings. It was AFP emergency powers—mainly the control order regime, one of the three elements of this bill—implemented by the former coalition government that ensured that Azari could not communicate with certain people and that helped secure his conviction.
This is but one of the several examples where AFP special powers were directly, but sparingly, used to protect the Australian public in real time against real terrorist threats, and I think that is an important point. We haven't got time to race back into the parliament to legislate when these threats emerge. We need to make sure that the AFP have these powers on hand and that they have the ability to use them, if needed, in the future. With the threat level still at 'probable', who knows when that time will come? It's important for the government to introduce this bill and get this bill passed so we can ensure the AFP have these powers beyond the 7 December sunset date.
While the coalition supports the essence of the bill—namely, extending the sunset date to give the government more time to consider recommendations, consult accordingly and draft legislation—we also acknowledge some related concerns. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security report on AFP powers which was released in October last year made a total of 19 recommendations, including amendments and additional safeguards which, if accepted, will mean greater operational complexity for law enforcement. While the appropriateness of certain PJCIS recommendations may not be a direct criticism of this bill, it is nevertheless possible to argue that a greater compliance burden may impact the efficacy of established AFP powers that have seen only rare use in the years since their introduction. While this bill gives effect to a sunset provision, to be extended by one year, it is important that the issues raised in the PJCIS report be dealt with promptly and that these emergency powers be given appropriate certainty under law for a realistic period of not less than three years. The coalition supports this bill and urges the Labor government to review and, where feasible, implement the PJCIS recommendations as a matter of urgency.
The coalition recognises the importance of our counterterrorism measures in 2022 and agrees that the bill provides for the continuation of key powers that keep Australians safe. The coalition acknowledges the unanimous PJCIS support for the extension of AFP powers—including stop, search and seizure powers; control order powers; and preventative detention order powers—for a further three years from the sunset date. The coalition believes that an extra year will allow the government to review the PJCIS report and recommendations, consult widely and draft relevant legislation to extend this further. The coalition members and senators will certainly monitor the Labor government's actions closely to ensure that they keep their promise to consult widely with the community and other stakeholders, as well as state and territory governments—something they have been historically quite poor at doing. We trust that, despite Labor's propensity to leverage state power in the lives of individuals, these special powers will remain special, targeted and infrequent in their use.
Collectively, under the coalition, these powers were only ever used sparingly. Only 23 control orders were issued over the past eight years. No preventative detention orders have ever been made, nor have there been any incidents that required emergency stop, search and seizure powers. The AFP have done an incredible job in ensuring that these powers were exercised sparingly and appropriately. We need to be careful when it comes to balancing these powers, and the coalition accepts that it may take a little more time to get the balance right in any new legislation. Therein lies the obligation. This Labor government must do just that and ensure the same level of balance that the coalition achieved in such a critical area of government responsibility. If Labor turns the dial down too far, then the life and property of Australians may be at risk, but, if they turn the dial too far the other way, then individual freedoms may be impacted.
The coalition recognise that, while the media focus of recent years has been on other issues, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the threat of terrorism has certainly not gone away. As I've mentioned, it's certainly departing the consciousness of the public very quickly. I do note that it doesn't seem to appear in discussion around election debates anymore. This isn't an issue that gathers the news headlines that it did 10 or even 20 years ago. But, while the media attention has gone away, our terror threat level remains at that very high 'probable' rating. While we continue to face a probable threat, the existing AFP powers, which have proven to be very effective—short and medium term powers to investigate, prevent and contain that threat—should be continued through this bill. The coalition believes the minimal use of these powers over the past eight years demonstrates that, provided an appropriate balance is maintained, they will not be misused.
I call on the Labor government to use wisely the extra time afforded by this bill. They should consult wisely. They should read those recommendations by the committee very closely and do it early in this extra year that's been given—use the opportunity. Why not have some legislation early in the new year to extend these provisions even further, rather than kicking it down the road another 12 months? Because this threat certainly isn't going away. The 'probable' threat level has been there for years, and there's no saying how long that threat is going to be hanging over us.
This government must ensure that an effective and transparent suite of special AFP powers are maintained to keep Australians safe and to safeguard human rights and freedoms above all. I trust that the government will take that appropriate action. Certainly, I know the coalition members will be keen to hold the government to account to ensure that we do get a very good outcome here in the new year and that these measures are appropriately implemented not just over the next 12 months but over the long term. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr STEVENS ( Sturt ) ( 16:59 ): I rise to speak in support of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (AFP Powers and Other Matters) Bill 2022. It has been made clear that it is essentially about extending certain powers that have been provided now for a few years to the Australian Federal Police. They are due to expire this December, and this bill extends that expiration for another 12 months and allows time for the recommendations that the PJCIS has given to government to be implemented as well as some further consultation with other law enforcement agencies in the various state jurisdictions. Whilst I'm very happy to support this extension in this case, these powers are quite significant and ones that we should always hesitate around fully convincing ourselves of their necessity. I certainly am convinced of the necessity of these powers being extended. Nonetheless, it is a very important part of the social compact in this country between our law enforcement agencies and the powers they have, and any new powers or capabilities that are given to them, that we equally are doing that in an environment where there is a deep amount of community trust that those powers will be used appropriately and with great discretion and that they are indeed absolutely necessary to keep us safe.
We, as parliamentarians in a democracy, need to absolutely ensure that we are always being mindful and wary of giving the capability to law enforcement that could run the risk of removing people's liberties or putting them in a position that's not fair in our society without extremely good reason. The overview of the three powers, when exercised, are the sorts of powers that do impugn the liberty of the citizens of this country. We need to set a very high standard for the need for that. The stop, search and seizure power is obviously not something an Australian would expect in a normal situation without a strong case of probable cause. Equally, control orders and preventative detention orders are also powers that seem, on the face of them, to be quite significant, perhaps even extreme, and they would be in circumstances not related to terrorism and the threat of terrorism. At the risk of terrorism and terrorist acts, I absolutely support the requirement for us to equip the Australian Federal Police with the appropriate capability beyond what they can do in other circumstances so that they can undertake their law enforcement obligations in this country and have some enhanced powers to put them in a position to best protect us from the threat of terrorism.
On 12 October, in two weeks time, is the 20th anniversary of the Bali bombings. Unfortunately, this parliament won't be sitting on that date, so I take this opportunity to remember the Australians that were killed and injured in those terrorist attacks in Bali 20 years ago. A little over a year ago, we commemorated the 20th anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, where many Australians and thousands of Americans were killed.
The counterterrorism framework in this country really has been completely overhauled, enhanced and re-engineered since that epochal moment on 11 September 2001, when all of us lost some of our comfort about the world that we live in and some of our reassurance. We lost a sense that things could happen only in some parts of the world and not just anywhere in the world. When two planes flew into two buildings in Lower Manhattan, I certainly remember feeling, as part of many emotions at the time, that there is nothing different between New York City and Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide or anywhere in this country, Australia. Really, as a planet, we all responded very significantly to a world that was going to be changed forever because of those events.
Unfortunately, Australians died not just in September 11 but, of course, in other terrorist attacks that have occurred since then. I mentioned the Bali bombings, and at times there have been others around the world, of course, that have claimed the lives of Australians. Australians were killed in the London Bridge attacks. I was in London at the time. Frankly, it was just a terrible experience, being so close—adjacent—to a terrorist attack that occurred at that point.
So it is a very serious risk, and unfortunately it is ever present with us. Frankly, it would be unforgivable for us as a parliament to ever think: 'Oh, look, it's been a while now since anything of a serious magnitude happened. Nothing too serious has happened in this country since the Lindt Cafe siege.' Unfortunately, we can never, ever decide that we'll ever be truly safe again and that we can ever stand down from that posture. We pay such tribute to the people on the front line of keeping us safe against the threat of terrorism. Unfortunately, they are going to have to be at that heightened sense of alert, really, in perpetuity. I just don't see a time where we'll ever be able to say the threat of some form of terrorist attack in our society is no longer something that we see as being likely or possible.
In that context, this extension is appropriate. The previous speaker made this point, and I'm sure other speakers on this bill will also make the point. I think that it is pleasing to see how infrequently—in some cases not at all—these powers that the AFP have been given have ever had to be used. That is quite reassuring to me from two points of view. The first is that it is a relief that there aren't risks that the AFP are identifying on a regular basis that mean they have to use these powers. I think that's a good thing. I'd love for them to never have to use these powers, despite the importance of them having access to the powers. It also gives me comfort that they are not abusing these powers or looking at these powers as opportunities to reach beyond their reasonable remit in doing what they do to keep us safe from the threat of terrorism.
Like other speakers, I am anxious that the government complete this fairly rapidly. This 12-month extension, hopefully is the only extension that they need. I really pay tribute to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and the work that they do. We can see with legislation like this how vital it is that we have a real bipartisanship on these issues. I know my good friend the member for Fisher now serves on that committee, and I'm sure that there will be a contribution from him about the importance of the work there and also how we can put our trust and faith in some of our members. It can't be all of us, obviously. It's got to be some of our members who can be on a committee like that, where they get access to important information that is necessary for them to have confidence that legislation that will come to the parliament is necessary. We can't ask certain questions, particularly in the public domain, of the executive government when they come and seek certain powers about which we might think, 'Well, we'd love some justification for this.' We equally can't ask that in the public domain in a public setting, and it is vital that there is proper structure that is linked to the parliament that not only is able to be brought into sometimes extremely confidential information, which absolutely must be protected and kept confidential from a national security point of view, but also gives them a confidence as to why our agencies and our government are asking for certain powers to be provided to them. That mechanism does give me great comfort. When we're asked to vote on this type of legislation, where there is a lot of information that probably does support the need for legislative change or legislative enactment, but at the same time can't be provided to every member of parliament, we have the mechanism of PJCIS. That means an appropriate number of our colleagues can be given proper briefings on the basis of the extremely necessary confidentiality and protection of that information, so that they can say to colleagues like myself, who are not serving on that committee, that they have felt justified in the need for these powers.
These powers were enacted under the former government, and we've now got a new government and a new executive that are saying, 'Yes, indeed, these powers need to be extended.' We've sensibly had these sunset clauses on these powers so that they are coming back to the parliament on a regular basis, and I believe the intention is to put a more permanent arrangement in place, flowing out of a process in PJCIS and the work they've done to put something more permanent in place and with the appropriate consultation with state law enforcement authorities and the like. On that basis, I am very much comfortable in supporting something which I have a natural trepidation towards but which does need to meet a very high standard of justification. These are significant powers that we would ordinarily be quite nervous about providing to any government agency, but I do believe that when it comes to counterterrorism and equipping the agency with the necessary powers that they need to do their job, as long as members of parliament have been given a strong justification through an appropriate way, which I've just outlined, I think that we should be backing and supporting the Australian Federal Police and equipping them with the necessary powers they need to keep us safe from terrorism. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (17:12): I congratulate the member for Sturt on a well-researched and well-delivered speech on a very important topic. I rise in support of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (AFP Powers and Other Matters) Bill 2022. There is an often-quoted phrase that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. That phrase is often ascribed to Thomas Jefferson, but the first person that is purported to have said it was an Irishman, John Philpot Curran, who back in 1790 said, 'The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance'. That pretty much sums up the importance of this bill.
The big provides for the continuation of counterterrorism powers held by the AFP which are due to sunset on 7 December of this year. This bill seeks to extend those powers until December 2023. These are powers which the previous coalition government implemented in 2021 as part of our extensive work to strengthen Australia's national security. By extending the sunsetting date by 12 months, the government and the opposition can reach a bipartisan position on new legislation to amend part 5.3 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 based on the recommendations of the PJCIS, on which I am very proud to serve as the deputy chair.
The previous member speaking, the member for Sturt, spoke at some length about the importance of the PJCIS. I want to take this opportunity to commend the outstanding work that has been done by the most recent chair of the committee, Senator James Paterson. I've only been on the committee for a short while, but his depth of knowledge in relation to intelligence and security is really quite remarkable. I also want to acknowledge the work of the now shadow minister for defence, the member for Canning, who preceded Senator Paterson as chair of the committee. Both these gentlemen have done outstanding work in the PJCIS.
The PJCIS is perhaps the most important committee in this place. It provides much-needed oversight over our intelligence agencies. We live in a parliamentary democracy which is constantly under threat, but it is very important that, if our security agencies have these very significant powers, we have appropriate checks and balances on our security agencies. The PJCIS, along with the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, performs the role of providing checks and balances for our intelligence and security architecture in this country.
We should never fall victim to any form of hubris when it comes to terrorism or national security. This country, sadly, is constantly at threat of terrorist attacks by those who would seek to do us harm, whether they are state based actors or lone-wolf actors. It is very important that our security agencies have the sorts of powers which I'll go through shortly, but it is equally important that we have appropriate checks and balances on those agencies to ensure that they conduct themselves appropriately within the confines of the law and that any potential overreach is dealt with.
Yesterday we acknowledged Police Week and National Police Remembrance Day. We have a great responsibility in this place—and, I believe, in our broader community—to recognise the importance of the work that is done by our policing services both at a state and territory level and, importantly, at a federal level. Australia's national terrorism threat level today remains at 'probable'. There is credible intelligence, assessed by Australia's security agencies, indicating that malicious actors have the intent and capability to conduct a terrorist act in Australia. This bill will provide for the continuation of key counterterrorism powers reserved for the AFP, to keep Australians safe. All powers will continue to be subject to robust safeguards and oversight, as I said earlier, with the PJCIS and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security overseeing those agencies.
The bill extends the sunset clause by 12 months in relation to three key powers. They are control orders, preventative detention orders and emergency stop and seizure powers. In relation to the control orders, these provisions allow the Federal Court or the Federal Circuit Court to impose an order which places tailored obligations, prohibitions and restrictions on an individual who continues to present a risk to the community. A preventative detention order allows a person to be detained without charge and can only be used where the AFP reasonably suspects that an attack could occur within 14 days, or, in the aftermath of a terrorist attack, to preserve vital evidence. In relation to the emergency stop, search and seizure powers, these provisions allow police to request a person's name, address and other details; they allow police to conduct a search for a terrorism related item and to seize such an item; and they allow police to enter premises without a warrant, to prevent a serious and imminent threat to a person's life, health or safety.
Some would argue that these provisions, these orders, are draconian in nature, that they take away people's liberty—and that is correct; they do. But this is the serious nature of the threat that this country faces and, in fact, that many Western countries face. These are provisions that we would rather not have, but, in order to keep Australians safe, this parliament and previous parliaments have considered them to be vital, with appropriate checks and balances.
To date, no preventative detention orders have been made, and no incidents have required the use of the emergency stop, search and seizure powers. Although these powers have not been used to date, this actually demonstrates that the AFP are very judicious in their application of these far-reaching and broad powers. I would suggest to this chamber that Australians can and in fact should be very proud of the members of the ADF—I'm sorry, of the AFP. They should also be proud of the ADF, of course. But, confining my remarks to the AFP, for 43 of the last 75 years the AFP have contributed to global peacekeeping efforts and supporting Australia's role in maintaining law and order at home and abroad.
Thanks to the previous coalition government's record investment in the work of the AFP and our nation's law enforcement and security agencies, Australia has led groundbreaking operations and international partnerships to make our country, our region and our world safer. Consider Operation Ironside. This was a sophisticated sting, with the FBI, that targeted the criminal underworld and saw more than 350 local arrests, 6.3 tonnes of drugs seized and six drug labs shut down. Consider Operation Veyda, which took down two global narcotics crime syndicates spanning five countries. Consider Operation Appleby, the largest counterterrorism probe in Australia, which took down a Sydney terrorist cell. And consider the vital work of the Australian Centre to Combat Child Exploitation, which I had the privilege of visiting just a couple of weeks ago. The AFP, through the ACCCE, is leading the world in employing new technology and tactics to protect our children, and that has resulted in over 2,700 charges being laid against predators and consumers of child abuse material.
Just in the last few days, we learnt about the cyberattack on Optus. The Australian Signals Directorate and the AFP are working closely with Optus to try and identify the culprits, under Operation Hurricane. Together with overseas law enforcement agencies, they are investigating this hack, this threat, that has exposed the private information of almost 10 million Australians. So the AFP are at the cutting edge in relation to not just the protection of children but cybersecurity and many other endeavours.
I was listening with great interest when the member for Sturt was talking about his experience in London when the terrorist attacks were happening there. It reminded me of one Christmas time when Leonie and I were staying in a hotel in Melbourne, and all hell broke loose just across the road at Federation Square. I can't remember the year—it would've been about 10 years ago. As it turned out, the AFP and Victoria Police pounced on some would-be terrorists and thwarted a terrorist attack. I think it was on 23 December—that's my anniversary date, so I remember the date—about 10 years ago. It was actually at Federation Square, and the police intervened with seemingly moments to spare. It really brought home to me that what we saw in New York, Washington and London can very well happen here in Australia. Of course, we saw that with the terrorist attack at the Lindt store in Sydney.
So, for anyone who thinks that Australia is immune to or is somehow quarantined from the risk of terrorist attacks that we have seen in other countries around the world, such as the US and the UK, that is a very, very dangerous presumption to hold. All Western democracies are at risk in the face of terrorism. It is true that terrorism has taken a back seat in recent times to seemingly more pressing issues, such as COVID and the threats that we face from a geopolitical perspective. But there are still those within our own communities, both from a religious perspective and a right-wing perspective, that seek to do Australians harm, and this bill will continue for another 12 months the protections that Australians deserve. I commend the bill to the House.
Ms TINK (North Sydney) (17:28): I rise today to speak for the people of North Sydney on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (AFP Powers and Other Matters) Bill 2022. The introduction of this bill provides an important opportunity for the 47th Parliament to review, reflect and comment on this crucial area of law, which sits at the nexus between safety and freedom, and between security and respect for human rights. It is undeniable that both are fundamental to the society that we all wish to live in and want to create for our children. But it is also undeniable that this is a delicate balance to strike in a rapidly changing and complicated world. The late Margaret Stone AO was a former justice of the Federal Court of Australia, and Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security from August 2015 until her retirement in August 2020. As she said:
The tension between secret intelligence and civil rights and liberties is not reconcilable; inevitably, secrecy threatens rights, and rights weaken secrecy.
In these circumstances, I note the purpose of the government's proposed amendment bill to extend for 12 months the sunsetting dates for stop, search and seizure powers; control orders; and preventative detention orders. This extension is for the express purpose of giving the government time to consult on, and then implement, its response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's bipartisan recommendations following its report presented to parliament in October 2021. This is a significant undertaking. The committee has made numerous recommendations. Key stakeholders including the Law Council of Australia and the Australian Human Rights Commission have previously raised real concerns about extending these exceptional powers. Using control orders as a case in point, these orders, once executed, can last for 12 months and prevent a person from associating, or communicating, with specified individuals or accessing technology, including the internet. They can require a person to participate in specified counselling or education, to remain at specified premises between specified times on specified days for up to 12 hours a day and to wear a tracking device—all if a court decides that the allegation is more likely than not, which is a much lower standard of proof than that required to start a criminal prosecution.
Preventative detention orders allow police to detain people secretly for up to two weeks if, for example, there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the person will engage in a terrorist act, if that person possesses a thing connected with the preparation for a terrorist act or if that person has done an act in preparation for a terrorist act—basically, if the person is even suspected of being able to do something like that. Yet the detainee is not required to be informed of the reasons for their detention, is not entitled to contact any person except a family member or similar to let them know that they are safe but not able to be contacted for the time being, and is subject to having all communications with their lawyer monitored. This is the stuff of Hollywood fiction. Look no further than the Steven Spielberg movie Minority Report to see it play out on big screens.
To give just one example of how concerning I know this is for my constituency, one of my constituents was so concerned by the rushed passage, over the strenuous objections of the Law Council of Australia, of the telecommunications amendment bill—known colloquially as the 'Mandatory metadata retention bill'—that, in addition to calling her local member, she wrote individually to every senator of New South Wales to express her alarm and consternation. That bill introduced one of the most comprehensive and intrusive data collection schemes in the Western world. So where do we currently stand and how does that compare to the legislative framework of similar or equivalent nations? In the 22 years since 9/11, Australia has enacted more than 130 piece of national security legislation; no other nation can match the volume of Australia's counterterrorism laws,. But it's not just the volume of the legislation that is noteworthy. The time spent considering the laws in draft before they are enacted is becoming shorter and shorter. The original antiterrorism laws in 2002 took many months to be considered before enactment. Now the speed with which laws are passed has led to one of the world's leading experts in counterterrorism laws, Professor Kent Roach of the University of Toronto, to describe Australia's approach as 'hyperlegislation'. The speed was fastest under the Howard government when, on average, a new counterterrorism law was passed every 6.7 weeks. The law preventing live streaming of terrorist acts introduced after the Christchurch massacre took just a week or so.
This haste should concern us all, for, as our third Independent National Security Legislator Monitor, Dr James Renwick CSC, SC noted, 'Speed in passing laws can sometimes be necessary, but it brings the risk of error and overreach.' In Australia, we are particularly vulnerable to overreach because, unlike other jurisdictions, we do not have a bill of rights. This means the government has been able to enact counterterrorism laws that would not be possible anywhere else in the world. For example, the mandatory retention of Australians' telecommunications metadata for two years would not be possible in the EU. The European Court of Human Rights has held that a blanket retention for that period of that time infringes a basic right to privacy. Similarly, in a review of counterterrorism laws in 2013, the Council of Australian Governments reported that preventative detention orders were more likely to be seen in discredited totalitarian regimes. An additional concern is how far the balance has moved, in Margaret Stone's words, 'from rights to secrecy'. Our hyperlegislation enables and entrenches high levels of secrecy. It is a crime to mention basic details about the use of many counterterrorism powers or even the mere fact that they were used.
These offences pose a serious risk to journalists and whistleblowers. Few would forget the dramatic days of raids by the Australian Federal Police on journalists at the ABC and News Corp in 2019, which prompted outrage and drew international attention to Australia's draconian secrecy laws. In relation to whistleblowers, the recent prosecutions of Bernard Collaery and Witness K, shrouded in secrecy and even conducted in closed court, provide examples of these tensions at work. As the decision of the ACT Court of Appeal in the Collaery case makes clear, the open hearing of criminal trials is important because it deters political prosecutions and allows the public to scrutinise the actions of both the prosecutors and the accused.
Although no-one would dispute the need for counterterrorism laws, we must also maintain the trust and avoid the persecution of minority communities and avoid transgressing rights to the point that grievances lead to radicalisation. The risk of getting the balance wrong and excessively eroding our human rights in the pursuit of protection from terrorism could, ironically and tragically, make us less safe. As the former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in 2005:
… compromising human rights cannot serve the struggle against terrorism. On the contrary, it facilitates achievement of the terrorist's objective …
These are complex and vital issues for our society, well deserving of the extension of time sought by the government to review, consult and reform. Counterterrorism legislation measures should be justified as necessary, proportionate and consistent with rule-of-law principles. This is an important time to remind all of us—sitting as members in Australia's 47th Parliament—of Dr Renwick's salutary warning about these laws:
While often controversial in principle and almost always contestable as to their terms, they seem to have become permanent.
Over time, what were once seen as extraordinary laws have become acceptable as normal. This bill provides an opportunity to revisit the permanence of our hyperlegislation.
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (17:37): I'm pleased to be able to speak on this very important legislation, the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (AFP Powers and Other Matters) Bill 2022. There's nothing more important than our national security. We as a nation have in the past had to confront the evil of terrorism, and it is important that we reflect on these laws and fully consider them in this chamber.
I want to make five key points. The first is obviously that terrorism in recent years has been something of a less prominent focus in public debate than in prior years. Much of the debate in recent years in the security setting has been about counterespionage. Of course, the previous government passed some very important legislation in relation to countering foreign interference in Australia, so espionage has been a big focus, as indeed have been broader concerns about geopolitical issues in our region. So there's been less public focus, certainly, on terrorism than there was some years ago. But it's certainly the case that the perverse ideologies of terrorism haven't gone away, and there are still people who want to act upon those ideologies. There are various strands of that, but those people are out there, and we must never, ever gloss over that extremely important fact. Evil exists in the world, and sometimes its manifestation is through terrorism. So we need to be conscious of that.
The central question on legislation like this is, of course, the balance between civil liberties and the protection of the broader community. That's a centuries-old area of focus because, when you put in place strong laws to protect against terrorism, you almost inevitably have some impact on civil liberties, and it's an issue on which debates will be had and people will put forward their views and so on. But I think we should always err on the side of protection and should always err on the side of caution because the consequences of terrorism are so horrendous for our community. We're not talking about something that has a minor impact. We're talking about something which, if it happens, has a devastating impact on our community.
Laws which enable our AFP and others to be on the front foot in protecting our community against terrorism should broadly be supported. This isn't an academic issue. We have seen terrorist plots, both those that have been averted and those that, very sadly, have come to fruition and have led to loss of life in Australia. We remember the very serious plot involving the Holsworthy Barracks, not far from my electorate in Sydney; the Endeavour Hills incident in Melbourne; of course, the horrific siege of the Lindt cafe; the terrorist murder in Parramatta; and the evil, terrorist incident in Bourke Street in Melbourne. Right there, that's a list of five very, very serious terrorist plots—some of which came to fruition, leading to the loss of life. So this isn't theoretical. It isn't academic. It's very real and it's very serious. So, for policymakers, the question is: on which side do you err? Because there is an inevitable tension between civil liberties and protection. I think one should err on the side of protection.
In the context of the legislation we're talking about today, it's particularly important to note—and I'll come in a moment to the three key provisions, although I don't propose to extensively repeat the contributions of earlier speeches—that, in the three key elements, two of those powers have never been used. Two of those powers have never been used. We have some example of the other power being used in a fashion which was effective and actually led to the imprisonment of two people. So it's very difficult to make an argument here that there is a disproportionality in the legislation, given that two out of the three provisions haven't been used. It's reasonable to raise civil liberties concerns, but it's hard to have a civil liberties problem if the law isn't, in fact, being exercised.
That was my fourth point. The fifth, broad point I want to make is that it is manifestly in Australia's interests that laws of this nature, wherever possible, are bipartisan. It is not in our national interest to, in my view, politicise or seek to make political capital out of these sorts of matters. I think the good thing about the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security is that it seems, over many years and under different chairs and under different compositions, to have achieved that, and that's really good. It doesn't always happen in this place. There are many areas where a robust and forceful public disagreement is often a good thing and leads to better policy, but this is an area where bipartisanship is to be preferred, wherever possible.
We've got a big report from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. It's 114 pages long. It's got 19 recommendations, and the government, I think quite sensibly, is saying, 'Well, let's go through this carefully. Let's not rush the response to that. Let's balance the civil liberties concerns and the concerns about the protection of the Australian people, and let's do that over a 12-month process.' It seems to me that that is a very sensible thing. We don't have a scenario where there is evidence of these laws being misused or anything of that nature. So it seems to be me it's inherently sensible.
As my colleagues have touched on before, there are three key elements of the bill. There are the control orders that allow, in some circumstances, for people to be held if there is a reasonable fear that those persons may be planning or seeking to implement an act of terrorism. Those control orders have led to two people being jailed for breaching control orders—one as recently as earlier this year—and in both cases they were people that had been involved in the planning of terrorist acts. I think the Australian community would be very supportive of the use of those laws in that circumstance. The provision of preventative detention, where someone can be held without charge—which is obviously a very serious thing to do—where the AFP suspects that an attack is imminent and, in the aftermath of a terrorist attack, to preserve evidence, has never been used. It's a sensible provision and I'm glad it's on the books, but it has never been used. Then there are the emergency stop and seizure powers under the Crimes Act, which again allow the police to take action where they perceive a serious and imminent threat to a person's life, health, or safety. There are a whole bunch of safeguards as to how that power can be exercised, but again, it hasn't actually been used. It's certainly not a civil rights issue if it hasn't been used, but it's good it's there.
It's good that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security has done such thorough and thoughtful work in reviewing this legislation, and I think it is eminently sensible of the government to take its time to carefully review that in the intervening 12 months, leaving in place the laws which are working effectively and coming back to this parliament in 12 months time with proposals as to how to further improve those laws. In doing so, the government's key motivation should be the protection of the Australian people, because there is nothing more important than that.
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Opposition Whip) (17:47): The Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (AFP Powers and Other Matters) Bill 2022 is about the extension of temporary arrangements to enable the parliament to act on the recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for tightening the permanent legislation. It is a priority, but it should not be rushed. I note the comments from the member for North Sydney, when she warned that we should not indefinitely have temporary arrangements and that we should be wary of encroachment on our civil liberties. I agree with her. Those are sound points. We do live in a precarious world, and who would have thought 20, 25 or 40 years ago that we would find ourselves with the kind of restrictions in our lives that we accept now for the public good—and, to be fair, Australia has been spared many of the terrorist acts that have happened around the world. I'm not critical of where we've arrived at—I'm certainly critical of those who have forced us into these positions—but in this case I think it's right that we should extend this temporary legislation for another 12 months while proper and correction consideration is given to that report.
It comes to three main points. I'm indebted to the former member for detailing them, and I will try not to take up too much time. The control orders allow for restrictions on people deemed to be a risk to our community, and they have been used. The prevention detention orders are for detaining people without charge, firstly for 24 hours and then with special approval for another 24 hours, where an attack is imminent. I don't think that many of us would argue about the need for that. I'm pleased that we haven't had to use it. The emergency stop and seizure powers, once again, have not been used but are fairly self-descriptive, being the ability to act without a warrant when imminent danger presents itself to the Australian public.
In a perfect world, we would have none of this—absolutely none of it. We're a high-functioning liberal democracy, but we are forced into the positions by those who bear us bad will. The world has changed over that last 20 or 40 years I spoke about—international travel, instant telecommunications, the worldwide objectives of terrorist groups. There was a time when people that had local conflicts and local arguments would keep their arguments and conflicts local, but with the diasporas that are spread around the world and with the constant movement of people, they are able to take up their arguments in other places. So it's changed and we have had little choice.
Now, make no mistake, individuals or groups, the religious and the political zealots, hate countries like Australia, and they mean us harm. They hate us because we're free. We're free to choose who we associate with, free to practise our religion of choice, free to educate our children in an institution of our choice. We have the ability to participate in our democracies and to say and do as we wish—unless, of course, it negatively impacts on others, and we have appropriate laws for those circumstances. Those who wish to attack us seek to reshape the world to suit their view, to make us succumb to their will, and we are their enemy. We should not think we are safe from this in Australia.
The Economist publishes an annual democracy table. There are 195 countries in the world; 167 of them are assessed by the Economist. I don't know what the other 20 or so countries are. I haven't been able to find them yet. Of those 167 countries, just 34 are deemed to be full democracies—just 34—and they only cover about six per cent of the world's population. We are indeed so fortunate in Australia. In these democracies, like Australia, we have civil liberties and political freedoms, valid systems of government checks, independent judiciaries and a free press. Australia is 13th on this list of 34. I thought we might do a bit better, but it's pretty good to be 13th in the world.
There are 47 countries with deficient democracies. They do have free and fair elections, but they have fundamental deficiencies like pressure on their press, suppression of critics and opponents, under-developed political cultures and low levels of participation in politics. Then there are 29 more immoderate autocracies. They have regular electoral frauds, preventing elections from being free or fair. They commonly have government applying pressure to oppositions, non-independent judiciaries, widespread corruption, pressure on media and anaemic rules of law. That includes countries like Iran. Given the tragic death of Mahsa Amini—and we've all been watching on the news the riots that are happening in Iran—one would wonder how much longer Iran will stay on that list before they drop to the hard autocracies. I might also point out that Russia sits on that list. The next list is 21 hard autocracies. These are the absolute monarchies or dictatorships that have sham elections and controlled courts and press. They include China and North Korea.
You might ask why I list these in a debate about terrorism. It's simply because, apart from some fairly notable exceptions, like Afghanistan, most of the terrorist attacks in the world are aimed at these fully functioning democracies—at the six per cent of people who are fortunate enough to live in a fully functioning democracy. They include Australia. I went through before why these forces of evil, if you like, who wish to push their will upon the world so detest countries like Australia. Let's look at a few of them. In the last few years France has had multiple attacks. You will remember well the attacks on Charlie Hebdo, the satirical newspaper—12 dead for publishing a cartoon. A teacher was beheaded for giving a lesson in tolerance and police were stabbed to death. France has an extensive list of terrorist attacks. And in little old Belgium—bombings—in 2016, 32 civilians were killed and 300 injured, and there were stabbing attacks on police. Then there's Canada. We remember well the attack on the Canadian parliament, where a police officer was killed in action on the steps of the Canadian parliament. In 2018, Germany recorded 1,088 violent crimes committed by extremists, including bomb attacks on mosques—extreme antisemitic activities. It's a great concern.
In the UK, remember the slaying of Jo Cox MP in 2016 by a white supremacist. The UK has a huge list of attacks throughout the last decade, including car bombs, train bombings, and mosques—they have it all. Then there's the US. Who can forget the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon? The US is perhaps the world's No. 1 target. A report in 2017 reported 95 deaths and 932 injuries associated with terrorism singularly in that year. It was a bit of a surprise to me that the US just missed out on being a fully functioning democracy on a point system; they were one outside that bridge of 34. I think it's well worth throwing in as examples of what Australia could potentially face. All of these examples, apart from that one, are listed as full democracies. I remind the House that Australia is No. 13 out of 34. So we are well within the sights of those who wish democracies and liberalism around the world harm. So, while we are not immune, we will remember the Bali bombings in 2002—20 years ago—which killed 202 people, including 88 Australians; the Bali bombings in 2005—once again targeting Australians, amongst others—which killed 23 people, including four Australians; and the Lindt cafe siege, which killed three people. We are not immune.
To their great credit, our Federal Police and security forces have thwarted a number of other attempts in Australia. We have been the lower ebb. We are extremely fortunate in Australia to have good agencies. We also have the separation of distance and a whole lot of other things going for us, including a multicultural community that lives together in peace. But we are well advised to be on our guard. Unless we are prepared, we cannot take for granted our safety from religious and political zealots worldwide who are determined.
In finishing, one of the things that does concern me is that, while we have done well in thwarting terrorism and hopefully driving it back—we cede ground. Every time they succeed, we lose a little too. Our community is now beset with huge costs that are associated with, for instance, airport screenings—things that we would never have imagined 30 years ago. There are costs associated with all kinds of security around public events and, indeed, security around this place in which we speak today. All of those are an added cost to that that would have been envisaged when this building was built. It does come at a cost, and it does come as a small sacrifice of our personal freedoms, as I touched on at the beginning of this speech. That's why, wherever possible, there should be temporary measures. If they can't be temporary, then they should be properly thought through and investigated, and that's what the extension of this existing legislation will allow us to do.
Mr WOOD (La Trobe) (16:59): I also wish to rise and speak on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (AFP Powers and Other Matters) Bill 2022. The bill basically allows the extension of powers for another 12 months. It is very important that the sunset clause is continued. It was when I was first elected in 2004, under the Howard government, that legislation regarding control orders, preventative detention orders, and emergency stop and seizure powers was introduced. Sometimes we actually forget why these laws are required. We obviously think back to September 11. But Australia has been very fortunate due to the magnificent detective work of our law enforcement agencies and our intelligence agencies. Over the years they have done an incredible job of protecting Australians.
We can go back to the matter involving Benbrika. He was charged, along with a number of young people, for planning terrorist attacks in Melbourne—from memory, at the MCG and Federation Square. Benbrika had been booted out of the Preston mosque. He had a very extreme views. He actually cultivated and used young people to recruit and plan to commit these attacks. From memory, he was found as a result an operation called Operation Pendennis. If it wasn't for the great law enforcement work, these awful terrorist attacks would have occurred at the MCG, Federation Square and other places. Legislation has since been put in place to keep high-risk terrorist offenders behind bars. I note that the now Opposition leader, the previous Minister for Home Affairs, Peter Dutton, fought very hard for this legislation. Benbrika has been kept in prison for the simple reason that he hasn't changed his ways and views, and, if he does get out, he will be of high risk to the community.
As I said, sometimes we forget the great work of detectives across the country. I was going through speeches I've made on counterterrorism, and I am reminded that the Greens have opposed every single piece of counterterrorism legislation. Back in 2016, police foiled terrorist attacks that were planned for Anzac Day, awful attacks in which there were plans to stab and shoot police officers and members of the public. As I said in a speech I made in December 2016:
I remember how alert the police were at Anzac Day services and how concerned they were for their own safety. One of those charged was Sevdet Ramadan Besim, 19 years of age.
That's the thing—young people are often recruited in the terrorism world. Further:
After his plan was foiled, he pleaded guilty to a plot to run over and then behead a police officer before using his gun in a rampage. In the Victorian Supreme Court in September 2016, Besim was given a 10-year jail sentence, and must serve at least 7½ years …
There were also advanced plans to kidnap members of the public in Sydney and Brisbane and then behead them on camera and release the footage—absolutely shocking. Two schoolboys, who were allegedly preparing for a terror attack in Sydney's south-west, with police alleging they had links to Islamic State, were arrested and refused bail in October 2016. There was a plan to detonate bombs at a Mother's Day running event.
Again, I thank law enforcement agencies for the great work they've done. And it was back in the Howard days that this legislation was introduced.
When it comes to control orders, sometimes members of the public don't actually understand the need for them and their use. Control orders are used when, for example, police may be waiting on a court case and the person involved hasn't been remanded in custody—most times they would be remanded in custody—and there are still concerns about them. They will potentially be required to wear a leg bracelet to monitor their behaviour. Orders could be made that they cannot use social media or be in contact with other people. From memory, control orders are in place for a 12-month period.
To be honest, something else I've been fighting for for a number of years is what I call a community based order. I had this in the case of Numan Haider, who tried to stab two police at Endeavour Hills Police Station. Numan Haider was a person who was hanging around the Dandenong shopping centre with what was at the time the IS flag. Police didn't really have any powers to charge him; they just had powers to move him on from the shopping centre. The two law enforcement officers—I've actually met them in the past—arranged to meet with him at the Endeavour Hills Police Station. He pulled a knife out on them and tried to stab them and was subsequently shot.
One of the gaps is community based orders, and it is more the states who've failed on this. It could again be Islamic extremists, or it could be white supremacists; in recent years, the concerns have been more about the movement of white supremacists. This came from my background when I was formerly a member of the Victoria Police counterterrorism unit, so I have some knowledge of it. I again thank all my former colleagues and those still working in the area. The concern for the police is that someone may be watching beheading videos or hanging out with others who are talking about extremism. I was on a delegation a number of years ago when we met with a Swedish counterterrorism expert, and he pointed out to me and our delegation that, if you're simply around all day talking about jihad and terrorist attacks, sadly, something may eventually take place.
With this community based protection order, for example, in the case of people like Numan Haider, the police or someone else—it could be a family member, a religious leader or a friend—could take the person before a magistrate. The magistrate would hear the evidence about their concerns and could potentially put in place an order that the person who they have concerns about go and undertake a deradicalisation program, if there is such a thing—most of them haven't been effective—or at least get counselling or have an order that they have to stop watching these beheading videos or, in the case of someone like Benbrika, stop hanging around with someone who's a bad influence and is encouraging or inciting others to get involved in the world of terrorism. I still think there's a great need for that. Sadly, it always takes something really bad to happen before the legislation is put in place.
That brings me to preventative detention orders. At the start, when this was introduced under the Howard government, I was actually critical of this because it didn't go far enough. A preventative detention order is what it sounds like: it is to stop a terrorist attack. If a person—or it could be a number of people—is picked up by the police, and there's not enough evidence to arrest them under part IC of the Crimes Act of the Commonwealth, the person will be picked up under a preventative detention order and held—in police terms, kept on ice—to try to make sure that they aren't planning a terrorist attack.
The concern I had—and I raised my concerns with a number of attorneys-general of both political persuasions—was that law enforcement needed the ability, if a person were in custody or under preventative detention, to actually ask that person if they were planning anything or to ask about a co-offender who they were worried might be about to commit a terrorist attack. This legislation at the time didn't allow that. Police and law enforcement could not ask one question on this, and anything which was asked couldn't be used in evidence. From my understanding and knowledge when it comes to police investigations, counterterrorism investigations are super, super complex.
The good news when it comes to preventative detention is that now police and law enforcement do have that power. I note that it hasn't been used at the Commonwealth level, and I suspect that's because the state police have also put in legislation similar to what would be at the Commonwealth level. We need to do everything we can when it comes to making Australians safe and giving law enforcement the tools to do that.
I have some figures here on the number of those charged. A hundred and forty-four people have been charged in 71 counterterrorism related operations since 2004, so that's pretty amazing work by our law enforcement to go in there and prevent so many terrorist attacks. Sadly, we've seen terrorist attacks overseas, in the Bali bombings, where Australians died, and London has had so many.
The previous Liberal governments have been very strong when it comes to supporting the Australian Federal Police. Since 2014 the government has strengthened our national defence against terrorism, investing an additional $2.3 billion. The coalition has always had a very strong record in this space, providing funding of $1.7 billion for the Australian Federal Police and investing over $1.3 billion for the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation in the 2021-22 budget. As part of the plan, we released a new counterterrorism strategy. An additional investment of $86 million was provided in the budget to protect the community from threats posed by high-risk terrorist offenders, $66.9 million for continued support for the High Risk Terrorist Offender regime, and the implementation of the Extended Supervision Order Framework. The government also listed 28 terrorist organisations under the Criminal Code.
I note this bill will go for review to the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security, which I think is very important. That committee does great work. I was a member of that committee a number of years back, and they do great work going through the legislation.
I pay tribute to and pass on my sorrow to all the victims of terrorism, especially the family members. I always say this—when people think about events, whether they be Christmastime, birthdays or anniversaries, most of us look at them as exciting times, sadly, when people have lost loved ones in terrorist attacks they are always wondering why. When you look at people like those involved in the Bali bombings—there was one of the Sikhs over there who was involved in these attacks—they don't commit the attacks. It's like with the Australian embassy bombing—I saw the footage for that. The person involved in using the truck to go into the gates had no knowledge of how to drive a truck, and basically drove past it two or three times before they went in there and committed that attack. Sadly, a number of people—not Australians, but other people—lost their lives. We never can take this for granted.
Australia has also done fantastic work when it comes to overseas, providing funding for various counterterrorism centres around the world and in the south-east to support other law enforcement agencies, which has been so important. I thank all the other members, and I thank the government, which I can nearly say is in line with Liberal and Nationals members when it comes to this legislation. As I said right from the start, under the Howard government, when these powers were first spoken about, it was very, very controversial. I remember speaking on the 7.30 Report, saying it didn't go far enough because of the preventative detention measures. This is legislation which is very, very important.
My final point for those who voted for Greens at the election, they have never supported any counterterrorism legislation to make Australians safe, and they always seem to go on the side of the terrorists, rather than the side of protecting Australians.
Mr BROADBENT (Monash) (18:14): I thank you, Deputy Speaker Wilkie, for giving me the call, and I thank the member for La Trobe for his words, who has great experience as a former serving police officer. The reason there was a lot of controversy when these laws were introduced was that they affect our freedoms. I don't know what you're like as a member of parliament, but every time I see a piece of legislation like this I place my children and my grandchildren into it. I say, 'What if this legislation were directed at my child, at my son, and they were detained, without charge, for a period of time?' That's why these issues are controversial. That's why when we, as a parliament, decide to extend these powers for another 12 months—whether they have been acted on or not, or used or not—an enormous amount of power is given to the Australian Federal Police to act on our behalf. As long as they are acting on our behalf, we will applaud each move that they make. But all of these powers can be misused and abused. I know no-one else will come in and talk about that today, but that is exactly the reason these powers were so controversial in the first place.
I'm here as a member of parliament not only to serve my constituency and this nation but to protect my constituency and this nation—even, sometimes, from our own government. And you say, 'What a preposterous proposition you're putting—that somebody somewhere would abuse these laws for their own benefit, that there would be no corruption in this country whatsoever, that no person would ever step out of line.' That's not what history tells us down the line, and that's why so many people who are libertarians—I don't know what you call them these days; there are not many left—look at these issues and take them really seriously. If powers like these are misused, your freedom's gone. I think they have been misused in Australia in the last 12 months, particularly in Victoria, but that is a whole other issue, and we won't go down that track.
The government and the former government—there will be no difference—are deciding that we should extend these powers for 12 months. So I immediately went to the legislation and asked, 'Why are we doing this?' We're doing this so we can give some consideration to other legislation that may be put in place and be considered by the government of the day. It will get the consideration of the backbench committee of the government of the day or the caucus committee of the government of the day, and the backbench committee or the caucus committee of the opposition of the day. It will be debated in the House. There will be consideration by the caucus and the party rooms, so there will be further consideration of this issue as we build up to new legislation that may cover it. So I start to feel a bit more comfortable, because I know the backbench committees in my party and the caucus committees within the Labor Party are not stupid. There are men and women in there that have views about these particular issues, and they will voice them.
Then the legislation will go to the Senate. I believe either the Greens or others will ask that it be considered by a Senate committee. So it will be considered again. I'm just making the point that, when we make legislation in this House, there's far more consideration given to it than what is in the Herald Sun for just a fleeting moment. I'm sure that the Independents will want to have something to say about powers that affect the freedoms and obligations of the Australian people.
I don't want my children, my grandchildren or any of my family or those that I care for to be pulled up in the street for no reason whatsoever. I think that you can be pulled over in a car for no reason whatsoever, for just a check. That was never the case years ago. You couldn't just be pulled over for no reason, just for a check. But I think you can be now.
The Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (AFP Powers and Other Matters) Bill 2022 is important. All the reasons listed for the bill—such as to protect the nation—are important because, as the member for La Trobe quite rightly said, the threat to Australia is still real and probable. I don't even like the ads on television that talk about the re-enactment of the Bali bombings. I don't want to watch a re-enactment of a horrific event, which was a major attack on hundreds of Australians who happened to be there at the time, and on the Germans and French and all the other people who were caught up in that horrible, horrible, horrible situation.
I hate terrorism. I hate the fear that drives it and I hate the disregard for human life that surrounds it—to create more fear. But I also fear incremental changes to our freedoms. Our freedoms are grievously important, and, if governments of the day and members of parliament as individuals don't have regard for the freedoms that are crucially important to a nation that has spilled blood for such freedoms, then they may be incrementally taken away, piece by piece, little by little, until the individual no longer has the rights that the previous generation enjoyed. That's the only point I'm making here.
There is good reason for this legislation to be put in this way, because the parliament wants more time to consider. I've just been through—before the member for Wright got here—a number of backup provisions and a number of committees that go through any legislation before it gets to the point of being enacted. We had a big fight about this legislation a long time ago. We had a big fight about the controversy of it. And it wasn't even in the context of an immediate threat. There have been times in this country when we've faced the threat of terrorism, and in fact some damage has been done by individuals. All of these things that are in this bill do go toward protecting Australians. I don't deny that. And there can always be good arguments put up for bad legislation. I'm not suggesting this is bad legislation. I'm just suggesting to you all that protecting freedoms in this nation should be priority No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3.
When I leave this place—and, guess what, we all do. One day, even you two younger members of parliament on the other side will leave. One day we all leave. I'm going to make sure that, when I leave this place, I leave this nation as free as it was when I first came here in 1990, because that is really important to me. That's a legacy that we must leave as a nation. When our men and women have gone and shed their blood overseas for us, and you ask them why, they will say, 'Because we were fighting for the freedom to live the way we want to live in this nation.' I'm not going to go into the restrictions that were put in place in Victoria because of COVID, the excuses that were given, the responses that happened there and the powers that they then claimed back to enact what they wanted to enact using the Victorian police. I am very, very attuned at this time to any legislation that may affect health, wellbeing and, especially, freedom of movement and freedom of association. I want to be able to walk down the street in the freest nation in the world.
I know we're not under threat like other nations, like Israel and Palestine—what's happening in the Middle East. We don't live that life. We're not waiting for a missile to come roaring over from nearby, from Mount Ainslie or somewhere, and drop into parliament. We don't live that life. We're not Israelis. We're not Palestinians. We're not all the people under threat around the world. And it gives us a different view. The Australian view says: 'She'll be right. You can bring in legislation like this. It's not a problem unless it's misused or abused.' Why would it be misused or abused? I don't know. The other option is that we don't have legislation like this at all, and then the Federal Police can't act. That's not a go either. That doesn't work for me either. You have to give the powers to the Federal Police to be able to act on your behalf. But, at the same time, I notice that each time there is judicial oversight along the track.
An honourable member: I don't think they have been used.
Mr BROADBENT: No, they haven't been used. But, once these laws are in place, it wouldn't surprise me if in 12 months time the government come back and say, 'Look, we need another 12 months,' and then the laws will have been enacted and in place for a number of years. I think what this should be saying is, 'If this comes back again, there should be amendments moved to say, "No, we'll do a full review."'
An honourable member: Tie it to the resolution.
Mr BROADBENT: Absolutely. This legislation says that we're working towards new legislation—I don't want to run out of time here. That's fine, except that the sunset clauses are put in legislation like this because of the seriousness of the legislation. They're not put in there just to say, 'Oh, we'll have a look at that at the end of a certain amount of time.' The sunset clauses are put in there to say, 'Yes, we recognise how important this legislation is to the freedom and wellbeing of this nation, so we're putting in a sunset clause so the government of the day, which is a new government, has to come back and look at the legislation.' They have to, because there's a sunset clause there,. I'm sure the Australian Federal Police are saying, rightly, to the government: 'Look, these laws have been extremely important to us to be able to use if we need them. So they're there ready to go. We have been very careful in how we've used them to this point.' And they have, clearly, because they haven't used any of them. They've been very careful as to how they've used them, because they know how sensitive this is for the Australian people.
I suppose a lot of the Australian people just expect us—and expect you too, and you too, and you, Mr Deputy Speaker—to act on their behalf. They want to believe that you are protecting them in everything you decide in this place so they don't have to worry about it. They will say to me, 'Russell, we elected you to make these decisions.' I had some contractors in my house. I won't tell you what the issue was, but one day they said, 'If you don't make it compulsory, that'll be fine.' One of them turned to me and said, 'Look, Russell, we actually elected you to make this decision.'
So I feel a very heavy responsibility when it comes to bills like this that affect the individual freedom of everybody in this nation, because I believe Australia needs to be a beacon of freedom. We need to be a place where people know they can come, get refuge and live in a free society. This may all sound like rhetoric to some people, but it's real because it's real legislation. They can really arrest you. They can arrest you without charge. They can accost you without charge. Yes, it's serious, because it's all about our freedoms. That's why I am pleading with all parliamentarians: take this legislation very seriously. On anything that comes up that's going to affect your personal freedom or your family's personal freedom or your grandchildren's personal freedom, make sure that you give it your best shot and that you are very comfortable with what the government is doing at any time in legislation that has such a dramatic effect. We've had the blue about it, and now we're agreeing with and supporting this legislation. Thank you for your indulgence.
Debate adjourned.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Dr FREELANDER (Macarthur) (18:29): by leave—I move:
That business intervening before order of the day No. 3, government business, be postponed until the next sitting.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Wilkie ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr Stevens: I second the motion.
Question agreed to.
GRIEVANCE DEBATE
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That grievances be noted.
Oil and Gas Exploration
Dr SCAMPS (Mackellar) (18:30): If there is one issue that unites everyone in my electorate of Mackellar, it is the opposition to the PEP-11 permit for oil and gas exploration, covering 8,200 square kilometres just four kilometres off our stunning coastline—a permit that would allow drilling for oil and gas from Newcastle to Palm Beach and from Manly to Bondi, on some of the world's most stunning and famous beaches. This is a permit that would result in seismic testing of the ocean floor, consisting of intense underwater explosions of up to 230 decibels, firing every three to 10 seconds 24 hours a day for weeks or months on end, along a whale migration pathway, with sound travelling efficiently through water. To give some perspective, a Boeing 747 generates only 160 decibels behind the engine. Seismic blasting has devastating effects on marine life. It damages the hearing and health of dolphins and whales and affects their ability to communicate and migrate, and that's all before oil and gas is even found.
It's no wonder that I have not yet met even one of my constituents who supports PEP-11 because, like all Australians, we love where we live. We love our stunning coastline and beaches and pristine waters. We delight in watching the seasonal whale migrations from our shores, and we love surfing with the dolphins. We're not prepared to risk it. Some of you may have travelled to the famous beaches of California where offshore drilling exists and experienced for yourselves the dirty, murky state of the water—iconic beaches where, only last year, the oil spill devastated the water and coastline. In California there are now renewed calls to ban even existing offshore drilling for oil and gas.
My community of Mackellar, together with my crossbench colleagues' coastal communities of Warringah and Wentworth and along with our local councils and state MPs, will continue to strenuously oppose PEP-11. Together, our community successfully fought to have the PEP-11 licence extinguished, so, when we were assured in December last year that PEP-11 was dead in the water, our communities celebrated. However, since the recent revelation that the former Prime Minister of Australia was responsible for the decision to end PEP-11 after secretly swearing himself in as a second resources minister, the validity of the decision to cancel PEP-11 is being challenged in the Federal Court. As such, the issue is yet again front and centre in the minds of my community.
But it's not just us, it's not just PEP 11 and it's not just a case of nimbyism. Organisations like the Surfrider Foundation who have organised coordinated paddle-out protests of surfers across Australia are a great example of everyday Australians standing up to show there is no social licence for further offshore oil and gas exploration anywhere along Australia's coastline. Ningaloo Reef was spared in 2020 due to community action and the Great Australian Bight was spared in 2021, again due to community action. The New South Wales state government has listened to Australians. They have read the room. In February this year, they announced a new policy whereby offshore exploration and mining for commercial purposes will be prohibited. Why? They declared that the possible impacts of these activities on Indigenous heritage, sensitive marine environments, fishing for commercial and recreational purposes, and other recreational activities outweigh the potential benefits. And it goes without saying that the impacts of further fossil fuel mining projects on climate change and on Australia's capacity to meet our Paris Agreement obligations must also be taken into account.
With our 2030 target now legislated, there is simply no room for new oil and gas exploration projects. As the UN Secretary-General recently said, our 'addiction to fossil fuels is mutually assured destruction'.
These ocean-floor mining projects cause the release of fugitive methane emissions. Methane is 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, and there are huge leakage rates of up to 66 per cent from these mines. Once drilled, these mining wells can continue to release methane, sometimes in perpetuity. Indeed, this is the situation in the Gulf of Mexico, where unknown quantities of methane and other greenhouse gases continue leaking from tens of thousands of holes in the ocean floor.
Starting new fossil fuel mining projects now won't just cause short-term impacts; these projects will continue to produce emissions and environmental impacts for decades. It's why offshore drilling has been banned in other jurisdictions. Take, for example, the US. New exploration has been banned in Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Virginia and California. In California, the ban was imposed in 1994; however, drilling continues. These projects can last for decades. Last month, the government released 47,000 square kilometres of oil and gas acreage for exploration, an area the size of Switzerland. This paves the way for more mega gas projects. As gen Y says, 'Enough already.'
My electorate—and, I hope, this chamber, having passed the historic Climate Change Act only a few weeks ago—are serious about trying to reach our 2030 target and our net zero 2050 target. This means not adding to the problem. Australia's large emitters will have a big enough challenge meeting the safeguard mechanism baselines to achieve Australia's 2030 target. There is no room for more. It comes down to this: releasing acreage for oil and gas exploration isn't in the interests of climate change, it isn't in the interests of our environment, it isn't in the interests of clean beaches and it isn't in the interests of my community. It isn't in the interests of the existing high emitters, who will have to cut emissions further if new projects are brought on. And it isn't in the interests of our Pacific neighbours, who will bear the impacts of rising sea levels. In fact, only last week the UN Human Rights Committee made an historic legal finding that, due to Australia's inaction on climate change, we have violated our human rights obligations to the eight Torres Strait Islander peoples who brought the action.
Enough of the devastation to our environment. Enough of the devastation to our climate. Enough of the devastation to human rights violations. Let's focus on clean, renewable, offshore opportunities—opportunities now possible due to the passage of the former government's Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill. We have six projects. Let's grow that number. We need more of Mike Cannon-Brookes's Sun Cable, which will provide power to Singapore; Matt Kean's Waratah batteries, which offer a vital backstop for our renewable energy; and Hunter industrial precincts, which will forge the green steel and aluminium that will transform Asia and, hopefully, Australia. It's time to pivot to the future and not stick to the past.
I call on the government to follow the New South Wales state government's example and close the book on any future release of ocean-floor exploration licences for oil and gas.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Wilkie ): I give the call to the member for Lalor.
Lalor Electorate: Sport
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Chief Government Whip) (18:39): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. My first grievance is that the seat that I represent is called Lalor, after the great Peter Lalor. I'll never tire of reminding people in this House that that's how it's pronounced.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Wilkie ): My apologies.
Ms RYAN: I would remind all members present that anyone who gets that wrong has to answer to Barry Jones, to whom I made a commitment to ensure that people would say it as Peter said his own name, and that's with an Irish accent and therefore 'Lawler'.
'From the stands of the MCG to the stands of Chirnside Park' is how the Werribee Football Club's theme song begins. It was written by a local many, many years ago and has stood the test of time as still being the theme song for the Werribee Football Club, which of course plays in the VFL competition—a proud standalone community club. Having just come through the Festival of the Boot, as the member for Lilley—the Minister for Sport—calls the last six weeks, I want to pay tribute to lots of our local football clubs. But I'd say it's more a festival of the ball, and so I want to pay tribute to our football, netball and basketball locally, as well as our hockey and some of what people call 'minor sports'. It has been a festival. The Werribee Football Club in the VFL are very proud that Tom Gribble has won the J.J. Liston Trophy for the VFL this year, a terrific achievement from Tom Gribble. Scott Bishop, another local, a long-time Werribee timekeeper, has been named the VFL Volunteer of the Year.
The festival of the ball has seen me attend many games of football across the last few months. I was absolutely thrilled to attend some of the WRFL grand finals and finals series held at the Avalon Airport Oval, which is Chirnside Park, the home of the Werribee VFL club but also host to many of the WRFL finals. There are 34 clubs across the WRFL, the Western Region Football League, across the juniors and seniors. Eight of those clubs are in the seat of Lalor, across various divisions in juniors and seniors, and there was much to celebrate.
One club, Werribee Districts, managed to have three teams in grand final day: under-18s, reserves and seniors. The three for three that people started the day hoping for was not achieved, but the Werribee Districts under-18s defeated Point Cook to be premiers; the reserves defeated Altona to be premiers; and the seniors were runners-up to Altona. They bravely came from fourth, so they faced an elimination final every week. We saw some terrific football on display. I want to congratulate all of the teams from across the electorate of Lalor, which included Hoppers Crossing in that series of the senior finals.
In the TIV Division 1 Seniors Best and Fairest, the Barry Priest Medal was awarded to Werribee Districts player Dillon Viojo-Rainbow. Werribee Districts took out the TIV Division 1 Reserves Best and Fairest, which was awarded to Chris Scudamore. And, in the under-18 division, Brock Spiteri won the Best and Fairest award in division 1. This is an extraordinary achievement for one of my local clubs. It was a great finals series and a great season.
Moving down the road, the Wyndhamvale Football Club managed the division 2 reserves premiers, where they defeated Parkside at Yarraville Oval, and the Senior Women's Division 2 Best and Fairest was from the Wyndhamvale Football Club. I would like to congratulate Mariah Burton. I would also like to say that it's terrific to see so many women taking to the field to play football in my local community. I would recommend that anyone in the chamber who wants to see an inspirational video go onto YouTube and look up the 'Wyndham Vale Falcons Inspirational Video', narrated by one of their female players. It is an inspirational video about the power of sport and the positive things that sport brings to us.
Another club from my local area that had a terrific season was the Suns. They managed to get the seniors and reserves into division 3 of the WRFL grand final, and their senior coach, Dean Cachia, was named Division 3 Senior Coach of the Year—another terrific season for the Suns. They've had lots to celebrate, and I know they're still celebrating now.
The Manor Lakes Football Club were named the Division 1 Women's Team of the Year, and Jaimi Paten, a local player, was named captain of that team—another sensational outcome.
Another football club that I represent here is the Werribee Centrals Football and Netball Club. Their juniors play in the WRFL, and their seniors play in the Geelong and District Football Netball League. I note that the GDFL have changed their name to include 'netball' in their title, which of course I welcome.
In my time at Centrals over the last few years, I have been absolutely inspired by what has happened at that club, firstly by bringing netball into the club and what that has meant for participation for girls, followed by bringing in women's football. The netballers have had a terrific season. The under-19s had a championship win against Belmont. The 17&U Megan Dean Medal went to Charli Hocking, the 17&U leading goal scorer was Remy Brunato, and the 2022 GDFNL team of the year and A grade third-place nomination went to Amanda O'Malley. It was a terrific season for them.
In football, the under 18 division 2 best and fairest Ray Ettridge medal went to Max Murdoch, and the Youth Coach of the Year went to Justin Johns. The GDFL Team of the Year nomination went to Tyler Crennan. It wasn't just about football. This festival was also about basketball. I want to congratulate the Wyndham Basketball Association for being the first club to win both men's and women's senior championship divisions. It's an extraordinary achievement and a great way to celebrate the end of their season. They are the second-largest basketball association in Victoria and are doing fabulous work making sure young people are being really active and involved. And Dyani Ananiev was named youth player of the year in the 2022 Big V awards. That was a terrific outcome for them as well.
On 10 September, I was thrilled to once again attend Rugby Victoria's junior grand final day, which was held in my electorate at the Mossfiel Reserve. The local club, the Wyndham Rhinos, had the 13s, 14s and 16s playing on grand final day. The 13s defeated Melton to become premiers, the 14s defeated Endeavour Hills to become premiers, and the 16s went down to the Bulldogs. But I'd like to thank the president, Ean Drummond, for his tireless work and his welcome over so many years. I'd also like to thank Rugby Victoria for the work they do. It is a bit of a code switch for me, but I can tell you that I absolutely love watching rugby union. There's nothing quite as exciting, especially in the juniors, as watching somebody get a high knee and a bit of a dance, and off they go. It is fantastic to watch those kids step it out. And watching boys and girls play together in that grand final was absolutely inspiring, and the way the families get around it is extraordinary.
I recently had the joy of attending a final where the Werribee hockey men's team took won. I want to thank them for their work. To take me to my grievance, despite this festival and despite all of the local sport that happens, our sport participation rates in my community are low. If you heard that list, there seems to be sport everywhere. But it's challenging in our community; it's challenging because we have so many young families, we have so many young people, but we also have very hard-working families, people working and travelling long distances to and from work. It makes it really difficult to get kids involved in sports. So, as a community, we have to think of creative ways to get our young people involved in the passion of sport, the power of sport, and the joy of sport, not just for the fitness and health benefits but for the way it builds character. Tonight I want to pay tribute to all of the people who've worked for many, many years to get kids into sport. Everything you do, every day, I am grateful for and thrilled that as the member for Lalor I get to come and see it. But I want to assert one more time that I am there to help all of our local sporting clubs to find those creative ways to ensure that we build youth participation in sport. What I see in the community is that there are a lot of kids playing sports, or, rather, there are a lot of sports being played by kids, but sometimes it's the same kid playing five sports rather than five kids playing one sport.
International Humanitarian Assistance
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (18:49): In the past 24 hours NASA scientists have been celebrating the successful crashing of a spaceship into an asteroid millions of kilometres from earth. It's been an historic test of humanity's ability to prevent a cosmic object one day devastating life on this planet. We have seen a 590-kilogram spaceship, around the size of a refrigerator, striking the moonlet asteroid Dimorphos, travelling at around 24,000 kilometres an hour. This happened about 11 million kilometres away from earth—fantastic! It cost US$324½ million. And yet, closer to home, you've got millions of kids starving.
I know these things are important. I understand that we, as a society, and NASA, as a scientific organisation, and the United States, as a world-leading country, need to do these things—to prevent, perhaps, what happened at the end of the dinosaurs, 65 million years ago, when a large rock struck the earth, ending the Cretaceous-Paleogene era, wiping out all those large animals which had dominated the earth for tens of millions of years. I know I'm getting old. I might be getting cranky. I'm probably both. I know that it's important to defend yourself. I understand that. You understand that, Deputy Speaker Wilkie. The price of peace is eternal vigilance. But US$801 billion was spent on arms in 2021 by America. Worldwide it was $2.1 trillion. And you've got kids in Africa starving. You've got mothers holding babes in arms, dying before their very eyes. This isn't just happening in isolated incidents. This is happening in thousands upon thousands of communities.
Australia is providing $15 million in emergency assistance in response to the hunger crisis in the Horn of Africa and Yemen. This is a 10th of what the not-for-profit organisations said was needed. I do thank the government for providing this assistance. Last week I called on the government to provide $150 million, which is what the not-for-profits said was required as a base measure. Making the announcement, the Minister for International Development and the Pacific said that the Australian Council for International Development, ACFID, welcomed the announcement. He made that point and he talked about the global efforts to combat looming famine in affected parts of the world. Minister Conroy is right. I've always said that Australia should look after its backyard, the Indo-Pacific region, Europe should look after Africa, and North America—Canada, the US—should look after Latin, Central and South America. The poor people in those areas affected should be looked after by the globe's leading citizens and richer countries.
ACFID chief executive Marc Purcell said:
The Albanese government's response to the hunger crisis is a great start on Labor's stated commitment to being a responsible international citizen.
He's right. I acknowledge that. But it's a small start. Much more is going to need to be done. We need to step up and do it. Right now, 10,000 children are dying each day from hunger. That's the equivalent of an entire classroom of children dying in Australia every 3½ minutes. The COVID-19 pandemic, ongoing droughts and the war in Ukraine have created a perfect storm for a global food crisis. Since the beginning of the pandemic, hunger has increased by roughly 150 million people across the globe. Just think about that—150 million. Our population is around 25 million. It's six times our population. Jobs have been lost or made insecure, household budgets have tightened and supply chains have been disrupted, resulting in increased prices. I understand that Australian families are doing it hard—I get that—but the Horn of Africa is experiencing its worst drought in 40 years, with four consecutive failed rainy seasons. Across the world, extreme weather events have damaged crops and livelihoods, drastically reducing people's ability to feed themselves. On top of that, we've got the invasion of Ukraine by Putin. It's an act of military bastardry. It's causing a devastating impact not only on Ukrainians but also on the world's most vulnerable by exacerbating the global food crisis and upsetting global food supply chains. The Russia-Ukraine war is being fought in the breadbasket of Europe.
When I wrote that op-ed last week in the Daily Telegraph, I sent it to my National Party colleagues. I was amazed by the response I got. People reached out to me. I've always known that I belonged to a compassionate party, and that certainly brought that home to me. Sometimes I think that our side of politics perhaps isn't always considered as compassionate as the other side of politics, if I can put it that way. But they are genuine. We need to do more, genuinely. We should, we must and, hopefully, we will.
As reported by Reuters last week, the European Union is divided on how to help poorer countries fight a growing food crisis and address shortages of fertilisers caused by the war in Ukraine, with some fearing a plan to invest in plants in Africa would clash with—wait for it—EU green goals. I mean, really? You've got kids starving in the Horn of Africa and in Yemen, and you've got rich countries worrying about green goals? I mean, my God! What have we become as a society, as humanity? At a summit of EU leaders later in the week, the EU was planning a new initiative which would structurally decrease poorer nations' reliance on Russian fertilisers by helping them develop their own fertiliser plants. Okay, but at a meeting with EU envoys in that particular week in June, the EU commission explicitly opposed the narrative—listen to this—'warning that supporting fertiliser production in developing nations would be inconsistent with the EU energy and environment policies'. That's what officials said. It just beggars belief. What bloody-mindedness! Are we really going to stand by and let people die for the sake of a woke agenda?
I do appreciate that fertiliser has an impact on the environment—yes. It requires energy—yes. But let me tell you, coming from a multigenerational farming family, I know it's also hugely effective in boosting the agricultural output. If you don't use fertiliser, you don't get the output that you require. I appreciate that the National Farmers Federation here in Australia said, through its chair Fiona Simson, that it could potentially do some things with food aid. That's to be encouraged. But right now, with double the population of Australia on the brink of famine—more, absolutely more—we cannot give up on finding a solution and offering our support, no matter what that may be. If it's money, well, so be it.
In a few weeks, a famine will be declared in Somalia. Soon to follow will be Afghanistan—and haven't we lost some lives there to make that country a better place?—Ethiopia, Nigeria, South Sudan and Yemen. The threshold for a famine to be declared is extreme. Lots of people think that Africa's in famine all the time—it's not. Famine has been declared only twice this century—in Somalia in 2011 and in South Sudan in 2017. But this is a crisis point. This is an absolute crisis point. The last time a famine was declared in Somalia, of the more than one-quarter of a million people who lost their lives, 129,000 were children under the age of five. Half of the total death toll perished before a famine was declared. So, I call on the government to do what it can. I call on people of a good heart to do what they can. We must do more. We have to do more to save people's lives.
Commonwealth Integrity Commission
Ms SITOU (Reid) (18:59): I saw the consequences of government corruption early in life. I remember travelling overseas with my parents on holiday. We arrived at the border immigration office and presented our passports. The advertised price for an entry visa was US$50, but my mum ended up handing over US$55. I asked her what the extra US$5 was for, and she told me it was for the immigration officer to pocket. That was my first introduction to government corruption. In every interaction, there was potential for corruption, bribery and fraud. People living in that country knew that, in order to get things done with the government, money had to be exchanged.
I distinctly remember seeing a sealed tar road leading up to a huge estate. The road stood out to me because all the roads in that town had been bumpy dirt tracks, so I asked our family friend if the estate was some sort of government building or a place of national significance. She simply replied that the owners of the estate were wealthy and had paid off the local government officials with bribes to build the public road leading up to their house. This is what happens when corruption permeates and becomes the norm in a country. It undermines trust in government, it increases inequality and it means growth and progress stagnate. And, critically, it undermines democracy. Democracy only flourishes when decisions are made openly and transparently. Governments need to be held accountable. Their decisions need to be scrutinised and they need to be made in the public interest.
Corruption in Australia might not have been quite as obvious, but we have never been immune to it. Over the last decade, according to Transparency International, we have come down the rankings of the Corruption Perceptions Index. On a scale out of 100, Australia's score in 2012 was 85. In 2021 that had dropped to 73, a 12-point drop. Alongside Hungary, Australia experienced the biggest drop of all OECD countries. Not only does this drop in perception have a consequence for our democracy; it also has an economic consequence. Corruption has a corrosive economic impact. It builds distrust between corporations and governments. It has an impact on long-term investment decisions.
In every state and territory in Australia, there's an anticorruption body. In my home state of New South Wales, the Independent Commission Against Corruption has exposed the presence of corrupt activities in the state—corrupt activities that have meant interests of individuals were placed over the public's and community's interests. These activities have been committed by representatives at both levels of government, local and state, by both major political parties, including the party that I am a part of, the Labor Party. It saddens me to say that, but I'm grateful to the Sydney Morning Herald's investigative reporter Kate McClymont for exposing this corrupt behaviour, and I'm grateful to the Independent Commission Against Corruption for its thorough investigation. I'm grateful because I don't want to be part of a party with corrupt representatives. I want their behaviour exposed, investigated and prosecuted.
Currently, the only jurisdiction that does not have an anticorruption body is the federal level. It's just extraordinary, isn't it, given the magnitude of the decisions made in this place? In response to the former government's contention that there was no corruption at a federal level, Geoffrey Watson SC, a former counsel assisting the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption, said:
This argument is not only absurd, it is circular.
Without a federal agency armed with the appropriate investigative tools, it is unlikely that corruption will be detected, much less exposed.
Integrity in parliament was an issue raised with me during the election campaign. Time after time, doorknock after doorknock, the people of Reid raised their concerns about lack of integrity in our parliament. That's why I'm so proud to be part of a Labor government that is establishing a powerful, transparent and independent national anticorruption commission. And that is happening this week.
The commission will be tasked with investigating serious and systemic corrupt conduct across the entire federal public sector and will have the following design principles: it will have broad jurisdiction to investigate corrupt conduct across the Commonwealth by ministers, parliamentarians and their staff, and across the Public Service; it will be independent of government, with the discretion to commence inquiries on its own initiative; it will be overseen by a statutory parliamentary joint committee; it will have retrospective powers; it will have the power to hold public hearings; it will have the power to refer matters to the AFP or the Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecutions; and it will have procedural fairness and be subject to judicial review.
Importantly, too, the legislation that will seek to enshrine the National Anti-Corruption Commission will provide strong protections for whistleblowers and exemptions for journalists to protect the identity of their sources. Both of these elements are fundamental to the orderly administration of a democracy like ours.
A great feature of the debate around integrity and the Anti-Corruption Commission so far has been the degree of collaboration and consultation across the parliament. While it's early days in terms of its passage through parliament, I'm glad to see that the Independents, the Greens and, more recently, the opposition have been constructively working on this important policy. It sends a signal that integrity, accountability and transparency are important in this parliament.
The National Anti-Corruption Commission will be a policy that we look back on in years to come and ask ourselves how we ever managed without it. It's a body that will help to build trust in our government, trust in our politics and trust in our democracy. And, while that may sound abstract, it's a policy that's fundamentally about ensuring better government and better policy outcomes for citizens across this country, including my own constituents of Reid, who I'm so proud to serve. It's about ensuring that people have faith that government is serving those whom it is supposed to serve, not those who might seek to unduly influence it. It's about ensuring integrity in government, not just for integrity's sake but because it will materially improve people's lives. So, while it's tempting to think of the National Anti-Corruption Commission in big, bold but somewhat abstract terms, its real impact will be felt in better policy for people's day-to-day lives.
A national anti-corruption commission is long overdue, so let's get this done.
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (19:07): I welcome the honourable member for Reid's salient contribution to the House. The opposition stand steadfast in stamping out any corruption that exists in this place, and we are in lock step with that end goal. It was comforting to hear, in the member for Reid's speech, that she so eloquently detailed the failings of both parties, including the one that she so proudly represents here. As a member of considerably more years in this place, I have seen members from state jurisdictions or political parties prosecuted and sentenced to lengthy periods of time. I can understand that the state that the member for Reid comes from would be much more exposed to criminal activities that have transpired. Our federal parliament, in the Senate particularly, has also had members or parties retire disgracefully. And that behaviour, whatever colour jersey you wear here, must be stamped out.
I just want to follow on—I know there will be a place and a time as the ICAC legislation is introduced to the House—and share with the House and the member for Reid some particular concerns from my electorate. I have a local council, Logan City Council, where, it's well known, that allegations of corruption and fraud were laid. The council was disbanded and an administrator was appointed. The blanket charge on all the councillors was fraud, and the fraud had to do with the appointment of a CEO. I won't detain the House with the granular detail of it. Nevertheless, there were innocent people involved, and one of the tenets that I will stand in this place and defend is the premise that people are innocent until proven guilty. If we abandon those principles in this place, then we should be labelled corrupt. 'Innocent until proven guilty' must always be the fundamental foundation of how we move forward in this place.
There were councillors, and charges of fraud were laid against them. Their reputations were trashed. Their children were bullied at school. They were driven from their community and they lost their livelihoods. They were gone. Their reputations were impugned. Medical attention was sought. They were on antidepressants to get through those traumatic times. They were unable to run for local government elections because the state ICAC-equivalent body sat over them while charges were still being investigated. To cut a long story short, after the election, when these councillors had left, their reputations were such that they were virtually unemployable. These people weren't friends of my party, but I will defend their rights because they were unjustly dealt with through an ICAC-equivalent in Queensland that lost sight of the presumption that people are innocent until proven guilty. They ended up leaving the district. They applied for Public Service positions, and, on the applications, they had to answer the question, 'Have you ever been charged with a criminal offence?' They said, 'Yes, fraud.' What do you think are the chances of these people being picked up by the Public Service? Zero. Months later, the ICAC-equivalent body comes out and says, 'Nothing to see here,' but the damage was already done. If it had been a civil case, there would have been opportunities for damages to be awarded against those personnel or for a class action, but, because of the nature of the body and its terms of reference, that sort of remedy is not available to them.
So, whilst the member for Reid is leaving the chamber at the moment, this issue will not leave the chamber and I would ask all members on the other side as they introduce bills into the House to make sure that, as we step forward to stamp out corruption, we are in lock step. We should be in absolute lock step to stamp out every inch of corruption, and in doing so, we need to understand the definition of corruption. I say that because, as elected officials, our job is to secure as much funding for our region as possible. If, in doing so, we derive the benefit from it that we are elected at the next election, are we, by definition, all corrupt? The answer is 'clearly not', because we don't have a real definition for what corruption is. At the periphery we know what it is; it's personal financial gain. But it will be a different matter when the lawyers get hold of this, I can assure you, unless there is definitive understanding. Journalists and the fourth estate are now debating what the definition of corruption looks like.
I can share with the parliament my enthusiasm for representing my people to the best of my ability and to ensure that I secure as much funding for my region as I can. That's what I get out of bed every day for; that's what I'm elected to do. The member for Monash came into the chamber before me, and he spoke about how his people elected him to make decisions on their behalf. My people elected me to make decisions on their behalf, to fight on their behalf and to be their voice, and I'll continue to do that. I haven't seen the ICAC bill. I haven't seen the granular detail of the bill before the House, but I welcome the Senate inquiry that will follow, and I hope that it's wide and broad and goes around the country. I hope it takes evidence from the very characters that I spoke of earlier, and I hope it hears evidence from them of how their lives were destroyed. It has to do its job. ICAC has to catch those corrupt beings, but it cannot crucify innocent public officials. It cannot be allowed to leave this kind of collateral damage in its wake. If it does, there must be the opportunity for remedial damages to prevent frivolous cases. Too many times at local government, I see frivolous legal action taken against councillors, just out of spite. It clogs up their systems in Queensland.
I know the Attorney-General to be an honourable man. He and I have had discussions on this, and we will have more discussions as the debate ensues. But I remind members that this issue has similarities to the Australian Building and Construction Commission provisions that were abolished by the government when they came to office. The position that was argued by government officials at that particular time was that the law is there to protect, the law is there for everyone and, if there are problems on building sites, they should be referred to the police. Why is it one rule for one side of politics and another rule for the other side? Why is it that we would not share those same learnings when it comes to this debate?
Madam Deputy Speaker, you might be amused to hear that I had no intention of speaking on the ICAC debate tonight in my grievance. I actually had a fully prepared speech about Labor keeping their hands off regional funding in my area. But, when I hear those on the other side—and I understand members are given their speaking points; they come into the chamber loyal to their parties—debate this issue with little regard for the collateral damage and the wake of destruction that can ensue if we do not handle this very carefully, I must address it, and I hope tonight I've made a few points that will find their way into people's subconscious so that, as we move forward in this debate, we will always hold true to the tenet of 'innocent until proven guilty'.
Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme
Mr DAVID SMITH (Bean—Government Whip) (19:17): I rise to speak about both a grievance and a hope. I speak of a betrayal of many of the most vulnerable in our community through the robodebt scandal and the erosion of trust in government over the last nine years, but I also speak of hope with the commencement of the robodebt royal commission today and the imminent introduction of anticorruption commission legislation tomorrow, despite some of the fears others in this chamber might have.
The robodebt debacle had a devastating impact across Australia. It had a devastating impact in Canberra, and I know that it had a detrimental impact on local families in my electorate of Bean. Over 400,000 people had unlawful debts raised against them by the previous government, marking a shameful chapter in the administration of our social security system and a massive failure of public administration. My electorate of Bean was no exception, with the scheme creating catastrophic stress and anxiety for many of my constituents. In one instance, a 28-year-old constituent with an intellectual disability was being chased for a debt all the way back to 2015, without any prior notice or review of her earnings by Centrelink. Our most vulnerable—often those most ill-equipped to properly understand or challenge the basis of such debts—were targeted. The previous government persistently denied that its pet scheme was illegal or that it was doing harm, dismissing concerns as a 'roboscare.' They argued that the harassment letters were all about integrity and were just a simple request for information. After months of victims of robodebt being dragged through further stress, anxiety and hardship, the scheme was found to be illegal, with the government finally agreeing to zero the debts. My heart goes out to the families across the country who were devastated and damaged by this unfair process and in some cases lost loved ones.
According to data from the Department of Human Services covering the period from 2016 to 2018, more than 2,030 people died after receiving a Centrelink debt notice. Of those, about one-fifth were aged under 35. Most people who died were still receiving Centrelink payments at the time of their deaths. While the cause of death was undetermined by the department, about a third of the people were classified as vulnerable. In other words, they had complex needs like mental illness or drug use or were victims of domestic violence.
In November 2019, a class action was commenced by the representative applicants, and the Commonwealth agreed to a settlement. The settlement was approved at a sum of $112 million. What a huge waste of public money for something that should never have happened. Thankfully, most debts raised using averaged income information have already been refunded, and anyone who made repayments of debt raised using ATO averaging of income under the program between 2015 and 2019 is eligible for a refund. Regarding the outcome, Justice Murphy of the Federal Court explained:
The proceeding has exposed a shameful chapter in the administration of the Commonwealth social security system and a massive failure of public administration. It should have been obvious to the senior public servants and to the responsible Minister(s) at different points who designed and were charged with overseeing the Robodebt system that many social security recipients do not earn a stable or constant income, and any employment they obtain may be casual, part-time, sessional, or intermittent and may not continue throughout the year.
The success of the class action was a significant milestone. However, we need to ensure such a debacle never happens again. We need to understand how ministers and senior public servants overlooked something so significant as the unreliable income averaging based on ATO data. We do not know if public servants were inappropriately heavied and politicised. Additionally, there was ongoing failure to acknowledge the mounting evidence of serious problems following its implementation. We need to clarify how much the implementation, suspension and wind-back of the robodebt scheme cost taxpayers; investigate the devastating harm caused to law-abiding Australians; and investigate the use of third-party debt collectors under the scheme.
Beyond the harm that robodebt has caused to so many vulnerable Australians, we also need to consider its impact on democratic governance, government integrity and broader trust in our public institutions. Robodebt demonstrated not only a complete failure on public engagement but also a complete disregard for citizens. Citizens felt disempowered and under attack. This can lead to increased fear of corruption. If we do not restore public trust in our institutions, we risk losing people's cooperation with the public system. Our social contract is compromised and undermined. Alarming statistics have already been revealed by Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index. Drawing on expert assessments, the data analyses the perceptions of public sector corruption. Australia has plummeted seven places since 2012, from 11th out of 180 countries to 18th. Additionally, a Vote Compass survey found that 85 per cent of Australians believe corruption is a problem in this country. This has a destructive impact that extends to wasted taxpayer funds and loss of goods and services, let alone eroding the trust we have in the public sector to act in our best interests.
That's why it's critical that we restore integrity and confidence in our system by supporting the royal commission. In contrast to the previous government, which refused to take responsibility, this is what we promised to Australians prior to the election. I welcome the royal commission commencing this morning in Brisbane, led by the Hon. Catherine Holmes, a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Queensland, who brings vast experience from her distinguished legal career. The royal commission's focus will be on decisions made by those in positions of seniority. As requested, the Department of Social Services, the Attorney-General's Department, Services Australia and other relevant agencies will provide information. Anyone with relevant information will also be able to engage in the process. Like many Australians, I look forward to the final report, to be delivered by the Governor-General by April 2023. Despite the fears expressed by the previous speaker, I look forward to restoring integrity and confidence in our system of government with the establishment of a national anticorruption commission. This was a key commitment by Labor in the election campaign, and it was a key commitment from our local Labor team in the ACT community too. That's why I welcome the announcement that the Albanese government will introduce legislation tomorrow to establish a powerful, transparent and independent national anticorruption commission. It's a critical step that demonstrates that the government is delivering on its promise to tackle corruption and restore trust and integrity to federal politics.
The Albanese government's national anticorruption commission will investigate serious or systemic corrupt conduct across the entire federal public sector. As outlined by the Attorney-General today, it will be built on design principles that include a broad jurisdiction to investigate serious or systemic corrupt conduct across the Commonwealth public sector by ministers, parliamentarians and their staff, statutory office holders, employees of all government entities, and government contractors. It will be independent. The commission will operate independent of government, with discretion to commence inquiries into serious or systemic corruption on its own initiative or in response to referrals, including from whistleblowers and the public. And there will be oversight. The commission will be overseen by a statutory parliamentary joint committee, empowered to require the commission to provide information about its work.
It will have retrospective powers. The commission will have the power to investigate allegations of serious or systemic corruption that occurred before or after its establishment, and it will have the power to hold public hearings in exceptional circumstances and when it's in the public interest to do so. The commission will be empowered to make findings of fact, including findings of corrupt conduct, and refer findings that could constitute criminal conduct to the Australian Federal Police or the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. It will operate with procedural fairness, with its findings subject to judicial review. Importantly, the legislation will also provide strong protections for whistleblowers and exemptions for journalists to protect the identity of sources.
Following the introduction of the bill, the government will propose the establishment of a joint select committee to examine its provisions. There will be well enough time for the parliament to properly ensure that this is a bill that does what it says it's going to do. We look forward to support from across the parliament for the establishment of a national anticorruption commission with real power and authority, and we look forward to the outcomes of the robodebt royal commission. It's essential to bring this parliament back into the light.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Chesters ): There being no further grievances, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:28